The definition of high art has been passed down from Europe's classical age. High art was that made by serious, trained minds for appreciation by the noble classes. This was in contrast to popular art, "popular" then having a negative connotation.
Since that time, the industrial revolution has caused the unprecedented growth of the middle class (and democracy). The monetary potential for mass media began to attract talented individuals as an increasingly educated population demanded increasingly intelligent media. Popular art quickly came to aspire to high art, first with Duke Ellington in jazz and the Beatles in rock and roll. Motifs were developed, tonality was explored, lyrics with complex ambiguity were written and records became thematic opuses.
Meanwhile, classical music became increasingly academic. The nineteenth century trends of adding instruments and dissonance were carried on toward their natural conclusions during the twentieth century, ensuring that high art continued to be out of reach for a majority of the middle class. This formed the avant-garde of modern art.
Popular music continued to pick up innovations from the high art community, with avant-garde movements springing up in both jazz and rock. Yet the stigma of popular music continues. I won't forget my music professor describing Radiohead as his favorite "pop music"; that qualification being contrasted with "serious music", a pejorative shockingly ubiquitous among composer-academics.
While the many breakthroughs of the avant-garde movement cannot be denied, a cursory listen reveals that it has ceased to resemble classical high art. A legacy of elitism has combined with a philosophy of progress to make it an unwieldy animal. Modern composition has sufficiently lost its way that I predict it will fail to attain classic status. Instead, the music of the middle class will lay down the impressive legacy of America and the twentieth century.
KDVS has taken a different route in its treatment of twentieth century music, finding its own elitism in the underground. KDVS DJs hold a consensus that true art comes from the soul rather than from monetary incentive. They call music made for self-gratification and little or no money "folk", and there are few greater complements within the station than to call an artist folk. Consider this though, think of your favorite artists and count how many of them did it for money. Bach, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, The Velvet Underground, Led Zeppelin, the Sex Pistols, Sonic Youth, Metallica, Beck, etc. Now count how many didn't.
Partly, this is because it takes money to pay for art education, equipment, production and distribution. Partly it's because these are extremely talented people working hard who expect to be compensated accordingly. Personally, I think we should applaud those who refuse to compromise their artistic ideals for money, but I think we should applaud still more those who can have their cake and eat it too. Self-gratification is always a slippery slope and money provides for better treatment of music.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Take that KDVS!
Brian Ang wrote at 1:20am
i checked out your blog. provocative post. a few thots:
1. "A legacy of elitism has combined with a philosophy of progress to make it an unwieldy animal. Modern composition has sufficiently lost its way that I predict it will fail to attain classic status."
i take "lost its way" as meaning its "elitism" (meaning "academic" in your post) and its "philosophy of progress." is this correct? and what do you mean by "classic status"?
2. "KDVS has taken a different route in its treatment of twentieth century music, finding elitism in the underground."
kdvs finds underground music elitist? or the stance of kdvs championing underground music is declared as elitist by you?
3. "Consider this though, think of your favorite artists and count how many of them did it for money. Bach, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, The Velvet Underground, Led Zeppelin, the Sex Pistols, Sonic Youth, Metallica, Beck, etc. Now count how many didn't."
are you saying that all those artists did the art for money?
modern comp and the kdvs camp
Between You and Max Vidrine
Max Vidrine
August 22 at 9:39am
1. "lost its way" refers to both the elitism and the philosophy of progress. the philosophy of progress, encouraged by industrialization and at its peak at the turn of the 20th century, had people like schoenberg thinking they were pioneering the next generation of music. they just assumed that they're groundbreaking music would be idolized and universally appreciated with the continued maturation of human civilization in the same way wagner or debussy were. this faith in progress, insulated by elitism, gave them the faith to continue writing music without troubling with audience reactions the way bach and beethoven had. they assumed that if more dissonance made music better, then more still would make it better still. this assumption was incorrect.
by classic status, i mean similar to the status of "classical music" in a few hundred years these works will not be listened to and played recreationally. this is in contrast to my predictions for jazz and rock. heck, jazz has already attained classic status.
2. i meant that kdvs has found something to be elitist about. i did not mean this as a blanket dis but rather a neutral observation. my reasoning is thus: kdvs thinks its body of music is better than the body of pop. kdvs does not attempt to appeal to listeners with "poor taste". it has given up trying to show the american masses "the light". the combination of feeling superior and having given up on most people is my definition of elitism. i expect you will disagree with my assessment of kdvs having given up and you are partly true. however, viewed from the outside kdvs is not trying to get the average persons feet wet as much as to submerge the faithful in what we consider good music. this applies to both yours and my shows, though our shows both operate on a philosophy that might contradict this.
3. they certainly did it for the money. i dont know that it was their principal motivation, but money and fame certainly played a major role in determining whether these guys would play in their basements or in stadiums. its hard work to make it in the music business, and these people put the work in. keep in mind that there are a lot of positives associated with money and acclaim. artists can afford beautiful productions and artists can get valuable feedback. since when did modern comp and the kdvs camp decide that listener feedback was bogus? it is an essential component to art.
Brian Ang
August 22 at 12:22pm
1. its problematic to think to know what the artists thought. maybe some thought "they're groundbreaking music would be idolized and universally appreciated with the continued maturation of human civilization in the same way wagner or debussy were," but who really knows. also, schoenberg's music was indeed groundbreaking.
interesting that you cite industrialization, for i believe that it is capitalism and commodification that has pushed music to appealing increasingly to the lower denomination, removing difficult art music to the margins. modern composition is difficult art, and innovation could only be done in the margins in the cultural climate. innovation is not necessary dependent on listenership, often in spite of it. why does elitism = difficult, elitism = anything that doesnt have mass appeal. is quantum physics elitist?
classic status assumes a single history and canon when i feel there are many histories and canons. schoenberg is a classic in modern composition history. a criteria based on temporally changing and difficult to track recreational music seems shaky compared to intrinsic merit.
2. dangerous generalizations. i dont think many dj's would agree with many of those, i dont. kdvs isnt a single person. again, its problematic to think to know what others think.
3. same criticism, problematic to think to know what others think. one can only argue it. i would argue that the VU and SY, the most out of that bunch, had money the least on their mind, listening to their harsh, especially earlier, records. those records seem an odd way to make money and they didnt.
Max Vidrine
August 22 at 8:51pm
I'm afraid this has grown into a lengthy response. This is why I didn't justify my assertions in the article and why I'm not sure that it was wise to publish something simultaneously so open-ended and so controversial.
1. Well, there weren't any polls on avant-garde composers, but I think we can find some sentiments that were frequently expressed by people of a common group. I am combatting a sentiment. I am not combatting a group unless that group shares that sentiment, which as you rightly pointed out, I cannot be sure. What I do know is that among the most qualified individuals to be that group's spokesman said,
"I venture to credit myself with truly new music which, being based on tradition, is destined to become tradition." -Arnold Schoenberg
There are two things in this quote worth noting. First, there can be no doubt that this new music was made as a self-conscious continuation of classical music's legacy. Secondly, Schoenberg clearly expresses his belief that he has founded a new music and, implicitly, the grounds for a new canon. By expecting it to become a tradition, we can only assume that he expected it to be eventually embraced like the controversial music before Schoenberg.
In 1979 composer-academic Charles Wuorinen wrote (in a textbook) that "While the tonal system, in an atrophied or vestigial form, is still used today in popular and commercial music, and even occasionally in the works of backward-looking serious composers, it is no longer employed by serious composers of the mainstream. It has been replaced or succeeded by the 12-tone system." Here is another qualified spokesperson for modern composition. He confirms what Arnold Schoenberg had hoped. Here the term used is neither high art nor classical music, but the perjorative "serious music". Somehow in my article I failed to mention that this phrase is ubiquitous among composer-academics, who if it wasn't obvious were the cheif target of my article. I was not directly criticizing modern composition admirers, but rather the entrenched group of critics, composers and academics that form what I will call the serious music elite.
I thought the bit on industrialization was among the most original contributions I had to make. I agree that capitalism played a major role in creating the cultural climate, but still more central to that climate was the establishment of a large middle class with disposable income. Also, industrialization caused commodification.
I'm going to disagree with you about music commodification pushing music to the margins. Rather, the margins cropped up as a response to music's increased availability, the education of the middle class and the expansion of cities. Urbanization, besides inspiring a lot of difficult music, centralized a large enough group of people to support difficult music after the move to modern comp alienated many of the traditional patrons of composed music-- the aristocracy. Also, before 1850, what "difficult" music existed to speak of? I'm having trouble imagining a peasant wrinkling his nose at Bach in disgust the way most UC Davis students do to modern comp and much of my own music collection. Increased availability enabled the growth of musical subcultures and the splintering of genres witnessed in recent history. After all, composition wasn't the only thing in the twentieth century to shed it's traditional roots and continue on its own path. Before mass media there was plenty of music for the lower denomination, but because it wasn't written down nor was it recorded, it was lost to time.
Elitism comes from the convergence of limited appeal and a superiority complex. Quantum physicists lack the pretension that might qualify them as elitists, though to be sure they have a little.
Innovation is not dependent on listenership at all. I completely agree that Schoenberg was groundbreaking. However, what is innovation without application? Application IS dependent on listenership. For this I cite the Velvet Underground to be a massive artistic success. They cleverly and thoughtfully applied avant-garde innovations to produce a, frankly, listenable product. Integrating ideas can be more innovative than the original innovation, and I hope we can agree that both jazz and rock have developed an intimidating list of innovations of their own.
It is true that postmodernity has forced us to come to terms with the reality of many canons. The axilary to this, however, is that in no previous time in history has human civilization been so unified. As a result of this some things can indeed be considered classic in absolute terms, such as the European canon of classical music. High art, in fact, was envisioned as something culturally independent. It is frequently described as a summation of the most acclaimed art from several cultures' golden ages. I will point out that we are presently in a fantastic golden age, and this would suggest that Western culture is contributing to "high art" as we speak. The Beatles will certainly not be forgotten any sooner than Beethoven.
2. It is true that my generalizations do not apply to a majority of DJs. Yet, elitism is alive and well in KDVS. Elitism doesn't have to have a majority to flavor an institution. That holds for music professors and composers as well as KDVS.
3. The artists I listed were looking for validation or money or fame. Lou Reed's is a well documented story of a brilliant musician wanting and expecting those things. Funny how Sonic Youth is said to have peaked around their midway point between their serious music phase and admission into major labels. I feel like that sums up my take on the motivation for great music. The best is frequently motivated by a balance between desire for fame/money and legitimate self-expression. John Cale wanted no mass appeal, but when his avant tendencies were balanced out by Reed's hunger for glory they certainly made great music. Many musicians don't follow the arc I am describing. A few artists, like the Electric Eels, thrived on just doing their own thing. However, I'm afraid the contributions motivated significantly by money and fame outnumber those few.
My theory may be a dangerous criticism, but I know far too much about the rock canon to not try and find patterns, and this is a definite pattern. Brill Building and Motown hit machines are among the more extreme examples of supporting evidence. The Beatles' early work was written "for the girls" and it sounds it. The early Beatles sounded like the best sellout ever, reaching into base instincts like the most transparent of pop without sacrificing a cunning eye or a brilliant composition. That's my definition of good pop, and I have to say that the aesthetic is sorely underrated. The sound of a well-crafted pop single shares innovative, thoughtful experimentation' same insight into music's effect on the human mind. That is what I value. Innovation and craft set to direct ends. Not noodling, not abstraction for its own sake and not innovation without application. Those things really are experiments and should be treated as such rather than as self-contained music.
Brian Ang
August 22 at 9:16pm
just a few thoughts before i depart for the nights activities. will return:
"By expecting it to become a tradition, we can only assume that he expected it to be eventually embraced like the controversial music before Schoenberg."
no, we cant assume. furthermore, that schoenbergs new music wasnt embraced the same way bachs was is irrelevant. its different music and we are in radically different times; old results and values dont necessary hold weight in a new climate.
"Also, before 1850, what "difficult" music existed to speak of?"
i dont know, but if there was none, then schoenberg and co.'s music is even more valuable to unsettling and reshaping consciousness.
"However, what is innovation without application?"
a smashing success. to do something new with the cultural weight of thousands of years of art upon oneself, thats a success. i also think schoenberg is very listenable.
its clear we have very different values. the most striking thing i find is that you lament elitism, class division, while reinforcing class division by dismissing modern comp for not being accessible. does one combat the cloistered academic by subscribing to the barrier between modern comp and popular music or by constructing a classless consciousness?
Max Vidrine
Today at 1:10pm
We do have very different values. I'm not going to sweat it, though. I'm used to differences. They make good conversation. Would it be alright if I posted our complete discussion as a comment to the original article?
I feel that because humans ultimately remain human, certain things never change. As I said before, Schoenberg deserves praise for opening up the possibilities of music. He was a certainly a success on that front. However, the jury is still out on whether he created music that people want to listen to beyond curiosity. Some, like you, find it listenable. I can listen to it closely and it sounds alright, but I don't want to because it sounds like pain without catharsis.
I should clarify that I am extremely elitist (about other things) and I don't have problems with elitism in and of itself. I have problems with elitism when it is unjustified. I feel that the popular/commercial music canon of the twentieth century dwarfs modern composition in musicality, craft, and insight into the human soul. I consequently feel that the academic-composer elite are elitist without cause and I consider this a grave sin.
I embrace class and group differences. These things are another part of human nature. Consciousness of such differences is only reasonable.
Brian Ang
Today at 1:43pm
good conversation. yes, please post the complete discussion. i like debates to be as communal as possible
I agree with what you have to say for the most part.
I'm not sure whether high art has lost its way or simply reached an impasse where in music, and more specifically the tonal system is tantemount to sentimentalism which doesn't sit well, and has never sat well with elitist groups.
The esortericism that once defined the nature of high art has been replaced by what I suppose one could label a sub culture of "artists" who have the right to call themselves artists without any exclusivity or cultural boundary. This is what I think defines popular music as well as post modern culture.
I like the way you bring out the irony of Pop music and its innovations inspite of the obvious stigma.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the avante garde or elitism in this day and age has a "philosophy" because most post modern and post structuralist philosophies are just cheap imitations of science and attempt to imitate scientific discursive practices.
You don't talk about the neo classical movement epitomised with works from Stravinsky. He, in his book the Poetics of music had a concrete philosophy. One that I believe shouldn't be left out of the avante-garde history books...
Anyways Good post.
Post a Comment