I was curious to know why there aren't any more classical composers. I understand that music evolves over time. Even the term "classical music" itself is a bit of a misnomer because of this very fact! Bach sounds very different from Beethoven who sounds quite different from Copland! Just as today's rock 'n' roll is different from Elvis's but is still unmistakably "rock" and not R&B or rap or country, so too would I think that today's musicians would be able to make classical music of their own.
The keyword here is "classical." Not symphonic. Not orchestral. Classical. Simply performing music with a trained symphony orchestra does not classical music make. (See examples here and here.) What I am saying is, how come nobody produces novel classical pieces anymore?
In a world where people constantly complain, "All the good melodies and leitmotifs have been taken," we see the pop music industry pumping out literally hundreds of new 5-minute songs each year! If they can produce over 500 minutes of Girlfriend and Lose Yourself recycled in different permutations and glued back-to-back and nobody cries foul, then what can possibly be stopping a modern musical genius from producing a novel 120-minute symphonic work once every 3 to 5 years!?
I appreciate that genius cannot be rushed. Heck, genius can't even be forced! Genius can be guided, cultivated, nurtured, yes! but not rushed! I understand that, believe me. I'm not saying I want to plop some of the best musical minds down in front of composition sheets and have them monkeytype out some "classical" rubbish! With all due respect, we've seen the result of this: it's called Koji Kondo, John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Howard Shore, Yoko Kanno, Yuki Kajiura, James Horner, and countless other composers of music for cinema, television, and video games. These are the closest thing we have today to a classical composer. These are the men and women who write symphonic pieces -- but not proper symphonies! -- little 5-minute ditties here and there which are lavishly overflowing with the delicious sounds of violins and clarinets, cellos and flutes, pianos and drums, trumpets and trombones. These are the men and women to whom the fan of classical music has been forced to turn to if he wants to hear modern stuff. And even then, these works cannot truly be called "classical." The only thing they truly share in common with the genius compositions of Bach, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky is the fact that both make use of most of the instruments found in a symphony orchestra.
I guess what I am getting at is this:
- fans of classical music point out that it is damned difficult, as in it takes true brilliance, for somebody to pen a proper classical symphony. That Beethoven is to Howard Shore what Charles Dickens is to John Grisham. That Copland is to John Williams what Oscar Wilde is to Tom Clancy. Are Misters Grisham and Clancy good authors? Yes. Is it expected that any of their works will be commonly read, if even only by the literati, in 200 years' time? No. Good works of English literature last not because they are entertaining, not because they are genius, but because they are both entertaining and genius! And it's very hard to make both things happen. Same case for classical music.
- Despite this observation, isn't it preposterous to insinuate that there was an era of Classical genius in mid-17th through mid-19th century Europe which saw the rise of literally dozens of classical composers? and yet despite this that we haven't had a single one in what will soon be 100 years!?
I just don't understand. If people are still going to schools like Juliard and still growing up to become professional conductors, you'd think at least one of those conductors would have both the desire and the capacity to create novel classical pieces. Surely these kids don't all grow up thinking, "When I grow up, I just want to play cello all the time. I have no interest in writing my own music, pah!" ........ or do they? If they do, then that's pretty damn tragic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I have considered this many times. I have some pet theories:
I imagine a lot of it probably has to do with today's culture and economic situation. Back when "classical" music was at its peak that kind of music *was* music. But today there are so many different kinds of music and so many different kinds of genres, all of which are plentiful and very easily accessible (not in the sense that it's easy to access, but rather, the music itself is easy for lazy or untrained minds to listen to). Listening to Classical music takes a certain amount of cognitive investment and emotional openness (readiness? willingness? I cannot think of the proper word) an investment that most people can't or won't make, hence the demand for and popularity of classical music has gone down.
It may also be true that otherwise capable composers may not compose because there is not a large enough monetary payoff for composing an entire symphony, or even a lifetime's worth of classical works. Of course, theoretically they should compose because they love to, but reality is never quite like that.
Another thing I've thought of is that perhaps just the right combination of genes and upbringing needed for true musical genius to develop don't come around very often. Perhaps in today's society, even less often than they otherwise would. I dunno, I guess that one's kind of out there, but I've seriously considered it at least a few times.
I also posted this complaint as my Facebook status, so I thought I would cross-post what has been said so far.
I wrote, "Ryan N. wants to know where all the (true) classical composers went."
My friend Ben (of "Ben & Andrew" fame) replied, "They died or compose music in [Ben's hometown], Indiana in a garage," a reference to Ben's father, an opera writer.
My friend Matt (who you all know from this blog) replied, "Well Mozart, Bach, Beethoven et al thrived on rich monarchies who made fine art a pastime. No more rich powerful monarchies means no more classical composers -- also no good paintings or sculpture, just popular stuff & trash (not mutually exclusive categories)."
I replied, "If Matt is right, then I think the finger cannot be pointed at the composers (as today's musicians live lavish, independent lives for much of their time on Earth, unlike most Renaissance-thru-20th Century artists) and would have to instead be pointed at the funders, i.e. Sony, MCA, etc. for sponsoring popular art over high art.
But the thing is, I think Matt's explanation can only (at best!) explain why we see a lack of true classical composers today. It can't explain the complete absence of them. And the absence is what has been observed. Music scholars and the informed laypeople alike are in agreement that Aaron Copland was the last big classical composer (for whatever that claim is worth). You'd think *ONE* "open-source movement"-minded dude or dudette would have come along by now!!"
My response to you now, Blaise, is as follows:
The Other Genres Theory:
Like Matt's theory, this is solid, but I reject it as an explanation for why we see zero modern classical composers. This theory at best explains why we see fewer today than we did two to three centuries ago. To put it this way, we see fewer operas being written today than we did in the 1800s because today we have cinema, television, and other forms of mass entertainment which the educated and the simple-minded alike can enjoy and can upvote in our capitalist society with their dollar-votes. Opera is passively downvoted by its absence of active upvoting in a playing field where cinema, television, books, etc. are all being hugely upvoted all the time. But that stated! We still have people today who write new operas! They are few in number but they do exist!
The Monetary Pay-off Theory:
This was Matt's theory, so I'll go ahead and elaborate on my stance. It's a well-known fact that Beethoven and Mozart sometimes lived in poverty and other times lived like elites. In Mozart's case, this is largely to be blamed (if the film Amadeus is to be taken as largely biographical fact) on his living beyond his means, i.e. he was the day's Mike Tyson, a man for whom money slipped through his fingers like water. But I don't know of any classical composers who came to own huge estates. Almost all of them lived in pretty shabby hovels in their respective regent's capitol. Certainly none of them owned more than one estate! They might have had a manor somewhere in the country and their hovel in the city, but none of them could claim to have had an estate in France, an estate in Germany, an estate in England, etc. And yet today we see that Michael Jackson and Celion Dion can and do own multiple sprawling estates. And I could list other examples but will refrain from doing so. The point is, whether right or wrong, I'm quite certain that today's musicians live like the old days' kings whereas Beethoven et al lived like the mutts of kings, i.e. they might have enjoyed some of the pleasantries of palace life but only insofar as they were in the employ of the king and kept on a very tight (financial) leash.
More on the Monetary Pay-Off Theory:
So why, then, was I willing to agree with Matt? As I explained on Facebook, I think he can be correct, but only if he's pointing the finger at the kings (of old) / the record companies (of modern times). It is the employers, and not the composers themselves, who would be blamed for causing classical music's decline via finances -- because they are the ones who intelligently, capitalistically recognized that classical music was not as profitable as pop music.
But even then! If this is true (and it well may be), we would still expect to see a man who cannot be bought, who (as you put it) writes classical music because of its beauty which appeals to him and not because he's being offered money to do so. We would expect to see at least one such man! One! And yet there has been none since Copland. And I don't even care for Aaron Copland's music all that much, quite frankly. :\ (To me, classical music composition died with Tchaikovsky, one of the greatest classical composers ever imo.)
So, last but not least ...
The Genetic Theory:
Bah. While true that an individual's fate is largely influenced by his or her genetics (e.g. a person with Down syndrome is at a huge disadvantage for becoming society's next great classical composer), I reject the notion that the "genetic soup" of the day was perfectly mixed around such that Europe saw great classicists born for 200 to 300 years and then *POOF* they had all but disappeared at the turn of the last century. (Again, shove Copland and Gershwin and some other early 20th century composers in there but they're pretty much the stragglers in what can be viewed as a marathon.)
I don't reject the possibility. And I recognize that you, too, only say it to simply throw it out there, and admit that you yourself hardly ever find solace in it. All I'm saying (without trying to sound like an asshole) is, I reject it fully. I do not accept at all that classical music was a genetic gift given to European men for 300 years and then taken away from them. Men and women, whites and blacks, theists and atheists, straights and gays, the old and the young, the rich and the poor ... I see no reason why any of them should not be capable of producing a classical music Messiah, so to speak, from amongst their respective socioeconomic (and thus to a certain extent genetic) population pools. That is to say, I reject the idea that only a European white male could have come up with classical music. That the Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Arabs, and Native Americans did not is the result of three things:
1) they already had their own classical music
2) they resisted the influence of Western culture when it arrived (which, as far as classical music goes, would only be within the last 200 to 300 years)
3) they're no different from today's white European men who also find it impossible to catch up with Chopin, Haydn, and Strauss.
"That is to say, I reject the idea that only a European white male could have come up with classical music."
Well, I certainly didn't mean to insinuate this at all, and I hope you don't think that I meant to!
That being said, I believe great musical talent in general has a large genetic component.
I didn't think you insinuated anything to do with racial ability or inability.
I did think you insinuated something to do with the era of Classical music production being "a specific place in space and time that was special and which will not happen again" : specifically, colonial-era Europe. Which is (inescapably, definitionally) the exclusive cradle of classical music. (19th-century America and Russia merely being extensions of Europe ["the West"] in terms of this culturally-unique space and time).
I thought you were implying that the economic, religious, intellectual, scientific, etc. etc. factors in colonial-era Europe were all conducive to giving birth to Classical music and that a return to that state of mind would be absolutely essential for more genuine classical music to be born.
What I was saying was, somebody can write music like Billy Joel whether the year is 1989 or 2029. I'll concede that it's unlikely that "anybody" could write a song with the soul of one of Billy Joel's songs back in 1909, because back then they didn't have the antecedent schools of music which make Joel's soft rock possible. But given the existence of soft rock, and given sufficient study of soft rock, I think that any intelligent musician can write his own soft rock song be it the 21st, the 31st, or the 51st century. And I feel the same way about country, rap, and yes -- even classical.
Is classical the hardest of all musical genres to write? Yes, perhaps it is. Admittedly the best classical music not only sounds superficially good but, when the measures are formally studied, reveals remarkable pattern construction and appreciation for music theory. Much like how the song "The Day The Music Died" can be enjoyed with no understanding of the lyrics whatsoever thanks to its catchy melody, but which becomes highly-respected once you realize just how much social commentary is embodied in that one piece.
But does that mean that classical music was born out of the 1600s-to-1900s Western experience and can never again be created? No. No, I think not. I hope not, and I think not. I think that a talented musical mind today could formally study classical music and create his own UNIQUE classical piece. And when I say "piece," I'm talking a 4-part 80-minute symphony.
Also, a little quibble: Yoko Kanno's "classical" works aren't rubbish! D:< Sure, they aren't technically classical, and they're certainly not symphonies, but they are technically excellent, and most importantly, emotionally moving and extremely memorable. My soul is much more deeply touched by songs like "Flying Dragon" or "Tsuki no Kujira" than it ever was by, say Beethoven's 5th, even though the latter is undoubtedly *technically* superior in almost every aspect.
I haven't done enough research yet, but I'm not sure I buy the premise. Classical music is still being written --I think. Didn't Billy Joel abandon pop music to write symphonies? I believe John Williams has a collection of concertos. Lately, Danny Elfman has been commissioned to write concert works. And Copland's work is, at times, transcendent! Now, if your argument is that the people today who are still writing classical music aren't achieving appreciable fame, then I'd have to agree. But I'm going to have to look into this.
Personally, I think a lot of classical music is mental masturbation, sustained to eat up concert time. But I don't have much of an attention span. Generally, I can't stand musical ideas that last more than 4 minutes.
But I'd say part of the problem is that we're probably not looking hard enough for neoclassicists. Or maybe we're also over-exalting the greats. When I listen to Beethoven, there's genius behind so much, but his work sometimes feels unnecessarily protracted and repetitive. Mozart is like a mad mathematical genius --he's got so many different sections of the orchestra doing a thousand crazy notes and it's amazing that they weave together! ...but as result, his music sometimes feels less emotive and more like a technical feat. Impressive, catchy, but not necessarily moving. Phillip Glass does mostly concert work. He's kind of the same way, less catchy, but he plays with the mathematics of music and pushes the boundaries of acceptability in regards to repetition. And man can he be annoying for it.
I suppose there's another perspective. What Beethoven and Mozart were doing at the time was genre busting and innovative. Good artists are always building off their predecessors and finding new, novel, or underutilized modes of expression. Who wants to go backwards, back to classic, often stiff forms when you can just borrow the parts you like, add something new, and find your own voice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZmSSm_RKbI
Post a Comment