Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Paul Kilbey

GET UPDATES FROM Paul Kilbey
 

A New Year's Resolution for 2012: Give Contemporary Classical Music a Chance

Posted: 30/12/11 22:26 GMT

It can be hard to know what resolutions to come up with at New Year. Last year I think mine had something to do with washing socks. I didn't stick to it.

But, in the spirit of Christmas, here is one ready-made for you. It isn't even that hard to keep. It is simply this: give contemporary classical music a chance.

It's true, classical music hasn't had the best reputation for - well, okay, for about a century. And it's often been sort of deserved. Serialism in the 1920s and '30s may have been a bit of a blind alley; Arnold Schoenberg, the inventor of this fascinating but rather cerebral technique, certainly didn't manage to 'ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years' - and given that he said things like that, it's quite hard to commiserate with him really.

And after the Second World War, several composers that hit the headlines came across as stunningly academicised, preaching a sort of lab-coat approach to writing music which gained them little popular support. American composer Milton Babbitt's infamous article 'Who Cares If You Listen?' has come to epitomise the sort of brazen disregard for the populace which the new-music intelligentsia seemed to possess. Irrespective of what it actually sounded like, new classical music shot itself in the foot by alienating itself from its audience.

All the while, furthermore, two things were happening. Firstly, popular music of various forms was gaining, er, popularity. Jazz became a mainstream phenonemon at exactly the same time as people started losing track of classical, and the rise of pop music over the past 50 years requires no introduction at all. And secondly, concert hall programming was ossifying, risking new works less and less, and falling back again and again on Beethoven, Brahms and the rest of them.

These two factors have combined to mean that it's common now to consider classical music a resolutely dead thing. Going to classical concerts tends to reinforce this idea as well; it can feel a little like pretending you're a Victorian for the evening. There is, undeniably, a strongly traditionalist air around an awful lot of mainstream classical concerts. But I think that one of the reasons that 'normal' concerts always seem slightly too stuffy for me is that the majority of concerts I attend are of contemporary music.

If you actually go to any of these, it will become very clear that contemporary classical music's image problem is very much an imagined one. People wear jeans and drink beer. They don't often talk about serialism. It's actually fairly normal. And, incidentally, they go because the music is frequently amazing.

If you want to sit down and doze off for a couple of hours, then new music probably isn't for you. But it probably is if you like it when interesting things happen, when you are played sounds you've never heard before, when you're challenged. Crazy stuff happens in contemporary music. People do weird things to pianos, and plastic bags. They make incredible scores and write odd instructions in them. They take from jazz, from rock, from folk music, from - um, other. If what you want is an interesting story, you needn't look much further.

I think the major problem contemporary classical music has is that people are still put off by its academic, too-serious reputation. As I've said, this is fair enough in a sense. But ultimately, this is a reputation gained through some composers' words, and not their music. It's worth remembering, after all, that composers are people who are (more often than not) better at expressing themselves through music than words. That is why they are composers.

The obsessive theorising of Schoenberg, Babbitt and others does not adequately represent their music, which can be strange but is frequently beautiful and always worthwhile. These people do not sound like they write.

And, of course, they're not even contemporary any more. The cutting edge is full of fascinating people like Thomas Adès, Tansy Davies, Gabriel Prokofiev, who don't see genre distinctions in the same way as those who stereotype contemporary composition. All they ask is that you listen to their music from time to time.

It's not even that obscure any more. There are a huge number of recordings on labels like NMC and Nonclassical, and there are plenty of concerts out there which are well worth hunting out. The Barbican have a big contemporary month ahead, with the world-renowned Kronos Quartet, a Jonathan Harvey opera, and much else to look forward to. The Birmingham Contemporary Music Group even have some family events lined up. And so on.

So this year, I think you should resolve to give this amazing new music a chance to be heard. I could go on and on. But I have socks to wash.

 

Follow Paul Kilbey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/paulkilbey

 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:09 PM on 01/10/2012
Incidentally, this is a pretty great place to start:
http://www.icareifyoulisten.com/winter-2011-mixtape/
04:39 PM on 01/04/2012
Fantastic article! As a composer who also presents concerts of new music, I was thrilled to read your take on contemporary classical music concerts and could not agree more! There is a huge disconnect between the perception of contemporary music as largely dissonant and dismissive of its audience (music by academics for academics) and the reality of new music concerts filled with hip, new sounds, a casual atmosphere and an audience that is actually engaged in the music making! I second your resolution and encourage everyone reading this who has not attended a contemporary classical music concert to make it a priority for 2012! The concerts are usually reasonably priced (most are even free) and the performed with real passion. Thanks for the wonderful article!
07:04 AM on 01/04/2012
The academic serialism of the 1950s through the '70s was not just a "bit of a blind alley." It did not create the Hollywood horror music genre for no reason. It was a horror show, an ideological gulag such as the musical world had never witnessed. By making itself too sophisticated, and claiming that novelty was equal to beauty, contemporary music lost its audience - an audience in love with classical music because it elicited passion, tears, and awe. All the greatest composers were primarily concerned with spiritual transcendence, a quality which escaped most composers writing after WWII.

Until contemporary composers again write melodies as soulful as Mozart, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky, and give up this childish devotion to novelty for its own sake, contemporary classical music will continue in pursuit of the same skillful mediocrity we have seen for the last 30 years.
12:26 PM on 01/04/2012
There's so much more to music than "soulful melodies". Of course, if that's all you want, then stick with your Tchaikovsky. But in the event that you feel like trying out something interesting, maybe have a listen to a few of the links I included or follow up some of the references. "Mediocre" is the last word which comes to mind...

Also, if (as you claim) "academic serialism" influenced Hollywood horror music, then surely that's a fairly useful contribution to music?!
07:58 PM on 01/04/2012
I never said composers should try to write LIKE Tchaikovsky, only that the pathos and truth found in the greatest romantic composers was lost to modernism in its reactionary attempt to recalibrate the foundation of music around novelty for its own sake. Certainly composers like Messiaen, Bartok, and Piazzola were capable of producing gorgeous tunes, but most younger composers of melodic genius are drawn to film music, because that's where the money is. The rest tend to be academics or free lance types. As a result, we live in a time of lesser composers, technically brilliant but lacking the spiritual ambition of Bruckner, Mahler or Ives. This may change soon, but it is as much a problem of economics and access as it is inspiration.

The 20th century freed music from the straight jacket of diatonicism, but it is only in film music that the full resources of all technical and stylistic potentialities are required. When the most influential composer of the last 30 years is John Williams of Star Wars fame, contemporary composers have a lot of soul searching to do.
03:00 AM on 01/04/2012
I agree with this article, especially the part about contemporary classical music having great scores and taking stuff from rock. Not too long ago, I became a fan of Joe Hisaishi. He's a Japanese composer whose most famous work can be found in Hayao Miazaki animated films such as Howl's Moving Castle and Spirited Away. A couple of years ago, I also became a fan of symphonic metal, a genre which combines orchestral and rock influences with dark and mythical fantasy lyrics. Sometimes, a band will do instrumental tracks too. Most people in the U.S. haven't heard of symphonic metal because most of the bands come from Europe.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PostModernGuy
06:31 PM on 01/03/2012
Thanks for this post!
Of course, it barely scratches the surface. For many composers (and audience members) Schoenberg represented an end rather than a beginning. And yes, some post-1950 pieces sound like someone dropping a drum set down a flight of stairs, but many pieces don't have that quality.

As a composer, I have found better luck with an audience accustomed to jazz and rock, as opposed to one with a pure classical background. Those with a classical background may find it odd that I have a computer on stage, or ask the pianist to reach inside the instrument and generate harmonics. "It's not natural," they'll inevitably say. Rock and jazz audiences don't have this same kind of cultural baggage - they see electronics on a stage all the time!
09:51 PM on 01/03/2012
Thanks. I think that's spot on regarding jazz/rock audiences - listener expectations are really important!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ed438
egoldmidincd.com
06:28 PM on 01/03/2012
As a "classical" composer, I too appreciate this article.

I myself avoid the gimmicky and am a "maximilist" rather than a "minimalist". (see my website which is absolutely free of charge for example. Despite its name as shown in my micro, I don't sell CDs or anything else so kindly don't accuse me of spamming.)

I'm also a member of the Delian Society:

http://launch.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/delian/

a free online group of tonal (mostly but not exclusively) which accepts anyone in sympathy with their aims.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
intragan
the gates to hell swing both ways
07:06 PM on 01/03/2012
thanks for sharing the link
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ed438
egoldmidincd.com
07:30 PM on 01/03/2012
You're very welcome.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Jamie Kowalski
Composer
04:30 PM on 01/03/2012
This composer thanks you for your post, Mr. Kilbey.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Gronkie
Radical Independent
03:21 PM on 01/03/2012
I used to live in Cleveland and was a classical record executive for a major record company, and I used to go to Cleveland Orchestra concerts a couple of times a month, and invariably the performances of the contemporary works were more exciting that the standards. I love Beethoven and Mozart and Haydn, but the best CleveO concert I ever witnessed (by far) was Messiaen's Turangalila. I have also had incredible experiences watching the Kronos Quartet, especially playing Steve Reich. I was lucky enough to see one of Philip Glass' rare performances of Beauty and the Beast, where he synced the music with the classic film so it became an opera. Looking back on those days when I saw 5-10 classical concerts a month for years (and many more jazz and rock shows), it is the contemporary performances that stand out, against only a few standard classical performances (although seeing Beethoven's 9th with Harnoncourt conducting the Chamber Orchestra of Europe at Carnegie Hall was a true highlight!).