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:

1. Is classical music still “relevant?”
2. 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.