Is contemporary music 'culturally relevant?'

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

A really good video which discusses this. It would be interesting to hear your opinions on this.

https://www.youtube.com/v/IFxVmaYzz-M

[Monsieur Croche]

A really good video which discusses this. It would be interesting to hear your opinions on this.
https://www.youtube.com/v/IFxVmaYzz-M

Gee, contemporary music has always been "Culturally Relevant" (<g>) when it was contemporary, each and every time along the music history time-line. Insofar as that goes, I don't think much at all has changed.

Composers, whatever they write (as long as its not near pastiche retro-conservative) are from and of their times, sooo, one can reasonably expect they and their music is relevant to the culture of the time they live in.  It near to baffles me how that could not be so.

One should recall, with all this 'cultural relevancy,' that the term and issues about it pretty much stem from the 1960's, i.e. if even Adorno had something to say about the topic, it wasn't exactly about cultural relevancy, or if it was, he was only taking into account the constant which seems to span all eras, including our own, that being ca. 3% of the population regularly consume classical music.  With all the now available sources of stimuli and a person being exposed to classical music, the internet, inexpensive CDs, film scores, it seems that with all that and a hugely increased number of people on the planet as well, it is still ca. 3% who will ever consume classical and find it "relevant."

Therein, I predict, some of the argument in the article will try to address 'classical music for many more people than that 3%,' which is pretty much blowing in the wind, or spitting or pissing upwind, etc.

I will have a look, later, at the article, while its fairly clear I think the topic tantamount to a non-topic ;-)


Best regards.

[Cato]

Fixed:

A really good video which discusses this. It would be interesting to hear your opinions on this.

https://youtube.com/v/IFxVmaYzz-M

[bwv 1080]

Very thoughtful answer, thanks for posting it.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Very thoughtful answer, thanks for posting it.

I thought so too. It always surprises me when, say, a government minister tries to prove that something in the arts is more relevant than something else. Or that the arts are much less relevant than sports and building a new stadium is more important than a new opera house. Interestingly enough there was a recent survey in my country that said 98% of the population are actively engaged with the arts. Idk what the other 2 percent are up to. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Gee, contemporary music has always been "Culturally Relevant" (<g>) when it was contemporary, each and every time along the music history time-line. Insofar as that goes, I don't think much at all has changed.

Composers, whatever they write (as long as its not near pastiche retro-conservative) are from and of their times, sooo, one can reasonably expect they and their music is relevant to the culture of the time they live in.  It near to baffles me how that could not be so.

One should recall, with all this 'cultural relevancy,' that the term and issues about it pretty much stem from the 1960's, i.e. if even Adorno had something to say about the topic, it wasn't exactly about cultural relevancy, or if it was, he was only taking into account the constant which seems to span all eras, including our own, that being ca. 3% of the population regularly consume classical music.  With all the now available sources of stimuli and a person being exposed to classical music, the internet, inexpensive CDs, film scores, it seems that with all that and a hugely increased number of people on the planet as well, it is still ca. 3% who will ever consume classical and find it "relevant."

Therein, I predict, some of the argument in the article will try to address 'classical music for many more people than that 3%,' which is pretty much blowing in the wind, or spitting or pissing upwind, etc.

I will have a look, later, at the article, while its fairly clear I think the topic tantamount to a non-topic ;-)


Best regards.

This is  one very very basic point that is explored deeper in the video, I think. He defines 'relevant' differently to you though, in that contemporary music is relevant as something which people are interested in and as a point of discussion.

[Mahlerian]

Adding to the answer already covered in the video (I pretty much agree), we should consider some of the ways that contemporary music has attempted to be relevant.  In the US, especially, we have composers who have incorporated dance beats/electric guitars into their music, composers who write pieces using texts related to current events or causes, and even composers who write instrumental pieces merely named after current events or causes.

Regardless of the validity or not of any of the above, I think that ploys like those are too obvious to work if they are merely a bid for mass attention.  Many things become "relevant," as implied in the video, regardless of their creators' intentions, and the intent to write something relevant is as likely to produce something that the culture at large will take no notice of.

[some guy]

Nicely done.

I didn't really trip over anything. And while I enjoy the thinking that tripping over things engenders, I also enjoy reading or hearing things that don't offend or irritate in any way.

Having said that, I do want to reiterate that "contemporary music" is not an it but a congeries of many different and sometimes incompatible "its." Like what he said about society, a large and complex "thing."

And the comment about composer not being very good at marketing reminded me of something Barry Truax told me about his composition students. They were concerned that "classical" music didn't get nearly the attention that pop does--wondering, some of them, if going into classical would be "worth it." Barry's standard response was to point out that in pop music 90% of the effort went into marketing and 10% into the music, whereas in art music 90% of the effort goes into the music and only 10% into marketing. So they are two very different models and not really comparable.

Anyway, thanks jessop. Nice to listen to something all the way through without being angered or irritated. 

[Christabel]

Nicely done.

I didn't really trip over anything. And while I enjoy the thinking that tripping over things engenders, I also enjoy reading or hearing things that don't offend or irritate in any way.

Having said that, I do want to reiterate that "contemporary music" is not an it but a congeries of many different and sometimes incompatible "its." Like what he said about society, a large and complex "thing."

And the comment about composer not being very good at marketing reminded me of something Barry Truax told me about his composition students. They were concerned that "classical" music didn't get nearly the attention that pop does--wondering, some of them, if going into classical would be "worth it." Barry's standard response was to point out that in pop music 90% of the effort went into marketing and 10% into the music, whereas in art music 90% of the effort goes into the music and only 10% into marketing. So they are two very different models and not really comparable.

Anyway, thanks jessop. Nice to listen to something all the way through without being angered or irritated. 

"Triggered":  isn't that what you meant?

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Adding to the answer already covered in the video (I pretty much agree), we should consider some of the ways that contemporary music has attempted to be relevant.  In the US, especially, we have composers who have incorporated dance beats/electric guitars into their music, composers who write pieces using texts related to current events or causes, and even composers who write instrumental pieces merely named after current events or causes.

Regardless of the validity or not of any of the above, I think that ploys like those are too obvious to work if they are merely a bid for mass attention.  Many things become "relevant," as implied in the video, regardless of their creators' intentions, and the intent to write something relevant is as likely to produce something that the culture at large will take no notice of.

It strikes me as odd that composers would add an element like this to the music just to be 'relevant' because it really makes it look like they have no confidence nor interest in their own music.................

I can understand that a composer might use a text related to current events if they would like to make a commentary on it through music, that makes a lot of sense to me.....................

[Mahlerian]

It strikes me as odd that composers would add an element like this to the music just to be 'relevant' because it really makes it look like they have no confidence nor interest in their own music.................

I agree entirely.  There's nothing wrong with using those things, but make it part of your own work, don't use it to remind people that they actually enjoy real dance or rock music far more by producing a pale imitation of popular styles.

Some jazz-inflected works from the early 20th century sound far more dated now than the popular styles to which they referred (much as I love the opera, that jazz-band bit in Lulu sounds merely clever to me).

I can understand that a composer might use a text related to current events if they would like to make a commentary on it through music, that makes a lot of sense to me.....................

Yes, but as above, it shouldn't be done in a bid for relevance.  Naturally it's a valid way of expressing oneself.

[Karl Henning]

"You like me! You really like me!"

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[bwv 1080]

Anyways all a composer needs to do to be culturally relevant is to title their work in line with some cause du jour.  it's easy, after ignoring the past 100 years of art, you take your mushy post-romantic wrong note vomit and tie it in with some great cause like global warming or the #metoo movement

[Cato]

Anyways all a composer needs to do to be culturally relevant is to title their work in line with some cause du jour. it's easy, after ignoring the past 100 years of art, you take your mushy post-romantic wrong note vomit and tie it in with some great cause like global warming or the #metoo movement

DACHAU DITHYRAMB!

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=22661.0

[Cato]

Things seem to have shut down: I apologize if I am responsible! 

[Karl Henning]

My Redacted Memo

[Mirror Image]

Music is only relevant if there are listeners. If there are no listeners, then how could it be relevant?

[Christo]

Music is only relevant if there are listeners. If there are no listeners, then how could it be relevant?

But what you do, by invoking the importance of an audience, is explaining the meaning of relevance - not per se of music. 

[Florestan]

But what you do, by invoking the importance of an audience, is explaining the meaning of relevance - not per se of music. 

How relevant was music in Geneva, 1541 - 1564? What was the status of secular instrumental music in Geneva, 1541 - 1564?  Could anyone dance freely and leisurely in Geneva, 1541 - 1564? Could anyone fiddle freely and leisurely in Geneva, 1541 - 1564?

[Christo]

How relevant was music in Geneva, 1541 - 1564? What was the status of secular instrumental music in Geneva, 1541 - 1564?  Could anyone dance freely and leisurely in Geneva, 1541 - 1564? Could anyone fiddle freely and leisurely in Geneva, 1541 - 1564?

Your lack of historical knowledge is too disturbing to go into anything seriously, I'm sorry (and your obsession with those city authorities is simply weird; #whatelsecanisay).