Is the composer obsolete?

[lisa needs braces]

No one really cares about what composers have to offer today as evidenced by the fact that orchestras don't rely on them to bring in audiences.

The substance of classical radio and performance is dominated by music that was composed before the first world war, with some notable exceptions, of course.

While many modern composers comfort themselves with the idea that they are artists who are unjustifiably ignored, the reality might be that they are just irrelevant and obsolete because they are incapable of writing music that can please audiences.

Let me quote a pathetic "modern" composer rationalizing his insignificance:

WUORINEN: Well look. It's a very simple matter. As I've said a million times, there has been an attempt, largely successful, to confuse what you might call art and what you might call entertainment. I think there's a very simple distinction, and it doesn't diminish entertainment in any way because we all want it and we all enjoy it. Entertainment is that which you receive without effort. Art is something where you must make some kind of effort and you get more than you had before.

Drawing such a distinction between "art" and "entertainment" allows Wourinen to convince himself that his insignificance stems from the unwillingness of classical audiences to "grapple" with his work. Under this paradigm, his works can never be judged as "bad" by audiences, because then, they are just being lazy!

Of course the truly funny thing is that most of the standard repertoire arose at a time when audiences could freely express disgust at what they perceived to be bad music--and composers aimed to please them.

[jochanaan]

It's not that simple, Abe.  There are lots of good composers writing great music that really isn't that hard for an audience to "get."  Leonard Bernstein, Henryk Gorecki, Arvo Pärt, Michael Torke, and Esa-Pekka Salonen are only a few who write music that, while it may be challenging, is also highly entertaining; indeed, the minimalist movement is a reaction to the perceived "academicism" of the atonal/serial/electronic music movement.  One of my favorite composers that nobody has ever heard of is Robert Suderburg, born in 1936; his music is sensual and dramatic and there's no reason an audience shouldn't be excited over it.  I also have a BBC disc titled "Masterprize," consisting of the six finalists for the International Composing Competition; whatever you think about competitions and new music, there's some great and exciting music there.  And while some of us may think Wuorinen's distinction between "art music" and "entertainment music" reflects an unfortunate alienation, even he probably realizes that the line isn't so clear-drawn.

I feel that the problem comes when repertoire is determined mostly by marketing agents looking only for "sure sellers."  True, audiences like the old standards best--but without a commitment to new composers even at some expense to the old ones, "our" music will continue its decline in the public consciousness.  I don't see how our art can continue to live when we emphasize The Dead Guys and not the live ones.

[lisa needs braces]

But it's the Dead Guys that keep the art alive! Their music constitutes the overwhelming majority of what's played on the radio and what's performed by orchestras! And this music nearly all originated when the composer aimed to please audiences (who sought out his music not out of some sense of duty and commitment but because they wanted to be entertained and pleased.) Is the situation today truly a result of marketing?

[some guy]

No one really cares about what composers have to offer today as evidenced by the fact that orchestras don't rely on them to bring in audiences.

Well, now there's a nice sweeping generalization, its tiny modicum of validity only possible by virtue of narrowing the music world down to orchestras (and later to radio, too).

I care what composers have to offer today, and so do all the people surrounding me at all the concerts we all go to. Some of those concerts include music by Wuorinen, who's quite a well-known, often played, successful composer. And if you knew anything about him, you'd know he's very unlikely to think of himself as insignificant!

Of course the truly funny thing is that most of the standard repertoire arose at a time when audiences could freely express disgust at what they perceived to be bad music--and composers aimed to please them.

Yes, a mythical time of enchantment and bemusement, when audiences loved "outrageous" harmonies that were "impossible to understand" (Mozart) and insisted that their music be "incoherent, shrill, chaotic and ear-splitting" (Beethoven).

Yep, those were real crowd pleasers there, boy howdy!!

-abe-, composers always aim to please their audiences. So you're not in Wuorinen's audience. OK. Your absence doesn't mean he's not got an audience. Come on. Composers do something else, too. They aim to create something worthwhile, something interesting and new, even if there's not an audience for it quite yet. Sometimes, more often than you're apparently aware of, an audience emerges for those unfamiliar sounds. Not necessarily right away, though sometimes it happens as soon as the premiere.

That's because not everyone in every audience is like you! Gott sei dank.

Orchestra concerts and radio programs are all well and good (or ARE they?!), but those are not the only places where new music is being played, nor are those audiences the only audiences for classical music. The "situation today" is much more active and complex and various than you seem to know.

[mikkeljs]

Of course the truly funny thing is that most of the standard repertoire arose at a time when audiences could freely express disgust at what they perceived to be bad music--and composers aimed to please them.

Yeah what a shame!   A wonder why many concert halls has still not forbidden the audience to come.  

Perhabs the composers imagination of the gab between popular and classical music was different a couple of hundred years ago, since popular music has absolutely overtaken the world today. Popular music is everywhere, in the radio, tv, in the bus, stores, bars, even in school, children are forced to sing it. 200 years ago the culture was formed (not informed) in the good way, that classical music was the only serious music. So you can´t really compare the relationship between popular and classical music from different periodes.

[karlhenning]

No one really cares about what composers have to offer today as evidenced by the fact that orchestras don't rely on them to bring in audiences.

No one really cares about what someone thinks, who fondly thinks he can judge the world of music by the light of only one medium (the orchestra).

Apart from that, your sentence above is a howling non sequitur.

[Josquin des Prez]

It's not that simple, Abe.  There are lots of good composers writing great music that really isn't that hard for an audience to "get."  Leonard Bernstein, Henryk Gorecki, Arvo Pärt, Michael Torke, and Esa-Pekka Salonen are only a few who write music that, while it may be challenging, is also highly entertaining;

None of those composers are actually "good", hence their lack of popularity compared to the "classics". The idea that modern audiences prefer older composers because they can't handle "new" music (the assumption being that if you wrote in a conservative style you'd find immediate success) is just a huge misconception.

[Mark]

I also have a BBC disc titled "Masterprize," consisting of the six finalists for the International Composing Competition; whatever you think about competitions and new music, there's some great and exciting music there.

Seconded! That's an outstanding disc with some incredible contemporary pieces on it. And I say this as someone who, in broad and general terms, draws the line on what constitutes 'good' art music at around the year 1955.

[mikkeljs]

Who cares about the audience and monkeys?   As long as there is a composer that enjoys his own work.

[Mark]

I agree with what Wuorinen said.

FWIW, so do I.

[mikkeljs]

I agree with what Wuorinen said.

Me too... 

[Renfield]

I disagree with Wuorinen, finding his black and white approach of "entertainment" versus "art" reeking of the desire to justify, rather than explain.

But I also disagree with the appraisal of composers based on such an index as pleasing the audience of their time, under which quite a few of the composers we currently consider classical would have also been deemed useless, or to put it in your terms, "obsolete".


There. For once, I post in one of those threads.

Edit: And post #1500, to boot.

[Josquin des Prez]

Once you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.

[Renfield]

Once you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.

Name the means through which we might conduct that appraisal.

[Josquin des Prez]

Name the means through which we might conduct that appraisal.

Self reference of course. How do you think the original canon was formed in the first place?

Either way, your answer implies that you can't do it. Next.

[Philoctetes]

Self reference of course. How do you think the original canon was formed in the first place?

Either way, your answer implies that you can't do it. Next.

lol

[karlhenning]

Name the means through which we might conduct that appraisal.

Well done.

[lukeottevanger]

Once you guys have finished feeling good and fuzzy about yourselves (take your time, by all means), i'd like to present a proposition: name one single contemporary composer that is as great as Beethoven, or Bach. No second runners allowed.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. What has the overwhelming greatness of Beethoven and Bach got to do with this odd notion that contemporary composers are obsolete? Unless, of course, you also mean that all composers have been obsolete since 1827? After all, what's the point in continuing if you're never going to be as good as Beethoven?

[Josquin des Prez]

Impossible task. Not enough time has passed for us to fully assess this.

Nonsense. Beethoven's body wasn't even cold yet that they were engraving his name in concert halls, and there were already many who recognized his genius while he was still alive. Same goes for Bach, Mozart and all others. Next.

[karlhenning]

Self reference of course. How do you think the original canon was formed in the first place?

Various reasonings.

Your post us wonderfully funny, Josquin! For the question is, How does one assert that either Bach or Beethoven is "the pinnacle" of music? And the answers are circular;  those are the greatest composers, because greatness in music is 'determined' in reference to their work.

"Canon" is the wrong word to apply to the evaluation of culture, because art is organic;  there is development, and the notion of great music expands over time.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. What has the overwhelming greatness of Beethoven and Bach got to do with this odd notion that contemporary composers are obsolete? Unless, of course, you also mean that all composers have been obsolete since 1827? After all, what's the point in continuing if you're never going to be as good as Beethoven?

Well said.