So I haven't had the opportunity to post on my blog very often this quarter but I am hoping that at least in my presentation I was able to convey a large portion of my findings in a comprehensive and (hopefully) critical fashion. The concerts that I hadn't been able to write about include Camera Lucida (x2), redfishbluefish, undergraduate violin student recital, Samara Rice's undergraduate composition recital, and my own chamber ensemble recital.
As stated in my presentation, my conclusion was essentially that the music department at UCSD is in an overall state of denial about the necessary compromises they may need to take in their 'art'/'work' in order for the Western Art Music tradition to survive. There had been a general consensus amongst the graduate students that they firmly believed that their work was going in the right direction & that there would be no need to change or adjust what they're doing. They compared their work in experimental & traditional Western Art Music as akin to scientists & mathematicians pushing the boundaries of their fields & constantly changing the way we understand life. And yet, this seems to be a difficult comparison: math & science is argued to be for the greater good of humanity and its continued survival while New MUSIC is far less obviously necessary for human life. There exists a disparity between the new Western Art Music performer and the audience that did not exist before (or at least, not so large a gap), and what performers nowadays don't seem to realize is that an audience is essential for the longevity of an art. If not enough (or no one) can appreciate it now or in the near future, soon it will be lost through the dilution of all other things people encounter and prefer over some experimental piece of music.
I am not sure if this department will come to realize this or if they are going to continue on this path that I can only see ending in the ultimate demise of the Western Art Music tradition [here at UCSD, and then perhaps beyond, if other institutions fail to make the necessary steps & compromises].
Anyways, I had a lot of fun in this class. 3 hours always seemed to fly by every week, and it was a pleasure to be a part of this class - lots of debate, confusion, and laughter. Perfect. It was a great way to end my undergraduate career at UCSD & I will miss this class and all y'all MUS 110ers. Seriously, you guys were pretty damn cool. I only wish we got to know each other even better - 10 weeks is far too short.
Cheers,
Eunah
I agree with you, Eunah, that the audience does play a huge role in music. At the same time, the musician should be able to express themselves in whatever way they want without regards to audience members. Musicians are artists. Many artists, like Picasso, were not appreciated for their work until their time passed. So I think they're proud of what they are doing, then it's ok to guide them in this way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what annoys me is when you mentioned student composers being critiqued for their work as not being "new" enough. This upsets me because there shouldn't be a certain way in developing new music. There shouldn't be restrictions on it. I think as long as the composer can explain his or her thought process behind the work, and it is original, then it should be accepted.
Yay 1st commenter = Tammy! :D
DeleteI appreciate the idea that musicians should have creative freedom - otherwise our arts may be very boring indeed. But your example of Picasso..he was quite well-known while he was alive, the leader of a movement in the arts, and an artist who gradually transitioned from older styles to the styles he is best known for today. Picasso was quite the celebrity compared to most New Musicians of our day, and I doubt that, without his massive following & support, that he'd have been able to achieve what he'd done & have such an enduring legacy.
New Music in the WAM tradition is extremely fringe in nature & rather than pushing people to embrace their work (however new & experimental), a tactic that I see becoming more prevalent is the tendency to just disregard or blow-off the people. Picasso's work was still meant to be appreciated...I'm not so sure if that's the aim of New Music or even Old WAM. It's the "if you don't like it, it's not my problem" attitude.
And it annoys me too...it's very disheartening to learn that a talented musician is being criticized for not being 'new' enough rather than their 'skill' or 'sensibility.' This is a critical point that I think must be addressed in order for WAM to have any chance of long-term survival.
I think one reason why the New Music crowd doesn't really care about what others think of its music is because of this believe that New Music is a science. The average person generally does not understand much of the research of theoretical/experimental science that pushes boundaries. Additionally, like you mentioned, science is supposedly geared towards the betterment of mankind, and perhaps many of the New Music musicians believe that their work will benefit music and mankind in some way. Maybe they also think that their work is underappreciated now but will find its time later much like Galileo's scientific work or Van Gogh's art. My problem with this New Music as a science notion is that new music runs the risk of entrenching already existing elitist attitudes, which can lead to alienating others more and increased snobbiness. To me, that new music is a science also carries a notion that it is advancing music in the "correct" direction, which hints at putting down a lot of other music. Uh, I should probably say that I don't hate New Music in case any of that made it seem that way.
DeleteTammy makes a really interesting point that although this music is not appreciated now it might be well after its time! I do however agree that to maintain this style of music, one needs an audience. Picasso was one artist, where are New Music is a whole genre so there's a huge difference between one person being appreciated postmortem and a genre being appreciated after its time. I don't think the latter is possible, so a current engaged audience who is not mostly composed of other musicians, is definitely needed.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to hear about how the grad students compared new music to how math and science push the boundaries of their respected fields. As I do agree that they are artist and should push their artistic skills further but at the same time realize that the music they are creating is for a very small following, and might not hold well in performing for a career.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to say that it was pretty awesome how our presentations overlapped :). I wish you the best of luck after graduation!
I really enjoyed your topic as it brought up an issue that I feel most people are aware of but rarely anyone every speaks about. One thing that you mentioned that I do not necessarily agree with is the idea that we will dilute out and eventually lose traditional Western Art Music. I feel as though it has taken on such a prominent role in society that it is here to stay for the long run. One thing that I do think might jeopardize traditional Western Art music (and even new music) is musicianship. I fear that in the next few generations, we will lose many instruments that play an essential role in Western Art Music. With the rise of electronic music and synthesizers, why learn one instrument when you can learn an infinite amount by just playing the keyboard. Even looking at the younger generation of children in my family, none of them have the urge to pick up an instrument. Could this be the direction we're heading in?
ReplyDeleteDuring your presentation I found the point that some graduate students made about their work as moving in the "right" direction an interesting concept. What then is the "wrong" direction? And the idea of not needing to change what was being done/made within the music interesting as well. Is this because of the idea that creativity should not be influenced or interrupted by changing an artists composition or is it just related to that idea of "right" music.
ReplyDeleteI also had a bit of a flashback to 120 when we were covering Schoenberg and this justification to his critics about his music being part of the natural progression of music after the "classical" period. When criticized about his work (I'm thinking of his First String Quartet...) he justified his work as being in the "right" direction as well...
You also made the point of no one making efforts towards bridging this gap between New Music and WAM. You suggested maybe making New Music more available to the public, and my question is how to do that? Hold more concerts? Advertising (what kind/how)? I feel like it's hard for people who are not or never have been exposed to the concepts make it appealing let alone appreciated.
I can't say that I totally agree with Eric's idea that musicianship and instruments are becoming/will become more jeopardized within the next generations (or at least most) because I think one aspect of some new music and new compositions that is important to recognize is the idea of extended techniques and the creativity within finding out the limits of your instrument (no matter what it may be) and all of the sounds it is capable of making. However, I can see what you mean with regards to the attraction of the keyboard and synthesizer and electronic music pushing out the use of some instruments. There are however a lot of (or at least with the introduction of electronic music there was) pieces that utilized recordings of instruments which were then used to loop or fragment etc. within electronic pieces.
Unfortunately, I was unable to be present for your presentation but I do have a few comments regarding your blogs/subject.
ReplyDeleteWhat are your perspectives of the UCSD music department? Do you think that they have been "too experimental" in their approach? From my past experience, I know they have deviated from western art music and popular music, but have they deviated to the point of complete alienation? Is it a forced attempt at creativity and innovation or just a natural step in the progression of the music?
It was really interesting to hear your thoughts and, through the interviews, the thoughts of the grad students. Taking some of the other music classes like 120 and 102 really changed the way I look at New Music. With past experiences with New Music, I thought it was ridiculous, pointless, and either very difficult or silly easy to play.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't till taking those classes that I was able to start hearing what makes the music so amazing. I learnt a ton in those classes but mostly how to open my ears and mind. However, most people don't have the tim, money, or interest to take classes like these. From my experience talking with people, it seems like most have the same problem I had. If this is the case, it seems like the New Music is the music that excludes most people while more traditional WAM does not.
Honestly, after having many talks with graduate students and professors, I increasingly feel that new music is for snobs. That's not necessarily a bad thing (I admit I'm a snob), but I honestly think that's a large part of the appeal. Even those who do not actively listen to traditional "classical" music usually find something enjoyable about it. On the other hand, new music flies over most people's heads while they cover their ears in contempt. "You call THIS music?"
ReplyDeleteI realize this as I myself am finally beginning to appreciate "new" music. I don't necessarily enjoy all of it, but I can understand and appreciate where they are all coming from. But how long did it take me to get to this point? Years and years of piano lessons, music theory and music history classes??
Many people feel that "one day" this music will be understood just as older composers were ostracized for being different and are now considered great and now enjoyable. I'm not sure I agree with this. Schoenberg was composing 100 years ago. While he had interesting ideas and I don't doubt that he's great, I hardly find his music enjoyable now. Most laymen will have the same reaction to his music that audiences did back then. Even Varese, which I find enjoyable, was proven in my interviews that people don't find the appeal in it. This was also written 100 years ago. I don't know...maybe we just need more time, but I doubt it as far as its appeal to the masses.
I think subconsciously many people find it cool because it's exclusive. A lot of it can't be appreciated on its own merits without the historical, philosophical, and theoretical merits. The fact that they enjoy this music means that they're intellectual, educated, musical, and artistic. Now that "old" music is being exploited by movies and such, this is what they have. They have moved on from the old - there's no point staying in the past. There's a need to innovate.
I'm of course not dismissing new music as a genre but just trying to look into its appeal. Even within new music is an amazing variety, but for those "uneducated", I wouldn't be surprised if it largely sounded the same.
AND I WILL MISS YOU OH SO MUCH TOO EUNAH CHO.