In fact, it is surprising how few people know such a genre (and it is a pretty sprawling genre) exists. Many might be surprised that composers still exist and - yes! - compose. Classical composition is as quaint as quill pens or bowler hats.
Still, a classical composition is the richest and most advanced form of musical you can come by. It has harmonic density, rhythmic versatility (especially the modern stuff) and rich tone colours.
Bela Bartok
If classical music is an anachronistic form, a counterfeit coinage, why would one ignore a form which with this 'density', 'richness' etc. Indeed, many sophisticates think that modern classical music is a anachronistic 1950s fad which has no relevance to the hustle-and-bustle post-modern times we currently live in. Classical music as a whole is perceived to be a repertoire which has come to an end. (In fact, the standard musical programme covers a very narrow period of time. Very little before the Seventeenth century and very little after the 1950s is performed.)
As in any endeavour, new advancements should be propounded and accepted. The tragic thing with classical music is that few such advancements after the Second World War have been accepted. Pre-1945, Schoenberg and the Viennesse school had many faithful followers and their work was quite prestigious. Following the Second World War, the advancements made by people like Messiaen, Stockhausen and Boulez have hardly been welcomed either by a general audience or the concert hall. Its value is confined exclusively to the domain of music analysts and elites (or, as in my case, curious music lovers).
The way music is digested is curious, anyway. This has a major impact. With an abstract painting, you can make a willed effort to recognise shapes. The same is true for literature and film. You can a read a line over six or seven times. Film, being a visual form, does not require great levels of mental application. Modern music is quite assaultive. A first listen of a modern piece will yield little results. That's why people do not want to pursue it further.
Gyorgy Ligeti
The advancements made by modernist classical music, the foundations of which were left by Wagner and Mahler, parallel those made by physics. To the laymen, the theories of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton are far easier to decipher than those made by Einstein and quantum mechanics. Likewise, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven and easier on the ear than Schoenberg, Webern and Berg. A quantum leap was made in music, yet it went so far that its instant access and appeal was lost.
I remember playing a Steve Reich piece(whose music is rather mellifluous and easy to grasp!) to someone This was a musically literate person and he could not grasp why this guy would write counterpoint. He couldn't quite fathom why you would write two separate lines of music for different instruments. Many have preconceived notions about music. It must be very uniform in its design, adhere to a strict set of rules and have a steady beat. The sole pursuit of sound making (found in composers like Varese and Ligeti) is not considered worthy. The notation of poly-metric and poly-tonal music writing (found in composers like Elliott Carter and Charles Ives) is considered to be a violation of core tenets (why would you want to have a lot going on at once!).
Edgard Varese
Steadily, one sees more mention of such music in the media. Alex Ross' fine book The Rest is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century has rekindled interest in modern classical music. Let's hope that living composers get due recognition for their efforts!
No comments:
Post a Comment