Postmodernism

[Symphonien]

Something that's been bothering me for a while now...

Firstly, what exactly does the term mean and what does it mean when applied to music? Which composers would be considered postmodern?

Where does the distinction lie between modernism and postmodernism? Is this in any way related to modern and contemporary? Where does modern end and contemporary begin? What does contemporary mean anyway? Is contemporary the same as postmodern?

And finally, is postmodern/contemporary related more to the style the composer is working in or to the time period the composer comes from? Would a composer of today still be classified as modern/contemporary even if they write in a very conservative style?

Sorry if this sounds kind of confusing, I just wrote all the questions that came to my head...

[david johnson]

contemporary is always around and is the better descriptor.
forget pomo.  for me, it's a wasted concept and term.

dj

[Maciek]

I'm not that knowledgeable in the musical use of this term but assuming it is more or less the same as in literature:

Firstly, what exactly does the term mean and what does it mean when applied to music? Which composers would be considered postmodern?

In literature it can mean 2 different things: 1) an era and way of thinking connected with it, 2) a certain style, a specific set of technical devices used by authors.

In the first sense the term is explained well by the likes of Lyotard etc. It basically means the conviction that great philosophical/scientific theories that would attempt to explain everything in one go (the whole universe, the sense of life etc.) are over. The only thing possible now is making "small theories" that would describe (rather than explain) small sections of reality. In art this whole view is translated into a belief that "great" forms (the novel, tragedy, sonata, symphony etc.) are no longer possible/do not make sense any more.

In the second sense the term means a specific style that is permeated by a certain "self-consciousness" of language and technique. In literary studies the term postmodernism is sometimes considered interchangeable with the term "metanarration" (and synonyms) - ie. "writing ABOUT writing". In music it basically boils down to polystylism, I think - this works more or less the same way as metanarration does in literature. The mixing of styles causes them to become decontextualized, "alien", and therefore clearly visible in all their artifice. So I think Schnittke would be a prime example. Pawel Szymanski also comes to mind. Definitely Luciano Berio or Mauricio Kagel.

Where does the distinction lie between modernism and postmodernism?

Generally "modernism" would be any sort of art that treats its own language "seriously", that hides the artifice or is not aware of it. (This does not mean that postmodern is in any way a more "advanced" form - only that it treats language and technique differently. Also it does not mean that postmodernism can't be "serious": exploring the boundaries of language, musical, literary or any other, can in fact be very serious, especially if one wants to go into the philosophical implications of one's irony and of everything that one is doing.)

Is this in any way related to modern and contemporary?

Not really. Not every contemporary composer is a postmodernist. Many composers from different eras seem to have postmodern elements in their writing. Sometimes it seems that "postmodernism" is rather a way of looking at art than a quality of art itself.

Where does modern end and contemporary begin?

See above.

What does contemporary mean anyway?

"Characteristic of the present."

Is contemporary the same as postmodern?

No. (See above.)

And finally, is postmodern/contemporary related more to the style the composer is working in or to the time period the composer comes from?

That is debatable. I'd say it has more to do with style, though there are strong arguments against treating composers of old as "postmodern" (for one thing, they were surely experiencing their "postmodernity" differently).

Would a composer of today still be classified as modern/contemporary even if they write in a very conservative style?

Contemporary = "of today", no matter what the style is. "Modernist" usually isn't associated with "today" anymore. Usually it means either roughly the period 1900-1970 or even everything up until roughly 1970. Postmodernists extend the term "modern" to mean what most people would label as only "modernist" (see my answer to Jochanaan a couple of posts down).

I'm sure it's all crystal clear now.

Maciek

[Guido]

What a brilliant and lucid reply - I really learned loads!

I always tended to oversimplify and thought that in music modernism amounted to everything leading up to serialism (and serialism itself), and post modernism was what came afterwards, basically the rejection of pure serialism... I'm a simple person!

[Maciek]

Thanks, Guido. Nice to see you back! Missed you!

[Guido]

Its good to be back!

[Symphonien]

Thank you very much for your long and detailed response Maciek! I've learned heaps.

It has, nevertheless, raised a few more questions though...

You say that modernism ends roughly 1970. Does this mean that composers who were active before and after then are considered both modern and contemporary? Or does the term modern apply to the works they wrote before then, and contemporary to the works they wrote after? But then what if they are all in a similar style?

Also, does the meaning of "modern" when distinguishing between modern and postmodern differ from "modern" when used to distinguish between modern and contemporary? i.e. It has two meanings? So serialists like Stockhausen/Boulez would be considered modern rather than postmodern since they were serialists rather than polystylists, but would also be contemporary since they are still composing after 1970?

And finally, what would you consider to be the first example of musical postmodernism? I read in the liner notes to my recording of Berio's Sinfonia that the composition's third movement was one of the first examples of postmodernism in music. Would you agree? Or could composers long before be considered postmodern? And what would be considered the emerging postmodern styles, for example would minimalism be postmodern?

Thanks once again!

[Maciek]

I'm making this up as I go along but let me try anyway... 0:) Be advised that the number of "I don't knows" is definitely on the rise.

You say that modernism ends roughly 1970. Does this mean that composers who were active before and after then are considered both modern and contemporary?

I'm not really sure what the "proper" use of "contemporary" is. Though I always feel a little awkward when I say "contemporary" about a composer that is dead - even if he died only a year or two earlier... But maybe that's just me.

Or does the term modern apply to the works they wrote before then, and contemporary to the works they wrote after? But then what if they are all in a similar style?

No, I think if a composer is still alive it's safe to call him and all of his works (even those written 80 years ago) contemporary. Style probably has nothing to do with it...?

Also, does the meaning of "modern" when distinguishing between modern and postmodern differ from "modern" when used to distinguish between modern and contemporary? i.e. It has two meanings?

I wasn't aware of that until you mentioned it but it would apparently seem so. Most of the stuff I wrote in my previous post was about the stylistic distinction. I think that in terms of "time" contemporary and modern are roughly synonymous (I'd have no problem with calling any contemporary composer "modern"). The distinction, if there is any, is definitely blurred. I think you also have to tell apart the colloquial use of these terms (where they are not defined precisely) and the "technical" use. In technical terms, "modernity" is a closed era and the appropriate term to call anything that is related to it is either "modernist" or "modern"(!). The "normal", colloquial sense of "modern" is "ahead of the times" or at least "stylistically belonging to the present era".

So serialists like Stockhausen/Boulez would be considered modern rather than postmodern since they were serialists rather than polystylists, but would also be contemporary since they are still composing after 1970?

Exactly. Boulez would be modern/modernist (in both senses) and contemporary but I don't think you could call him postmodern. I think it's a bit more complicated with Stockhausen. He's not a polystylist but I think he has a very strong postmodern trait: an enormous distance towards musical language and form that allows him to do very strange and extreme things with it. The idea of putting members of a string quartet on board helicopters (thus standing the very idea of the string quartet on its head) is definitely postmodern.

And finally, what would you consider to be the first example of musical postmodernism? I read in the liner notes to my recording of Berio's Sinfonia that the composition's third movement was one of the first examples of postmodernism in music. Would you agree?

I have no idea - and don't really feel versed well enough in contemporary music to have my own say here. But Sinfonia was the piece I had in mind when I mentioned Berio's name.

Or could composers long before be considered postmodern?

Probably not very long before. Though I can imagine someone arguing that neoclassicism is postmodern (but I'm not sure if that someone would be right). And there's also the case I mentioned in passing, of composers from other eras acting as if they were postmodern. In literature, Cervantes is an often quoted example of fully developed metafiction long before the 20th century. In music, there are all those strange baroque pieces. I don't know the history of music all that well but one piece that comes to mind is the very short second movement of Biber's Battalia (Die liederliche Gesellschaft von allerley Humor).

In the end it all boils down to what definition of postmodernism you will choose to use.

And what would be considered the emerging postmodern styles, for example would minimalism be postmodern?

I don't know. I think it would. It's not tonal in a traditional sense. It's more like taking bits and pieces from the language of tonality and using them in a new way, a new context but without completely forgetting about their tonal sense.

Thanks once again!

Think nothing of it, as I'm sure it's not worth very much.

Oh dear, I feel I've jumbled all this up even more now...

Maciek

[Symphonien]

Oh dear, I feel I've jumbled all this up even more now...

No no, don't worry! I can see that it's a very grey area with much left up to individual interpretation and definitions. Thank you very much for your thoughtful responses! I do feel like I have a decent general grasp of it all now, and that was all I was really hoping for. No-one can possibly have definite answers for these things and put everything in black & white.

[jochanaan]

I feel we have to distinguish clearly between "modern" and "modernist."  "Modern" simply means recent or contemporary; "modernist" means--well...I'll get back to you when I've figured it out. (And I speak as one who loves The New Music, roughly that of the last hundred years, as much as I love The Old Dead Masters.)

[Maciek]

The problem is that there's this vicious circle (well, sort of): modernism -> modernity -> modern.

[Guido]

If this isn't post modern I don't know what is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTW5UVZPqOk&NR=1

An astonishing piece actually... I like it!

[Maciek]

Cool piece! A bit mad too. And a bit on the longish side, if you ask me...

Anyway, back to what Jochanaan said: I guess I should elaborate my thoughts (I didn't have all the time I needed when typing my previous post).

First of all: I definitely agree, it would be healthy to differentiate between "modernist" and "modern" - in fact the next thing I'm going to is I'm going to try to edit my previous posts, substituting "modernist" for "modern" wherever possible.

Second, the main problem is that "modernist" is somehow related to "modernity", and if you need an adjective for that, you will probably choose "modern" (and not "modernistic").

Thirdly, the postmodernists themselves insist that postmodernism is something that comes after modernity (and not after modernism!). History is over (cf. Fukuyama), nothing can be modern anymore - we've come to a sort of temporal standstill. Now, rationally speaking, that is completely absurd - but messing up the language is what postmodernists specialize in. It's very difficult to clean up after them afterwards. (Just to make things clear: I have nothing against postmodern art, what I hate is postmodern "philosophy", "historiosophy", "science" etc.)

[Josquin des Prez]

If this isn't post modern I don't know what is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTW5UVZPqOk&NR=1

An astonishing piece actually... I like it!

Trash. That stuff is befitting for a circus, not a concert hall...

[Symphonien]

Ok, now I'm slightly confused again...

Define "modernity", "modernism" and "modern".

And then what is the difference between "postmodernism" and "postmodernity"?

EDIT: By the way, just finished watching that video and loved it! Thanks for that Guido. Definitely a cool piece! And definitely postmodern.

[Maciek]

Don't worry, Symphonien, any discussion of postmodernism will sooner or later inevitably reach the point where nobody really knows what the rest is talking about: each of the participants will make his very own, personal definition of every word he is using, thus making all communication impossible. I was just trying to further things in that direction.

Nothing much really changes in what I wrote above. In most cases modernity, modern and modernism mean roughly the same thing, though modernism is the most precise term, so it may be better to use that if you want others to understand you. But when you want to contrast "postmodernity" with something, any of those 3 will do.

Modernism = an intelectual movement beginning in the late 19th century having to do with a fascination with everything that's new, a fascination with transgressing all the rules. If I remember correctly, the name comes from an art group called Die Moderne.

Modernity and modern can either be related to that term or have the simple "colloquial" meaning: "related to contemporary times". And also, in history, "modern" can be extended to mean "anything that happened since the Middle Ages".

But as far as postmodernity is concerned it all doesn't make much of a difference. Postmodernism can be defined as 1) the movement that immediately followed "modernism", 2) the era in history that follows the modern era, the era when nothing will change anymore (so here you would have: Antiquity, the Middle Ages, Modern Times, and Postmodern Times), 3) the intellectual movement that denies there being any meaningful difference between what is new ("modern") and what is old. Definitions no. 1 and 3 could probably be conflated...

[Symphonien]

Ok, well at least I've learnt a few things:

1. Modern, modernism, modernity - to do with the movement you described, which starts around the turn of the 20th century and ends roughly 1970 (at least in music).

2. Contemporary - composers in the present day.

3. Postmodern, postmodernism, postmodernity - that bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who talk like this to try and sound intelligent but are really just meaningless! Applied to music, this basically boils down to polystylism.

[Guido]

polystylism, which forces one to think about the very nature of composition itself (like that DB piece). I'm glad that you liked it Symphonien, and i'm also glad that Josquin has such an open mind and a sense of humour about music! I'm jocking Josquin - you can of course think what you like about it, but I don't think its trash, I genuinly enjoyed it.

[Maciek]

Postmodern, postmodernism, postmodernity - that bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who talk like this

I love that generator! Another site of that type here. Or even this one could work just as well.

[Edit:]
It's been a long time since I last used that last page and right now the important part seems to be down...

[Symphonien]

That's only the second example I know of so far, but I really like those pieces where the performer comments some how on the nature of the composition itself or the performance taking place in the moment, just as happens in that double bass piece. It reminds me somewhat of Berio's Sinfonia where the speaker starts talking about the composition itself and the performance taking place:

"so there is an audience, it's a public show, you buy your seat and you wait, perhaps it's free, a free show, you take your seat and you wait for it to begin, or perhaps it's compulsory, a compulsory show...
you wait for the compulsory show to begin, it takes time, you hear a voice, perhaps it is a recitation, that is the show, someone reciting, selected passages, old favourites, or someone improvising, you can barely hear him, that's the show, you can't leave, you are afraid to leave, you make the best of it, you try to be reasonable"

Plus where he introduces the singer, thanks the conductor, etc.

Could this be another feature of postmodernism - "forcing one to think about the very nature of composition itself" as Guido says or even reminding us that music exists only in performance?