How Classical Music Will Survive, and Thrive!

Lately, I see much discussion on the subject of the future of Classical Music, or Pop Music vrs. Classical Music.

Any discussion, comparing the merits of Pop and Classical music, skirts the larger issue: What do paying audiences want from music? Whatever we are listening to, what are our expectations? I believe Pop and Classical must be compared in terms of content, not only the ability to evoke moods, or expression emotions or non-verbal ideas. There is a distinct difference in musical content. Pop Music, by definition, is more limited in its discourse. The musical content usually does not exceed 4 or 5 minutes, the orchestration is more limited, and the form is often less involved than full grown Classical pieces. Basically, by its very nature, Pop music, communicates less content than Classical music. This is why I chose to compose music which is more Classical in style,( I can get more stuff into the content. )

As a composer of classical music, I have a few thoughts about the current state of classical music.

The art of classical music music composition is still under a shadow of ugliness created by various 20th century ideologies of compositional methods and the dogged admiration for experiments gone wrong. John Cage, Pierre Boulez, Arnold Schönberg, and the others -- not one of these composers sang the last dying note. Not one of them gave us a useful means for the creation of music. The new methods of composition --12-tone, aleatory, minimalism, post-minimalism -- do not provide the wide emotional possibilities of expression, which were available in the older Classical and Romantic styles.

Beauty, as a concept, and as an experience of listeners, must return to the writing desk of composers, and to our concert halls. Beauty can be discussed, and valued, and defined in myriad ways. Our customers, the ever-patient, music-loving symphony-season subscribers, know Beauty when they hear it. Beauty encompasses a wide range of aesthetic choices. Few concertgoers would mistake Beethoven for Haydn, Haydn for Debussy, or Debussy for Scriabin, or Scriabin for Copland, or Copland for Stravinsky. The audience is open to a wide range of possibilities. The only real requirement is a musical language and a form that can be apprehended within the duration of the piece (a feat much easier said than done, for composers in any century.) The audience should not rely on concert brochures to tell them, in words, what they should be able to appreciate with their own ears.

Composers know Beauty when it enters their imaginations -- when they allow themselves to write notes on paper, without letting their intellects get in the way.
I believe this was the failing of many 20th century composers -- they let compositional methods over-ride their innate sense of beauty, proportion, melody, form, harmony, and rhythm. All the individual elements of musical composition were passed through a sieve of ideology -- allowing precious little beauty into the final draft of the music -- and long-winded explanations were developed to justify the resulting noise.

Many professors of composition were hired because of their ability to describe, in words, the complicated theories they invented. Beauty has possibly not been discussed seriously among professional composers since the 1930’s. It is much easier to discuss compositional methods, or electronics, or acoustics properties, than to discuss Beauty. Since the time of Schönberg, most discussions of Beauty were considered irrelevant, or hopelessly Romantic and even naïve.
Because Beauty has no specific meaning to anyone, discussion of the subject can wander in many directions. The author hopes composers, with wide differences in compositional style, will begin to assess their work in relation to Beauty, to think privately and honestly about the implications of Beauty, and begin to discuss Beauty with other composers, and with music critics and conductors. When Beauty can be talked about, and regarded as an essential element of music composition, the art of composition will regain a meaningful place in the hearts of audiences.

At present, I feel most new compositions have no lasting effect on listeners. If a piece is performed more than once, the audience tolerates it -- but feels nothing. Nothing is accomplished. Any discussion of Beauty needs to go beyond compositional methods. Beauty as perceived by an alert concert-goer may be contrasted to Beauty as perceived by the composer. The intention of the composer may have little relation the end result in the ears of an audience. I have read articles by Schönberg that describe his musical intentions, perhaps his sincere artistic goals. But, those goals did not result in music which audiences request to hear again and again, as they do the music of Beethoven.

The prevailing theory in the 20th century was that this disparity was caused by the audience’s lack of sophistication. A few harsh critics declared the cause was the composer’s lack of talent. Neither explanation seems accurate. Schönberg’s genius is easily recognizable in early works such as Verklärte Nacht (Transfigured night). Audiences are no less sophisticated than they have ever been. It is important to remember, the original audiences for Haydn and Mozart were bored royalty.

By comparison, we have ideal audiences – who sit quietly and usually do not fall asleep. The explanation of the disparity between intention and results can only be found in the self-perception of the composer. How honest is the composer in assessing Beauty in his work? Does the composer care about the symphony-season subscribers, or is the most important audience the music critics, or the dean of the school of music where he wants a job, or other composers? Which audience is the most important? Whose opinion matters most? Does the composer hope some enlightened future audience will appreciate works that current audiences ignore? How do music producers -- the decision-makers who program new works, influence the substance of a composer’s work? The artistic choices any composer makes rely, to some degree, on which audience the composer hopes to reach. The audience may change from work to work. I feel it is important for composers to think clearly about whom the audience is.

The future of orchestral music cannot rely forever on the works of the past. I believe we need to write music that is within certain parameters of harmony, melody, and rhythm (meaning, perhaps: a lot of chords built on triads, using dissonance sparingly.) The parameters are very wide, and loosely based on the audience's past experience. Several weeks ago I made a list of the 100 most requested classical works from radio-station listener-response polls. For the most part, listeners all choose the same pieces. To me, this indicates there is a common language in these works -- which reaches everyone. New works can expand on that common language and remain within the parameters of what audiences might enjoy. I have not reached any final conclusion about which parameters of harmony, melody, rhythm, or form need to be retained, and which can be tossed. My sense is something must be retained, for a new work to be understood and enjoyed by an audience.

Instant appeal is not a primary element of Beauty. Sometimes a work of Art has that instant appeal, sometimes it does not. The current "-ism," in fashion with critics, or in academia, is also an inaccurate means to judge Beauty. Talking with composers over 70 years of age---I realize how quickly fads fade, even in Classical Music. Our elders have witnessed four or five major "artistic revolutions" come and go during the last 70 years. The best of these composers followed their own innate instinct, and defined Beauty in their own way -- completely apart from the fads.
___________________________________________________
" I am not a "modern composer" in the strictest sense of the term, because my music, far from being "revolution," is "evolution." I have never attempted to overthrow the accepted rules of harmony and composition. On the contrary, I have always drawn liberally from the masters for my inspiration. (I have never ceased studying Mozart!)...Great music, I have always felt, must come from the heart. Any music created by technique and brains alone is not worth the paper it is written on. Music, I feel, must always be emotional first, and intellectual second. That is why, in composing, I have never been tempted by the radical style of the young and very interesting composers. And so, although as experiments there may be something to say in defense of all this music, it is, in my opinion, an artistic failure. Then, besides being cerebral, ‘modern music’ is for the most part, very ugly. And music, I insist, must in spite of everything be beautiful."
Maurice Ravel, composer c. 1935
___________________________________________________
"I rediscovered the traditional purposes for making music a) to imitate nature in her manner of operation, and b) to sober and quiet the mind thus making it susceptible to divine influences. Thus I was freed from self-expression. Music became a discipline, a way of life. I have noticed very few people are interested in New Music. I was 50 years old before there was any supportive acceptance of my work. I am now much older but my work remains controversial as your feelings testify."
John Cage, composer 1982
___________________________________
My correspondence with John Cage, confirmed my belief that he was more a philosopher and a writer, than a composer. He was a brilliant and gentle man.
His music was not intended to be meaningful, or moving, or listened to with any seriousness. Young composers who admire his music, risk deluding themselves, believing there is musical and/or spiritual value--where there is nothing at all. This was John Cage’s whole point---we create our own perception of value. That philosophy does not often translate into beautiful or lasting music. I do believe Cage’s Sonatas and Interludes for prepared piano, and some of his percussion music express his goal, "to quiet and sober the mind."

An interesting fact: At the Arnold Schönberg Archive at UCLA, librarians have gathered Mr. Schönberg’s papers, manuscripts, voice-recordings, lectures, etc...and enshrined everything down to the smallest cocktail napkin.

In this respect, John Cage was correct. We create our own perception of value. In business school, Marketing Directors learn the term " Customer Perceived Value." Attractive packaging, and the careful use of words, makes all the difference. Call a bottlecap a Work of Art, and put it in a Museum.


Charles Roland Berry. Seattle, WA
http://stores.lulu.com/berrycomposer