Considering the state of "New Music", it is easy to see exactly how it could fail to captivate or stimulate even the most receptive and patient of audiences. Practitioners of computer music tend to immerse themselves in technological processes and pretentious conceptualizations to the point that the music tends to become some sort of science experiment, interesting on an intellectual level for the distinguishing characteristics of the composition which can be pointed to and talked about, but not necessarily stimulating on a profound level. It is hard, given the experimental nature of the music, to say bluntly that "This is not stimulating; this is not musical," and still maintain an open mind to the sounds presented. For this reason, when I go to see New Music concerts I find myself experiencing the best and worst kinds of music that I have ever experienced. Sometimes it is mature, heart-felt, and unspeakably beautiful. Sometimes it is nothing but noise.
I would say that the trend towards "science experiments" in new music exists because of the academic, insulated environment that experimental music exists in. Funding comes regardless of aesthetic content, because no one in the academic environment, especially in the higher parts of administration, is actually looking for that content. The structure of the institution is based around other things. That being said, an academic setting is simply not going to ultimately be the best setting for a composer who's focus is beauty and application rather than pretense and experimentation.
So, given the knowledge contained in academic musical institutions and it's relevance to the potential of music, there is certainly some sort a call for classically-trained composers to reach beyond the academic stage, however, judging from who the composers that have achieved this sort of transcendence are, it requires a huge degree of compositional ability, a highly mature and unique voice, and perhaps a great deal of dumb luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment