Modern Music
Scott Campbell has some interesting observations on Modern Music at
A Western Heart:
Whistle Schoenberg while you work
The Sydney Morning Herald publish a response from "publisher and social commentator" Richard Walsh to an article they published last week (originally from The Guardian), in which the standard claim that modernism had killed modern classical music was made. Even by the Herald's standards, it's a bad piece.
When did serious concert music die, asked Martin Kettle in his jeremiad against modernism... his considered answer seems to be 1948... Apparently modern music isn't very popular and, he hints, not very good.
Not surprisingly, this is an argument that can also be leveled at modern literature and art - they aren't all that popular and there is more than the odd iconoclast who reckons they aren't much good.
Oh come now. That sort of accusation is often made against modern art, but not very often against modern literature - and when it is, it's to nowhere near the same degree. Martin Amis may be sometimes accused of not turning out rattling good yarns, but no-one says he can't turn out an entertaining, well-crafted sentence.
He then goes on to posit two ideas and derive a third from them:
And why does the fact that serious music fans are older and therefore more conservative mean that modern music struggles to survive? It can't be a hip pocket problem - older people and their high disposable incomes are supposed to be the reason why fossilized rock bands like the Rolling Stones still rake in hundreds of millions a year.
Is the idea supposed to be that because serious music fans are older and thus more conservative they're less likely to enjoy experimental modern music? But then the argument would make no sense. It would amount to this:
(1) The only people who are remotely interested in serious music are older people. The great majority of young people aren't interested in serious music (let alone modernist music).
(2) But because the great majority of these older people are conservative (precisely because they are older), they aren't interested in modernist music either.
The obvious conclusion to draw from (1) and (2) is this:
(3) Almost everyone has no interest in modernist music.
There is some good stuff out there -- I studied Piano and Organ while growing up and am sitting about 15 feet from a fairly large synthesizer setup (both analog and digital). I would say that this is a perfect example of
Sturgeon's Law. For every
Gorecki or
Part or
Tavener out there there are an endless stream of "modern composers" who couldn't score their way out of a paper bag. I do like some of Philip Glass' works but the majority of his music is boring. The early modernists (Schoenberg a perfect example) were staking out new ground in musical expression and once staked out, these territories are better off not visited again. I do not know anyone who listens to this second group (Sturgeon's 90%) for enjoyment...
Posted by DaveH at February 26, 2005 9:41 PM