Friday, September 1, 2017

Stuff in the time of fluff.





It started with small things—rejection of the “great composer” who then became the straw "bogie" man of innumerable blog posts and musical articles and interviews. The constant drum beat to connect with audiences. The redefinition of progressive rock as classical music, the worship of Frank Zappa over Varese.

What caused this sad state of affairs? The collapse of the classical music market. The overwhelming financial success of popular music/media Juggernaut. The new rich, the interneters, who are uninterested in the arts.

This reminds me of the phrase “we had to destroy the village to save it.”

So what is my problem?



If you remove the “great composer” what is left? Only the successful ones. You also remove any conscious art may have. Or that there might be some other criteria for judging a work other than a high profile performance itself. You remove the concept that artistic talent needs skill, not just experience. Skill creates the kind of musical complications that are judged to be no longer marketable or user friendly. We no longer wish to confront the prejudices of the listener we want to exploit them. We have given up trying to educate the audience—that’s not true rather funds for musical education have been eliminated and we now have to pick up the pieces.

That returns us to this concept: “popular” success is the same as artistic success. That has always been the status quo.

The collapse of the classical music market.

A casual look at the classical music top albums on billboard is instructive—not much classical music there. Included is a number of film scores and the focus on "crossover" and the circus aspects of our craft. In any event the number of classical sales is tiny. Of course classical music activity has no real relation to the billboard numbers (or classical radio), but the bottom line is this; the only way that classical music can compete with the popular media is to match its marketing budget. We have to stop thinking that this is impossible. Then again, why do we need to mimic popular music when its success is based merely on its huge marketing budget.

Fire Sale

At these prices the institutions of new music are up for grabs. For example; “New Music” has been partially hijacked by wealthy museums. They present a very white establishment view of the “recent” musical arts, and they have a mixed record when it comes to cultural sensitivity (at least with the Native American Community). Sonic prejudice has no place.

Museums are not the only ones hijacking new music. There is a well funded effort to replace "new instrumental music" with multimedia experiences where the music is the least important part. Whatever it is the music comes last. New music theater is another topic.


Where is the Money?

Internet Billionaires have shown little interest in the arts and if they do its to create tributes to popular music. The Internet has also lead to an over focus on presenters (the net) over artists. We reward composer/entrepreneurs not for their art but for their function as presenters and producers. They are the grownups. Still nobody knows who these people are because other than careerism, and their influence with some of their peers, they have no connection to the general public. 


That leaves the older arts funders.

I have been told by an important commissioning officer that “art for art’s sake is dead.“ I was told by a Chamber Music America staffer some time ago that they will support commissions of "anything as long as its not serial or atonal." On the other hand the fact that a grant opportunity represents social work does not mean the artist is invested in the topic other than fulfilling the task. Don’t get me started on cultural appropriation.




Ok so we are a day late and a few billion dollars short. That is no reason to throw the intellectual wing of classical music under the bus.


























Saturday, November 7, 2015

random thoughts

 1.


As to saving musical arts in the USA we need two things; funding and grassroots support.
Funding; Unfortunately the Internet and computer folks don't give much or anything to the arts.
Orchestras and opera companies strive to connect with the audience through the latest sound fashion, or through artists in residence, etc, and other newsworthy events, when the focus should be on training and supporting music teachers in the K-12 schools.  Look no music teachers, no future audience. NCLB has done great damage here and unless those tech companies start ponying up, well that is our world right now.

2.

It has occurred to me that the most important opera that has influenced all American opera is Verdi's Falstaff. There are several reasons for this the view that a composers work is cumulative advancement that is that the last work represents the best practice.  Every older work is then outdated and unworthy of study.  The lack of song in recent opera is noticeable and its sometimes replacement by a fourth stream music pop song/classical combo has yet to reap dividends. 

Besides the question of style all American operas seem set text exactly the same way--event underscore event-underscore etc. That is only one idea is dramatized at a time.
This ignores the musical advances of the 19 century and earlier where contradictory musical ideas and emotions can occur simultaneously not to mention the theatrical advances up to the 1960's.


Friday, August 14, 2015

of populism; musical and political.



Many folks in the arts who espouse left leaning politics seem to be on the run.  Our most successful artists are paid for directly or indirectly by the one percent and further the call is out for artists to be entrepreneurs!!!!! That is to start a viable business and not expect hand outs from the state etc.  (This stems indirectly from the change in grant making where grants are no longer given directly to artists but to the producers of art). On the other hand we know that collages and universities support some artists. 
 
Naturally to have a viable business as an artist  you are required to be commercial.

These days that means creating friendly, tonal, populist music. 


Anyway what was my point?

Its that folks who present themselves as politically progressive, personally toe a different line in their artistic work and dealings.   

for example:

anti-intellectual art?  check
inoffensive art? check
art works that praise our leaders and famous folks?  check
art celebrating diversity with narrow stereotypes?  check
protest art with a narrow focus that almost everyone agrees with? 
art that features incomprehensibility so it can be described as almost anything? check
Friendly art? Check
Using terms such as: avant-garde, cutting edge, innovative, taking a risk, revolutionary etc. to describe safe conservative art or imitation Americana from 50 years ago. check
artists who do as they are told or collaborate with who they are assigned? check

These days many claim that the artist is more important than their art.  It follows then that its not about the best and the brightest, its about the most winning personality.  Then its not about sustaining artistic success, its about how you "spin" your failures.

and that folks is politics.







Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Authenticity and Cultural Appropriation

Art is limitless as are the approaches, so when do we know if we have crossed the line into cultural appropriation? Where is the point when a subject for one artist becomes the cultural appropriation of another? If you are asking these questions it means that you are interested in telling the story of another culture as many have done before you. Even avoiding stereotypes can be difficult.
  1. Who's history are you reading?
  2. What are your sources?
  3. What is so compelling about this story that you need to risk telling it?
  4. What is your fresh perspective?
  5. What are you planning to return to that community in exchange for telling their story?
I'm not saying “stick to your own kind.” Outsiders, Genet's The Blacks for example, can have much insight to offer. Genet never denies his whiteness, in fact he make a ritual of his white privilege.
The litmus test for Cultural Appropriation is simply this; is the art part of the solution or part of the problem? Of course it is we who must decide which is which. Or not. That makes it, finally, a political issue. Politics does not generally favor the weak. Differences of opinion will continue (even on such mainstream works as Porgy and Bess).

Issues can range from the sincere and misguided to that of exploitation, from simply advancing the meme of the moment to sheer commercialism. Or in the case of academia, conservation to careerism. I suppose the worst are works that are intended to have no point of view at all (yet they do in spite of themselves). It's easy to point out:
  1. Those who create arrangements of others music and who present them as their own original compositions. Stealing.
  2. Those who record and notate sacred ritual music and then present it out of context to the general public. The built in assumption is that the "other culture" would never be part of the general public. Class and racism.
  3. Those who wear other's cultural regalia in pop culture, advertising, real life, and media. Impersonation, stereotypes, myths, and falsehoods.
Examples of cultural appropriation are not limited to culture, race, class,education, gender, age, or politics (to name a few). This can create a tension with the American tendency to reinvent oneself.

I wrote the blog post below and I think it points the way in this direction.

about Klinghoffer

This so reminds me the Paul de Man episode; the supporters support, the haters hate. Besides the music there is, at least for me, one problem with this work.


"This is a straw man."

No actually its Mr. Klinghoffer a real person and a victim. To my knowledge the authors chose not to get the permission of the Klinghoffer family to use his name. That falls under the category of cultural appropriation. This is a mistake especially as other characters in the opera are fictionalized. I suppose what the Klinghoffer family experience is not much different from what Native Americans have been experiencing for some time. Mr. Klinghoffer is executed in a depiction he did not chose to illustrate someone else's reading of these tragic events.

Why use his name at all?

Anyway, this is not an isolated case. Cultural appropriation is the dirty little secret of the entertainment industry. Many award wining films, plays, books and their respective actors etc. take part.

Running roughshod over the oppressed to tell their story is simply wrong.




Sunday, August 3, 2014

The triumph of the editorial

A while back there was some debate if art for arts sake was dead.  It is certainly down for the count as much recent music has become a place holder, or a backdrop for something else.  Style* is not an issue, works can be consonant or dissonant as long as they are incomprehensible and associated with the current cause of the day.  Oddly, in an area of artistic discernment the more we judge musical "books" (titles),  and composers by their covers.  Before today composers were noted for their individuality, and if they belonged to certain schools or styles that were musical.  Now composers represent concepts that are extra musical.

Joining music and politics leads us down the road of grant generated art where social work can be celebrated without the artist doing any social work.   Granting organizations and the curators for the 1 percent  can be enablers for these concepts.  Its a new subset of the call to patriotism. Being a "cause" composer is the acceptance that the music is secondary to the cause.  But, music being secondary to the composer themselves is already well known.  Lets say it plainly; composers and their editorial are more important than their music.   If a composers message is ecology then listening to the music must purify water.  Everything taken at face value and listeners and critics alike abandon critical thinking.  There is no interest in abstract music except that it can be pined to an editorial.  The only possible  upside here is the long neglected discovery and nurturing of Indigenous artists unless they too are asked to represent stereotypes. 

The reality that composers could work the system is well founded, especially as critics have no interest in those who are not constantly performed.  The composer as lonely hero or heroine genius  is dead but what replaces that idea?  Everyone is an artist?  The artist is integrated into society?  Artist as yuppie?  The artist purified in the crucible of the people? Unfortunately, the jettison of composer individuality or genius does not remove careerism or the need for constant activity to prove success. 
We must not close our eyes to the dirty business of success. 

 Don't believe the hype.


 *anything as long as its not serial