Dennis DeSantis
Where's Zankel's stage door? I'm already 19 years late for my concert!
My friends Matt Marks and Brian Sacawa have been kicking out articles over the past few days in response to a fairly contentious piece on eighth blackbird’s blog. Topics under discussion include:
- Is classical music still “relevant?”
- Is the new “alt-classical” movement a revolution or just a fad?
As with seemingly all art music vs. pop discussions, the participants neatly sort themselves into two camps: there are the High Art Purists, who see a great and necessary divide between (and I’m paraphrasing here) “the direct, communicative power of art music” and “the mob mentality behind all that drivel the kids listen to.” And then there are the Cultural Relativists, who talk about the depth, breadth and variety of their iPod playlists in the same entirely unironic sentence that they all talk about how much they like Radiohead, Björk and Sigur Rós.
What both parties seem to agree on, however, is how important things like “complexity” and “craft” and “classical rigor” are to making great music. Thank God they can at least agree on that, right?
Sorry, but no. Every argument here is jive because the discussion itself is jive. Let’s take a walk, shall we?:
Is classical music still “relevant?”
What does “relevant” even mean here? Relevant to whom? Relevant for what? I suspect that the people asking this question think that the word is somehow loaded with meaning (in the “nudge nudge wink wink” sense) but I honestly have no idea what’s being asked. Is a concert ticket that costs $50 relevant to a person who lives off of food stamps? Is a gig at a bar relevant to a kid who’s under 21? Of course, the answer is no. But is Mahler relevant to a person who loves Mahler? Of course, the answer is yes.
Maybe the question is about whether or not we have some sort of cultural obligation to preserve classical music, either through government funding or corporate sponsorship. If classical music is “relevant” to the greater good of the culture, then it’s easy to make a case that it deserves some kind of support. Suspiciously, the people who fight for this tend to have something to gain by having a wide array of grant applications at their disposal. But can we honestly make this argument in a cultural climate that can’t even recognize that health care is worth government support? Let’s get our priorities straight.
So, the answer to “is classical music still relevant” is “I don’t understand the question, but I suspect you have an agenda.”
Is the new “alt-classical” movement a revolution or just a fad?
First of all, If you love this music, you should work to keep the name “alternative” as far away from it as possible. Alternative used to mean Rage Against the Machine. Later, it meant Limp Bizkit. Is that an admirable trajectory? Today, alt-classical means Alarm Will Sound. Tomorrow, will it mean Bond? It’s very easy (and often very profitable) to take something that gained credibility for being other and monetize it by taking things that are not other and dressing them up as other.
Secondly, here’s a relevant and timely quote on the issue:
The traditional boundaries of genre, intended audience, “culture,” have been so thoroughly crossed that even when you try it’s impossible to take a cohesive stand toward any particular piece of music.
It’s relevant because it was written by Evan Ziporyn, who’s certainly one of the major players in this music. It’s timely because it was written about the current state of affairs. Oh, wait. It was written in 1991.
[Update: Evan has now entered the discussion himself on his own blog.]
There’s nothing new about alt-classical. (There, I used it myself. See what you made me do?) Bang on a Can has been playing this music for more than twenty years. The 90s “Downtown” scene was all about classically-trained cats letting their pop music upbringing come out in their music, and throwing off the shackles of their “Uptown” training. What’s suspicious is that the people who keep asking questions about the “new alt-classical” are well aware of this recent history. What’s the motivation here?
(By the way, do student composers in 2010 seriously still need to defend their pop music influences to their professors? I would suggest that any student in this position needs to consider finding a different professor. There’s nothing pedagogically sound in telling young composers to ignore what inspires them.)
Finally, and perhaps most contentiously, I take issue with the one thing that the High Art Purists and Cultural Relativists agree upon: the sanctity of “classical rigor.”
Like polyrhythms or fluttertonguing, the decision to compose structurally is a stylistic technique. It’s not an a priori foundation for quality. I’ve seen otherwise enlightened composers give lectures in which they defend their pop culture influence by an appeal to “craft.” Who cares? Does it sound good? Then you did it right. Does it sound bad? Then all the craft in the world won’t save you.
The only thing that’s ever mattered about any piece of music, ever, is what it sounds like. Martin Bresnick used to talk about how a good piece of music should make you check for your wallet; you should feel like you got your ass kicked after listening to it.
How it got made only matters if what got made matters. No one gives a shit about your craft if your music sucks. Likewise, there’s plenty of music that makes you check for your wallet, even if it doesn’t hold up to analysis.
So what makes music good? What makes music relevant?
The answer is, “who cares?” Figure out what you like to hear. Then go listen to it and make more.
Share
I actually think there’s some distinction between music being made by BOAC in the 80s-90s and the stuff coming out now. Even though I dig a lot of it, I feel like it often smacks of rebellion, like ‘classical musicians can thrash too brah!’. It renders itself quaint and historical. I view the fluxus movement of the 50s-60s the same way: ‘oh yeah? well I wrote a piece that’s just one chord, BLADOW!’.
Now, this isn’t to say that alt-whateverthefuck isn’t reactionary as well, but I think the angry rock vibe in the BOAC/post-minimalism scene stemmed in part from a ‘I’m tired of being the dorky classical musician, so I’m gonna kick some ass’ mindset. The current scene seems to be past (or at least more past) the need to prove itself to the pop scene and is allowing itself to experiment with vibes like *sentimentality*, which has been long verboten, including in the BOAC scene, IMO. I remember when I first listened to Caleb Burhan’s current music and being struck with its simplicity and sentimentality. I don’t think it could have been made (or at least recognized) in the early-90s new music scene.
By the way, I couldn’t agree more with the “Figure out what you like to hear. Then go listen to it and make more.”-mindset, especially in terms of making my own shit. If I thought about all this shit while I was trying to create I simply wouldn’t create. I know this because I used to and I didn’t. But as a commentary on the scene I think it’s fascinating, especially psychologically.
Totally agreed about the rebellious nature of that early music. But isn’t that just because there was something to rebel against?
In 2010, what are “alt-classical” musicians rebelling against? Only the lamest of academics are still fighting against pop culture. There’s nothing sneaky or taboo or avant-whatever about making this music.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Brian Sacawa, mattmarks. mattmarks said: "There’s nothing new about alt-classical" @dennisdesantis puts in his two cents about the current debate: http://j.mp/c9ISvo [...]
THANK YOU. This is a thousand percent correct. You have spoken EXACTLY WHAT IS IN MY HEART.
YES! There is the distinction: musical craft. It doesn’t matter what classification it falls under, and in Frank Zappa’s words,”If it sounds bitchin’, it is bitchin’…”
The problem lies within the makers themselves and this new buzzword. It seems everyone is getting bent out of shape about aesthetics rather than skill. Sloppy orchestration and a lack of cohesion in a piece will make that particular piece unsuccessful regardless of style.
I’ve heard a few pieces on programs in NYC that just don’t have the technical facility to be great pieces no matter what you call them,and the real question for me is not if the integration of pop and “classical” music a fad, but is neglecting necessary aspects of a musical education a fad?
I hope so because I feel there is a lot of missed opportunities right now to create fantastic, stylistically diverse works of art.
Er, wait. Your “YES!” suggests that you’ve agreed with my point re: craft. But the rest of your comment suggests the opposite.
I’m arguing AGAINST the a priori value of craft. I don’t care one bit how much thought/structure/architecture/skill went into the thing. I don’t care if it was made by a computer. Or a room full of monkeys.
I only care about what it sounds like.
I understand what you are saying, and my comment is suggesting that I agree about the end result. My thoughts on craft aren’t so much about how it’s made, just that the absence of knowledge of craft generally results in bad music.
So, yes I agree with what you are saying, and I’m adding that most of the time the creator needs a certain skill set to be able to arrive at a convincing end result.
I’d argue that the bad music you’re hearing on NY concert programs exists for the opposite reason than the one you suggest. It’s not lack of knowledge, but that knowledge is a crappy filter for quality. You can be pretty sure that the composers of those pieces you don’t like have a bunch of fancy diplomas, right? It’s not that they didn’t KNOW any better; it’s that they weren’t any good.
Look, if Mozart and Flying Lotus were my students in a 16th Century counterpoint class, I’m fairly sure Mozart would get a higher grade. But I’d still rather listen to Flying Lotus. Do I actually have the audacity to suggest that Flying Lotus is a better composer than Mozart? Well, he’s certainly better at making music I want to listen to.
Great post Dr. Dennis…I’ve been wanting to respond to a lot of the stuff out there, but this post basically says what I feel.
Particularly with respect to the “this is not new” aspect.
However, I think there must be a practical distinction between music that is commercially viable and music that challenges people (scares them maybe) to the point where it is not commercially viable. Why? Well, why are there non-profit music groups? Perhaps this is all “extra-musical” but off the top of my head I’ll go into it more, and I am kind of thinking aloud so forgive…
I think there should be a distinction between Babbitt and Radiohead in the context of this whole discussion and it may not be classical rigor, but it might be related. Aesthetically, listen to whatever you want, but some of my (and your) favorite music simply would not exist without government funding (particularly in Europe) or private donations. And the type of music that gets this funding is music that otherwise would not exist (not popular).
Should the Dutch government subsidize it’s musicians? Well, I’d never get to hear ICP Orchestra or Willem Breuker were it not for government support/private support. Same with many commissions and of course, Alarm Will Sound, ICE, etc…(I’ll note there are rare instances when thorny music is embraced commercially.)
So maybe it’s an extra musical thing, but of course the music that needs these grants is the music that not enough people like to buy enough CDs, tickets to support the musicians.
So why does this category of music eschew pop influence (perhaps)? Well, it’s because it’s whole purpose of being and livelihood can depend on it. As an established composer, John Adams could probably get away with anything these days, but a younger composer who writes what the grant organizations consider “commercial music” won’t get that grant over the person who writes the more challenging music.
And in some ways that is unfair. But, if your music can exist commercially, do you really need the grant? Especially over someone who writes music that is so thorny and requires a large symphony or a big band even, with lots of incidental expenses (4 helicopter rentals?)
Now, as a jazz musician (ha), we kind of have the worst of it. Considered a commercial music, we don’t get grants (with exceptions) and yet something like 200 people bought tickets to a jazz performance in America last year so it’s not particularly commercially viable. Again, all extra musical, but has a major influence in the way music is composed and the “scenes” etc…
Sorry for the half baked response…I am sure much is unclear, but happy to clarify later.
But it does make the question “Is classical music relevant?” sound like a pretty silly question (I think). Though it’s provoked this discussion, so…
It’s at this point that I’m going to have to don my flame-retardant suit, because my opinion on the issue of government grants for the arts isn’t popular among people who are vying for government grants for the arts. In fact, it makes me sound like Rush Limbaugh.
At least in the US, I think state funding for the arts is kind of horrible. It’s not horrible *in principle*. But in practice, it’s an insider’s joke.
You hit on the reason why yourself. As a jazz musician, your opportunities for these grants are certainly limited. But I disagree that you have the worst of it.
Most of the music I listen to these days is probably made by teenagers with cracked software, toiling away in their bedrooms. The lucky ones get signed to a digital-only label, where they’ll sell a few hundred mp3s, maybe get to play a couple gigs in Eastern Europe, and (if they get paid at all), probably earn the cost of their rent for a couple months. The rest of them give their music away for free at places like MySpace and Soundcloud and hope that someone will notice.
These folks are absolutely ineligible for “arts” grants of any kind. To the folks that grant those grants, this music is commercially viable; because “commercially viable” is academic code for “you don’t have the appropriate credentials.”
And sorry, but if you’re writing music for 4 helicopters, do you need a grant? No. You’re either Stockhausen, and therefore don’t need a subsidy. Or you’re not Stockhausen and you need to be realistic.
[...] his two cents to the great ‘alt-classical’ ‘debate’ of 2k10. Here’s the rest of the [...]
since Dennis did me the favor of pulling my old chestnut out of attic, I figured I’d weigh in on the subject…it’s a bit long so I just put it on my own blog, if you’re interested you can find it at http://www.nothing2saybutitsok.com
What I think is interesting about this conversation is how it highlights the growing pains we are still experiencing in getting used to the post-post-modern cultural landscape. We used to have such clear criteria for quantifying “quality” in musical expression. But now we all have to grow up. Don’t we?
In western culture before the late 19th/early 20th century there was a nice tidy musical system we could depend on. Then the modernists came along and bitch-slapped everyone undermining the authority of tradition; all of this of course so that they could replace the old hegemonic systems with new ones.
As it turns out, we now understand that no one has any real authority. This can be simultaneously the most liberating and intimidating reality of being a creative person today. It’s very easy to feel somewhat adrift. I think many of those who get mired in the “cultural relevance” debate are clamoring for some sense of security and control in defining absolutes. And that’s the seductive thing about hegemony: it may be oppressive, but one can at least feel a kind of sick comfort knowing you can depend on it.
Dennis is right, all any individual can do is make their own choices. The world no longer requires or even accommodates absolutes.
Word, and word. I am kind of delighted to report that it seems to me like most young composers today have essentially no firsthand knowledge of this high-art-low-art-”conflict.” When I try to explain what it was all about, they look at me like I’m insane, like I’m suggesting a debate on the merits of Betamax vs. the VCR.
great post as usual!
Yes, Roshanne, I have the exact same experience…its like rehashing some kind of bizarre medieval religious debate, or schisms in factions of the of the British far left in the late 1950s (DAMN that Kim Philby!). Disorienting at first – it seems to take away most of the basis of discussion, though it’s an interesting thought exercise to get them to try to imagine HAVING to make those choices. Other than that it’s completely over, and good riddance….
Once we accept this, even embrace it, it’s very liberating, kind of how we always wanted it to be – it makes me envious for those kinds of open ears, and I’m slowly trying to develop them. But ‘leave those monkeys alone, they’ve got problems of their own…’ – I think we can safely assume that new, equally time-sensitive and ultimately pointless internecine battles will emerge among our younger brethren…
But what about [notice the capital s] Significance? Shouldn’t people aim for it, at least? I know I’m being the voice of 1957, Kansas U. musicology department here, but, still… why do the whole endevour? Why end up with a permanent artifact representing a musical imagining? Aren’t people being a little facetious writing scores for strangers to perform, while disowning the implied stab at immortality they represent? “I like it ’cause it sounds good” sounds like one of those post-hippy axioms that have now become standardized among the music literati- the “i’m okay, you’re okay” of the music world. This approach is, of course, completely legitimate. It fails to answer the question of why, through this morass of over-information through which we slog daily, trying to barely maintain our sanity, should I pick the thing YOU like, out of about a billion others, and commit to it enough to listen to it? Further, to actually practice it enough times to make it a part of my muscle memory so I can perform it?
We are all engaged in filtering our input of information, and we all curate our musical experience. I , for one, find genre to be a poor curatorial device. I would much rather some people would take the challenge of making some value judgements larger that reasonably discuss the Significance of a body of work, so I can listen to their curated playlist. I would like to get a better set of reasons than “because this is the music I grew up with” as the choices for composers.
Now that all is permitted, can we at least TRY to make stuff that has a reason to last? Why does the attempt alone feel so…sacrilegious? And isn’t that alone a good enough reason to try?
Indeed, this does sound like 1957 to me, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s just that we’re approaching the problem from entirely different mindsets, and may never see eye to eye.
In one area, however, I basically agree with you. Why should any performer take the time to learn my music? I found myself increasingly unable to answer this question, which is why I don’t really write music for people anymore. I don’t have to worry about this problem with computers.
But “Significance” (with or without the capital S) feels no different to me than relevance. You’re not going to be able to tell me what it means. You MIGHT be able to tell me what it means TO YOU or to some other particular person, but when you try to apply it to something as large as a culture – or even a single audience – then it becomes meaningless again. These just aren’t the sorts of words that can have anything close to an absolute meaning.
[...] Dennis Desantis weighed in on the ‘why are we even discussing this?’-tip: The only thing that’s ever mattered about any piece of music, ever, is what it sounds like. Martin Bresnick used to talk about how a good piece of music should make you check for your wallet; you should feel like you got your ass kicked after listening to it. [...]
‘my god, what does sound have to do with music?’
[...] very relaxing in the context of all this yammering about style & genre on the internet of late. Dennis DeSantis wrote a nice retort and dismissal of all of it, which I would like to quote: “Figure out what you [...]
Hey folks,
Sorry, a bunch of your comments got flagged as spam by my overzealous spam filters. Working on it…
Good discussion.
First, I don’t think we will never understand each other. For instance, when I think of alt classical I think of those “mozart with a beat” recordings from the late 70′s only with distortion added.
Let me see if I can clarify my the notion of significance. I think of significance like physical mass. You mentioned Mozart earlier- a very significant composer, who’s music you don’t like. And yet, your personal opinion of him does not diminish his significance to you. (After all, why bother naming him in your dichotomous pairing? Surely, Mendelssohn would have done just as well?) Anyway, in my understanding of significance, it works a lot like organized religion, in that it produces a notion you can either affirm (yes! Mozart is the master of the german culture!) or deny (as you did). (I do not know Flying Lotus, but I will check it out). In other words, you may worship or sin, as your will moves you. I really appreciate kosher laws, for instance, because they make shrimp taste so much better. I also really appreciate The Wall, because I have this love/hate relationship with it that parallels my love/hate relationship with myself at 14. In both cases, I gain pleasure and insight by imbuing an object with significance.
I totally agree that manufacturing significance is very difficult. I do, however, think it is more worthwhile than manufacturing relevance, which is totally ridiculous. Without the notion of significance one is only left with materialistic dichotomies (record sales vs. artistic merit) which are, I feel, tired and repetitive. (Plus Beyonce is so much hotter than any alt classical composer I have ever seen.) If one leaves out any claims of worth beyond onerself, all one is left with is a pretty depressing position of continuously affirming the total waste of time one’s work is. Those kids with cracked software you mention: who would BOTHER noticing them, if they deny their worth? I’m not saying one should try to insert their music into music appreciation course books, but shouldn’t musicians try to enhance the mass of their music’s impact by design?
People in these kinds of discussions are always decrying “elitism” as if its a bad thing – but really, some things are BETTER than others! A play by Shakespeare is better than an episode of an afternoon soap opera. Herman Melville’s novel Moby Dick is better than Stephanie Meyer’s novel Twilight – just because someone likes Twilight better doesnt make it better. Similarly, whether some find it offensive or not, classical music is superior – certainly Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis is a greater musical achievement than a Lady Gaga album. I dont think most discerning people would disagree with that.
Classical music stands on a higher level for good reason – it’s endured longer, while styles of “pop” music come and go. Not only that’s its more complex and technically demanding – if a person can learn and play something like Beethoven’s Hammerklavier Sonata, or Bach’s toccata in F for organ,that’s a great musical achievement. Learning this music takes a huge amount of time and effort and technical skill – a lot more than some rock guitarist just playing simple chords!
I write music as well as being an organist, and I grew up listening to popular music too – but no matter how much I liked that, for me classical music was always on a higher level, not because someone else told me I should feel that way, but because I just knew in my heart (and my ears) it was something greater.
As for some of the other comments, for the person who liked some rock group better than Mozart, well, maybe you’re the one whose missing something. Maybe it’s not Mozart’s fault but a lack of musical discernment on your part!
And as far as the “modernists undermining tradition,” they didnt really undermine anything, since the traditional music went right on being played no matter what “musical innovations” they came up with – look at the Boulez/Stockhausen/Darmstadt school in the 1950s, living in a fantasy world where they thought they were creating “cutting edge new music,” completely oblivious to the fact that audiences despised it for the most part.
“Classical” classical music still has plenty of cultural relevance – as an organist I take part in performances of Handel’s Messiah every year, and people enjoy that tremendously – even though the singers are amateurs and not everything is perfect, the music still says something to the people listening – for them its not irrelevant at all!
Trying to combine classical and non-classical music is pointless – people have been making the attempt for decades- and why bother? Let classical stay on its side and popular music on the other – its better that way! You can’t exactly combine a sonata form with a pop song, and rambling formless improvisations (which is what the “alt classical” music Ive heard over the internet sounds like for the most part) is not going to create any groundswell of interest. It might find a small limited audience but thats all!
This is hilarious.
[...] Desantis poster et indlæg, d. 30. April 2010, med titlen ”Who cares if you care”. Denne titel spiller op til en anden artikel der er skrevet ca. 50 år tidligere af Milton [...]