Stephanie G. Mathis Three academics discuss whether the artist must contribute to the survival of music by creating mass appeal. It is a question that has repeatedly been raised in the review of contemporary music, both at home and overseas. Two recent monographs have addressed this issue. David Stubbs’s Fear of Music examines avant-garde music. Alex Ross The Rest is Noise looks music from the 20th Century.
The present discussion is not intended to settle the debate but may provide some insight as to the dilemmas faced by artists who are trying to balance the sometimes contradictory goals of acceptance by peers and appeal to the public.
Lance Phillip: The duty of an artist
What’s wrong with a musical agenda that is explicitly stated? New melodic, contemporary music that pushes boundaries should be allowed to compete with the canon not to mention the multitude of traditional and popular songs that capture the attention of audiences.
All of these positions have unabashed spokespersons who proudly proclaim their virtues. The new music is perceived as elitist because it’s difficult to explain, defend, or even describe in more detail the seductive, fantastical, and subjective qualities that many of the songs played at the New Music Indaba 2015. in South Africa possess.
The passion, energy and magnetism that the compositions displayed, when played with such excellence, contrasts markedly against the chilly and sometimes resigned opinion outside the concert hall, that it’s somehow unsuitable that “new music”, as well as impressing intellectually, dazzles and charms.
Even though, thankfully, the quality of the music itself rose above this, it seems that Theodor Adorno’s old Schoenberg-Stravinsky debate is still alive and well.
Douglas Scott: Innovation and novelty are not enough
The answer to these questions can be found in Milton Babbitt’s famously outrageous and misquoted statement.
Who cares if people listen?
Babbitt rejected the idea that academic music study should be accessible. Why should we judge serious art based on its artistic merit if we do not judge neurosurgeons and physicists based on their popularity?
Herein lies the issue. The work of a neurosurgeon can be compared to alternative treatments and that of a physicist with a ‘null hypothesis.’ What else can be used to test the composer’s work if not its raw appeal? The mathematician or philosopher are good counter-examples. They are judged primarily by their peers, with little or no consideration for practical applications.
The practical and the intellectual are often at odds in pure and applied math. In music, works like Ravel’s Bolero or Saint-Saens Carnival of the Animals show the same phenomenon. The public has embraced these “fun” pieces by “serious composers” to the dismay of the creators.
In contrast, popular music is often filled with the melodies of great masters. Popular bands like Led Zeppelin and The Beatles have also experimented with extremes.
To escape this dilemma, composers need to compose so that they can present fresh and new ideas to their colleagues, but also in a way that is palatable to elicit other emotions than just bewilderment. It is not enough to be innovative and novel. Beautiful experiments can also be experimentations.
What about the audience? Would it be acceptable to a connoisseur at a fancy meal to accept a box of wine and a cheeseburger that was cheap? It is important to teach audiences that bad music is just as real as bad food or bad novels.
The notion of healthy music is gaining empirical support, namely through the activation of neuronal pathways by music that promotes perceptual processing. As always, more research is needed.
Matildie Thom-Wium: The connection between taste, morality and the arts
I agree that there must be some accommodations, but I am a little skeptical about the idea of “bad music as vice.” This idea implies a link between morality and taste.
Roger Scruton has been a proponent of this connection. He wrote in The Aesthetics of Music, “by displaying [my] tastes, I am revealing my soul”. In addition, he defended elitism, a topic that is important to examine when it comes to new music and is at the heart of today’s debate.
Lance and I both agree that events like the recent South African musical festival require a targeted education approach. This helps reduce the distance that exists between new music and potential audiences due to esoteric perceptions.
It’s unethical to consider tastes that require expensive training as better than cheaper ones. It may be that they are more rewarding, but it’s also important to keep in mind that cheap tastes can be just as satisfying.
