At 11:00 PM 4/11/06 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: >So where is the line between pop and non-pop? Is Gershwin pop or non-pop >(admitedly one can't really call Gershwin contemporary, nor Bernstein >for that matter, but what were they then?)
It's a grey area. Think of it as a different way of organizing the meta-genres. Gershwin, Zappa, Bernstein, Ellington, Parker, Joplin -- all both. It's the *piece* that's either pop or nonpop, though composers may sit on one side or the other, or even move across. It's not worth going over this territory again. You know it when you hear it. >I think you are actually making this a little too simple. It almost >sounds (and I know you don't intend it to sound like this) as though you >want to say, "everyone goes to the cinema to watch the newest film, but >noone listens to my music" It's not about me. I'm talking about a whole cultural issue with respect to nonpop. I wrote that the general arts-aware public "can talk about contemporary literature or art film, but rarely about new nonpop. Just look at your average artsy magazine (such as the New Yorker), even a virtual one like Salon. It covers many topics in depth in the arts, but new nonpop has appeared in but one discussion over the past several years." This is not about commercial failure. Within the commerce of the nonpop niche, many composers are successful. It's the *artform* that continues to suffer three generations of performers turning over centuries-old manuscripts instead of getting on with the art of music. That an abdication of responsibility in my view, but I'm not extending my ethical judgment to it. For the future of music, it's simply impractical. >Unfortunately we have to accept that contemporary art-music of the kind >which you are involved in has a very small audience. Even though as an >artist I find it absolutely necessary to support contemporary composers >in any way I can, and I have some interest in discovering other forms of >music and try to understand them, I also have to admit that I would >definitely not want to listen to music "from your world" (excuse me for >simplifying in such a way) more than once in a while, and I would >definitely prefer some Albinoni while driving home from a gig (I don't >actually listen to music very often in the car anyway). The "world" of new nonpop is diverse. You heard one of my extended voice pieces in concert, presented at Feedback Studios, the very heart of the German avant-garde 20 years ago. It was presented indeed for a very small audience, one there for that purpose. On the other hand, wouldn't you listen to this piece on the way home? (Trying to keep this link from breaking...) <http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/music/mp3/newcentury/clouds_of_endles s_summer.m3u> That's me, the same composer, writing for a different audience. And Philip Glass and Michael Nyman film scores are good driving music, as are Beth Anderson's "Swales". Flexibility is the hallmark of composers since the nonpop revolution of 1990 onward. My point is that your categorization of music "from my world" is a narrow miscategorization and a misunderstanding of a change through which performers are living *right now*. That world is as diverse -- far more diverse -- than it was in the narrow Baroque. There is something for the amateur performer and for the professional performer, for the casual nonpop listener and for the dedicated enthusiast. The lack of knowledge of this diversity is only one slide in the cascade of visibility failures that has been ongoing. Presenters present, players play. Without them, the acoustic composer is unheard. It has always fallen upon their shoulders to be aware of this (and some are, such as those in the concert band genres, and younger small urban ensembles and soloists). And it's not for lack of marketing by composers that this problem persists -- it's from the very perception issues you bring up in this comment: >The much I appreciate your praise for present day compositional genius, >but in reality this compositional genius is, at least for the most part, >so far removed from the general public's taste that I am afraid it can >only help itself. The *general public* is not the question. The general public has no room for Mozart, much less Albinoni (though the situation is slightly different in Europe, which owns such composers). The question is the *arts-oriented* public, which is the way I've addressed this. They are the people who go to contemporary art galleries, read provocative fiction, watch independent films, know the difference between dandelion and arugula, and listen to public/national nonpop radio. They are also the audience for Albinoni and *could* be the audience for new nonpop. >Albinoni composed music for a living, and no doubt he >had to go with contemporary taste. I do not want to offend anyone here, >but contemporary composers have other ideals. That may be good in many >senses, but the consequence is non-access to the general public, as much >as the general public has non-access to this kind of music, by complete >lack of the knowledge necessary to even begin to understand it. That is >not ignorance, or rather, if anything it is ignorance by the composers. This is once again an old misunderstanding, and a historical no-fault circumstance. The public and composers moved apart due to marketing decisions in the early part of the 20th century. Let's leave that history for another time (I'll link my essay when it's published), and address the contemporary situation. As I wrote earlier, the great atonal era passed into history more than a generation ago. You can find all manner of pleasant and difficult and challenging and sensual and viral pieces of nonpop, to whatever taste you have. It's a matter of looking for them *instead of* rooting through mouse-eaten Albinoni. A performer has that choice, as does a presenter and publisher and record label. It seems to me only reasonable that performers and presenters be aware of the enormous shift from the experimental demands of 30-50 years ago. Experimentation is alive and well, but it is often found well inside pieces with an external sound that is quite different. Composers have learned from the experimentation of the 20th century, and taken from it what has a long-term magnificence for their art and left behind what is stylistically unappealing (as have other eras, such as the Arts Nova and the Sturm&Drang crowd). >Who said it's either or? But I have to admit that I don't blame a >musically more or less uneducated person for not like anything after >Debussy, for the lack of general accessibility. My point made, I think. That hasn't been true for a very long time now -- half my lifetime, and I've got tons of grey hair. It's time to put the accessibility argument to rest. That's very much over. >Haven't there always been composers who died in poverty? One of the >greatest German poets, Heinrich Heine, died in poverty. Boccherini died >pretty much in poverty (Mozart's poverty, on the other hand, is mostly a >myth). But Eastman's case, though extreme, is much more typical. I'm lucky in that I have enough performances to pay for some of my composition time. That's because I've got a thick skin and will present my music to anyone who is interested, and write for anyone who shows willingness. Those old composers did that, and it made them better composers. I certainly don't excuse the composers who write a piece or two a year, nor the techically inept who cross over from, say, architecture or art and create massive pretenses in sound. They often make us look foolish, particularly because we do not have the means to made effective judgments. The number of performances is not large enough to sort the merely competent from the inspired, the merely shocking from the transforming. But the inability to write for an audience is debilitating (hence my "We Are All Mozart" project -- proving a point). >(I have to add that because I am going away for a few days, any >controversial replies will reach me late, so if you want to shout at me >and are waiting for a reaction it might take a while). No shouting. I know you well enough to respect your point of view. You help me clarify the point I want to make. Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/waam/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
