Tom Service contemporary Music at the Graun

[french frank]

I quite agree that such an article in the Guardian is a "good thing" and that it will dispel myths among some audiences who haven't even heard enough of it to 'dislike it'. The term 'classical music' is frequently disputed (I'm rather surprised that TS used it - if he did (can't be bothered to check whether he did use it or whether it was a sub's addition) ). But the painting comparison hardly holds as we don't speak of 'classical painting' in that way anyway. The term would surely refer, for example, to works by Poussin, Le Brun and similar schools, not to Delacroix or the Impressionists.

You say: "There isn't much that's "contemporary" about Adès,", but, in music, at least, I find it difficult to understand what critics would intend by the term if it doesn't include the works of a range of living composers, of whom Adès would be one but Tavener might not.

[Serial_Apologist]

If one thinks of music of the past, it was always "contemporary", insofar as one can "age" works by, say, Purcell, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Ravel, Schoenberg or Stockhausen, and even those composers contemporary with them who composed in different styles, because each of these particular figures added something to the received idioms, respectively speaking, even at the same time as incorporating trusted principles of construction from the past.

The fact that, since the demise of atonality as a defnining characteristic of 20th century modernism, the revealing of this "dependence on the past" now seems to loom so large in "contemporary classical music", sometimes under the rubric of "postmodernism", with commentators prone to statements to the effect of art being, in a manner of speaking, perpetually condemned to recycle principles deemed intrinsic to itself, speaks to me of a lapse in confidence in a hopeful future - one in which humankind is eternally condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past and never learn vital lesons of history.

I remain to be persuaded to the contrary. Any offers welcomed!

[heliocentric]

statements to the effect of art being, in a manner of speaking, perpetually condemned to recycle principles deemed intrinsic to itself, speaks to me of a lapse in confidence in a hopeful future - one in which humankind is eternally condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past and never learn vital lessons of history.

Yes.

[aeolium]

If one thinks of music of the past, it was always "contemporary", insofar as one can "age" works by, say, Purcell, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Ravel, Schoenberg or Stockhausen, and even those composers contemporary with them who composed in different styles, because each of these particular figures added something to the received idioms, respectively speaking, even at the same time as incorporating trusted principles of construction from the past.

I don't really understand why it seems to be expected of every composer that s/he contributes something new and original to musical composition, I mean apart from what is distinctive in terms of his own personality. There are of course ground-breaking composers such as those you have mentioned but for each of those there are many more that are not and that has surely always been the case - those composers providing the background idiom for Mozart for instance. One of the unfortunate consequences of concentrating only on the ground-breaking composers is that a large number of very fine composers have been extensively neglected (as Suffolkcoastal's researches show). Surely it is possible for a composer to contribute meaningfully by providing music that is recognisably his or hers and not anyone else's, without necessarily providing revolutionary advances?

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't really understand why it seems to be expected of every composer that s/he contributes something new and original to musical composition, I mean apart from what is distinctive in terms of his own personality. There are of course ground-breaking composers such as those you have mentioned but for each of those there are many more that are not and that has surely always been the case - those composers providing the background idiom for Mozart for instance. One of the unfortunate consequences of concentrating only on the ground-breaking composers is that a large number of very fine composers have been extensively neglected (as Suffolkcoastal's researches show). Surely it is possible for a composer to contribute meaningfully by providing music that is recognisably his or hers and not anyone else's, without necessarily providing revolutionary advances?

I absolutely agree, aeolium. Sir Wiliam Walton may not have been to the forefront in terms of being an innovative composer, but I still love works of his, such as the Violin Concerto. I am not saying that a composer's only value lies in offering something new and worthwhile, encouraging to generations present and future to think ahead. What I am trying to say is that figureheads of this kind seemed to achieve greater prominence in the past than now, in terms of offering leadership and direction, such that lesser figures defined themselves in their light. One only has to read any book on contemporary music from the 1950s and 1960s to see how quickly these leading lights were recognised by the more perceptive critics of the time. Today we have figures like Alexander Goehr bemoaning the ironic fact that the last generally recognised greats in the canon of western music, Shostakovitch, Britten and Messiaen, are now gone, and unreplaced, and this, to me, bespeaks a lapse of confidence - one that is illustrated in the little discussion taking place on this forum about contemporary music, in my view.

[heliocentric]

I don't really understand why it seems to be expected of every composer that s/he contributes something new and original to musical composition, I mean apart from what is distinctive in terms of his own personality.

I don't think anyone's expecting that. But often, in Service's writing for example, you have this weird contradiction between saying that one and the same music is (a) new and challenging and thought-provoking and perhaps disturbing and (b) within what's deemed to be the typical classical music listener's comfort zone. And what is supposed to be so embarrassing about the human intellect that it has to be disowned so often?

[french frank]

speaks to me of a lapse in confidence in a hopeful future - one in which humankind is eternally condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past and never learn vital lesons of history.

Well, pessimism in this respect might be a correct attitude. The mistakes present in different guises.

Going back to what ferneyhoughgeliebte said in Msg #10, I'm happy to accept the points he makes as objective fact. But I wonder whether a given work isn't capable of transcending critical objections. Why should one accept that incorporating new ways of producing and combining sounds is any more capable of resulting in an aesthetically valid piece than one which incorporates procedures which have been used before?

However, I think there are two separate elements: composition and reception, and Service's piece was more about reception - music from the listener's point of view. Can composers detach themselves from their own creative ideas/ideologies well enough to be able to judge the compositions of their peers?

[John Skelton]

He wants it to be classical music and he wants it not to be classical music; he wants it to restate some atemporal 'message' and he wants to sidestep the perceived (who is doing the perceiving is a question) irrelevance of classical music. So the listener might be better off not knowing much about Mozart or Schubert but the listener who does know about Mozart and / or Schubert will recognise 'contemporary classical music' as a valuable addition to Mozart, Schubert etc.

The lack of confidence is perhaps particularly Anglo-Saxon?* As in politics, others might not be so embarrassed to imagine new Utopias. (Shostakovich, Britten and Messiaen seem an odd trinity and, again, I wonder who would be doing the recognising. For me only one of the three really stands that sort of test of greatness, if that sort of test of greatness matters. My view would be that there are more important things to worry about!)

* or a particular strand in Anglo-Saxon cultural and political life.

[Serial_Apologist]

Why should one accept that incorporating new ways of producing and combining sounds is any more capable of resulting in an aesthetically valid piece than one which incorporates procedures which have been used before?

Impossible to generalise; I would say one has to approach any new work in its own right, as well as its context.

[heliocentric]

Impossible to generalise; I would say one has to approach any new work in its own right, as well as its context.

Plus, anyone who thinks they have a clear idea of what is and isn't "aesthetically valid" might already be closing their own ears to the possibility of something new coming along and causing them to rethink things.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Going back to what ferneyhoughgeliebte said in Msg #10, I'm happy to accept the points he makes as objective fact. But I wonder whether a given work isn't capable of transcending critical objections. Why should one accept that incorporating new ways of producing and combining sounds is any more capable of resulting in an aesthetically valid piece than one which incorporates procedures which have been used before?

In general, one should not. In general, I do not as I hope my comments on, say, Daniel Jones, William Matthias and Arthur Butterworth - or the composers restored to the repertoire by HIPP activities - demonstrate. But in the case of Ades, my own stance is one of extreme disappointment that he decided not to pursue the potential for development shown in the Music he produced in his twenties, favouring instead avenues that I find less exciting. A personal response that others either share or disagree with: neither point of view relevant (I hope) to the composer who (I hope) follows what he believes to be the "right path" without giving a damn about what others think of it.

Can composers detach themselves from their own creative ideas/ideologies well enough to be able to judge the compositions of their peers?

Depends on the composer! Stravinsky only had good words to say about those living composers who were no threat to his status (who weren't his peers, in fact) and Wagner had much the same attitude. Schumann and Mendelssohn were more catholic in their generosity to other composers. Boulez won't perform Tippett, but nor will he promote Babbitt or Lachenmann. They're people: extraordinary with Manuscript paper; just as cussed and petty and wonderful as everyone else the rest of the time!

[aeolium]

Today we have figures like Alexander Goehr bemoaning the ironic fact that the last generally recognised greats in the canon of western music, Shostakovitch, Britten and Messiaen, are now gone, and unreplaced, and this, to me, bespeaks a lapse of confidence - one that is illustrated in the little discussion taking place on this forum about contemporary music, in my view.

Even accepting the validity of Goehr's moan - which those much more knowledgeable about contemporary music than I may well dispute - doesn't it reflect the to me sterile obsession with the outstanding, the great, the groundbreaking (fill in your own adjective) rather than simply encountering and responding to new music on its own terms, whether or not it falls into any of those categories?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Even accepting the validity of Goehr's moan - which those much more knowledgeable about contemporary music than I may well dispute - doesn't it reflect the to me sterile obsession with the outstanding, the great, the groundbreaking (fill in your own adjective) rather than simply encountering and responding to new music on its own terms, whether or not it falls into any of those categories?

But is that how people respond to Art, aeoli? I know I try to hear Music "in its own terms", to "appreciate" what a composer has achieved, regardless of whether or not I "like" it - but that's not the experience I want from the Arts. I have a "fertile obsession" with what I want from encountering Art: I want to be overwhelmed by it; I want my life to be "better" for having experienced it; I want to be astonished; I want my prejudices and preconceptions turned on their heads by it. Art needs time, and there is so much life to experience outside the Arts that just to "simply encounter and respond to Music on its own terms" if it isn't something I could never have dreamt possible seems -- well, a bit of a waste of my time.

[aeolium]

I have a "fertile obsession" with what I want from encountering Art: I want to be overwhelmed by it; I want my life to be "better" for having experienced it; I want to be astonished; I want my prejudices and preconceptions turned on their heads by it.

What - every time? Every work of art you ever encounter? You're not asking much

[heliocentric]

FG, I don't think Aeolium was suggesting that "simply encountering and responding to new music on its own terms" was the whole story but only the beginning of it, the necessary preparedness to be astonished in the way you describe. On the other hand, Aeolium, I do think one should expect the astonishment FG describes. Why settle for less?

Apart from the issue already discussed, I think Service (whose sincerity one wouldn't wish to question by the way) has set himself too broad a task: to talk about a whole century within which music became more diverse than at any other time in history, and to use the term "classical" as (IMO) an arbitrary means of delineating his subject-matter. I think it would be a much more interesting idea, much more "contemporary", to reduce the time-limit from a hundred years to, say, ten, and to remove the "classical" label. That would generate a more lively discussion. After all, his current brief is clearly going to generate few if any surprises.