Comments on my Billie Eilish/Towa Bird post have sparked some further thoughts on the subject. When one of my commentators asserted that young listeners today distain professionalism in favor of "authenticity" (I scare-quote that word due to Richard Taruskin's critique of its use in the early music movement) it took me aback. But more and more I am seeing the point and value of that perspective.
The encroaching industrialization of music is likely one of the causes of the rejection of professionalism. I want to step back a bit to look at where this comes from. When I was a young musician, before I even converted to classical, we were always straining against technical limitations. Part of this came from simple poverty: we couldn't afford to buy better amplifiers or quality reel-to-reel tape machines and editing was typically done with a razor blade and scotch tape. Hey, at least we had a Shure mic! As the technology developed, digital audio tape, then digital editing, then compressors, limiters, equalizers and more recently quantization and autotune, all these limitations went away. The prices also came down. I have sitting in my studio a four-channel Tascam digital recorder with built-in microphones and digital editing that is far better quality than the equipment that the Beatles had to record Sgt. Pepper's and it cost me $140.00 US. It is about the size of a cigarette package. I rarely use it because I can do videos with my iPad. Excellent picture, but the sound isn't very good.
The point is that for musicians now there really are not, in comparison, technical limitations. What can't you do with an iPad and a few accessories? There have been songs, and perhaps even albums, produced on an iPhone!
The limitation, as always, is the creative imagination and the aesthetic discipline to know what to do and how to do it. We used to feel that there was a powerful aesthetic urge, being prevented from being realized, by mere technical obstacles. Now it seems as if, since there are no obstacles, that well of aesthetic resources is draining away and there isn't much left.
It is not that too much has already been done. I am reminded of the theorist who, in the early 16th century, two hundred years before Bach, complained that every single contrapuntal idea and resource had already been tried and there were no more possibilities! Or the comment by physicist Albert Michaelson in 1905 that there were no more big discoveries to be made in physics. That same year another Albert, Albert Einstein, published four ground-breaking papers in physics including one on special relativity.
So no, we aren't running out of aesthetic resources or new ideas.
But the kind of soulless music that seems to be typically the end result of relying on the technical tools at our disposal (Pro Tools!) seems to inhibit rather than promote aesthetic discovery. Hence the understandable impulse to go back to some simpler way of making music. But that isn't a solution either, because in both cases--lots of technology or little technology--it isn't the technology that is either the problem or the solution. It is just a tool which may or may not be suitable to the need.
What we are lacking is focus on the aesthetic need, puzzle or challenge.
Right?
For an envoi, here is the last string quartet of Dmitri Shostakovich in which he writes six movements, but every movement is an adagio. Also, the first movement uses the most minimal melodic resources. He said to the Beethoven Quartet, who were rehearsing for the first performance, that they should try and play the first movement in such a way, "so that flies drop dead in mid-air, and the audience start leaving the hall from sheer boredom."
13 comments:
I can't think of any really good classical works that are technologically-based (and only a handful that use electronic instruments) -- perhaps other commenters can think of some examples. The use of technology seems more of a novelty, an added superficial layer. No matter how much seems possible with technology the results seldom lead anywhere interesting. Even people with some talent and interesting aesthetic ideas can't seem to make much out of it.
The popular music I most like also works acoustically -- the technology of course boosts it in many ways, but I don't think it is fundamental.
The only thing that really ignited my musical imagination was music theory. I learnt how to use all sounds of music software as a teenager -- it is part of many music classes in UK schools -- and I tried all sorts of amplifiers, pedals, synthesisers etc. But I had to admit that learning Bach chorales opened up way more interesting paths than all those. Counterpoint was a revelation, even though I still hated classical music then... (I too believed an authentic musical future meant leaving 'academic' classical music in the past...)
I would be curious to know if/how technology (I'm guessing notation software mostly) affects your composing, Bryan?
I interact with technology mainly in terms of recording and composing. In recording, of course, the technology these days is astonishing. Yesterday for the first time I tried making a video of me playing a piece. Interesting and useful, but now I need a proper tripod! It never stops!
As you say, the really important technology for me is notation software. I have used Finale for over twenty years and I find it enormously helpful. The sampling is to the point where you can listen to the playback and get a reasonable idea. Recently I downloaded Sibelius with an eye to maybe switching as it apparently handles quarter-tones better. But as soon as I played back some strings I was so horrified at the sound that I gave it up.
But the most important influence might be the Tao Te Ching!
Interesting. How do you use the playback feature while composing?
All the exams here have moved online and I thought I'd try doing a performance diploma over 'lockdown' (still waiting for results...) Had to film a 35 minute recital and goodness did I learn a lot about my playing. But what a faff and a half! Had to borrow tech and things kept going wrong and the sound quality was never better than tolerable. Which is rather dispiriting when you work so hard on tone.
I think "faff and a half" is an English idiom I am unfamiliar with! The technology required to do a video or audio nowadays is pretty cheap. You might try picking up a Tascam. I have one, but for some reason rarely use it! The iPad gives you a good video result, but due to the tiny, tiny microphone, less good audio. I think if you check around on YouTube you can find a guide to a good setup. Basically an iPad plus a decent mike and you are in business.
As for my composing method, for over twenty years now I just compose right into Finale. Their sampling has gotten better and better and, apart from glissandi, which never seem quite right, the sound is not bad. Anyone with good music software these days is in the laudable situation of Joseph Haydn, with an orchestra at his disposal whenever he needed it.
Mind you, in the early stages, I often do pencil sketches, mainly for structural reasons.
Steven's post is very perceptive. This relates to my point that Ed Sheeran is the top selling musician, probably as a result of this ongoing music industrialization. To Steven's point, Sheeran's music uses typical progressions that he can strum on his guitar at concerts or he can dress up a bit on a recording. They are mostly bland but sound like normal music. His lyrics are also normal. The other top grossing acts are mostly legacy artists who have been around for decades.
I would further refine Steven's point by saying that a music piece should basically work with or without chromaticism also. I'm not saying that chromaticism is bad or should not be used. But if it doesn't work at all without chromatic notes then the chromatic notes are being used as a band aid. It should be remembered that even diatonic music has dominant progressions, tritones and leading tones.
The more I think about it I feel that this fake-authentic dichotomy has to be broken before some sane balance to music can be restored. I think it is a more serious longterm threat than the political correctness substitution for aesthetics because it has the weight of numbers. Both sides are right. Art can become overly complex and remote from human communication and art can become brainless and insipid and give no cultural enhancement.
I certainly agree with you about Sheeran and your last point, but I'm afraid I'm not sure about (or perhaps don't understand?) your point on chromaticism. What about the Bach or Dowland chromatic fantasies, maybe they could 'work' without the chromatic notes, but it would rather be stretching the definition of 'work', no?
Thanks for your reply Steven. I meant the comment on chromaticism purely in the context of a check during composition. In other words not something that would be published that way but as a check that the music is structurally sound. Of course pre 1500 there was very little chromaticism and composers relied on counterpoint for movement.
We are all familiar with chromatic compositions that seem weak or vacillating as well as those that sound spicy and stimulating. Why the difference? I suspect that if we were to strip the chromaticism we would see a difference on how they flow. In the former case the chromatic notes are used to hide the weakness of the musical sequences and succeed to a certain extent. But over time that wears off. Now even highly chromatic music sounds relatively tame for the most part if not abrasively orchestrated. But sound musical sequence never palls.
Maury, this sounds a bit Schenkerian? What do you consider "structurally sound"?
Just that the music doesn't wander vacuously or come to a stasis point. Not imposing any particular methodology other than normal human auditory perception of an experienced (in the style) listener.
Structurally sound to the ear of the listener? That sounds like a good principle. You might be interested to know that the excerpt I just put up, Section 3 from the Third String Quartet, contains not one accidental.
Someone mentioned Eilish to me the other day which jogged my memory of this thread. I see that you were having trouble getting suitable comparisons to Eilish. I can offer two singers that seem to be in that ballpark though they strike me as better. They are older than Eilish.
The first is Alison Goldfrapp. She is in the synth duo called just Goldfrapp. Will Gregory writes the music, Alison the lyrics and creates the style (she varies style from album to album). You might try something from The Seventh Tree or Tales of Us albums. These are both mostly composed of slow dirge like ballads. Goldfrapp has also done more upbeat dance pop on several other albums.
The second is Lana Del Rey. She is a bit more complex as she sings in several personas in the same song but her music is also mostly slow dirge like. She is more style consistent than Goldfrapp. You might try something from the Ultraviolence album or some tracks from the earlier Desire mini album such as Body Electric or Gods and Monsters. These different albums came out only a few years before Eilish so they are part of the same era and style for comparison.
Sorry I meant the Paradise mini album for the Lana Del Rey which has the indicated tracks. They are all starting to blur together haha.
I'll check them out if I get a chance!
Post a Comment