More thoughts about hearing new music, this time from Nathan
Botts, a terrific trumpet
player who took my Juilliard course on the future of classical music two years
ago. Posted of course with his permission:
I’ve never understood why "new
music" is placed within the same taxonomic grouping as "classical
music." Perhaps they’re of the same family, but certainly not the
same genus and heaven forbid the same species. Just because
a whale, meerkat, antelope, and dairy cow are hairy and
breastfeed their young, does that make them all very similar?.
Forgive the biology, but I think it applies. While evolutionally these animals
share a similar genetic ancestry, at this point in time their obvious differences
are far greater than their similarities. So with music we can go to great
efforts to compare the breastfeeding of Boulez to that of Mozart, or the hair of
Schoenburg to that of Haydn, but in the end we’re still
trying to compare the bohemith leviathan to a squeaky
prairie rat! (I don’t mean these animal designations to in any way reflect
on the music of any of these composers… it’s just for poeticism and humor).
Who goes out into nature and sees a herd of cows and thinks about their similarities
to human beings? Who goes to the zoo and sees the meerkats
and thinks about their similarities to the antelope down the way? I certainly
don’t. I chuckle when the cows go "moooooo",
and I laugh at the squeaky little meerkats.
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
So it is with a concert. Who needs
to go to a concert and listen to Boulez and think about all of its wonderful similarities
to Bach? For those of us whose craft it is to know these things certainly,
but how much does an audience really need to know to enjoy the piece? As
a listener I could often care less. I savor the iciness and clarity.
I revel in the complicated simultaneity. But more than anything I relish the
inventive and uncommon sounds. The cow goes "mooooo"
and I laugh, the meerkat squeaks I and chuckle.
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
As one who performs a large sampling
of music, from a wide variety of places in the world and an even wider variety of
periods in history, I’ve never understood the purpose our the taxonomic grouping of
"classical" music, except as it applies to the music of composers contemporary
with Haydn and Mozart. But Birtwhistle
on the record shelf next to Beethoven? Cage next
to Chopin? This is all "classical music"? Give me a
$%#$& break!! In masterclasses I’ve taken to
explaining this away as a corporate record store conspiracy — the
class=SpellE>liitle class=SpellE>Bennet
looking young man with looking through the selection of Boulez — so they segregate
everybody into differerent rooms (and search engines…
arghh!).
For my own part I’ve had some success
going a different route… slightly broader and less discriminatory. With
a bit of laughter, some simple explanation, and a very unassuming air, it’s been
my experience that I can perform almost anything for anyone willing to listen, no
matter how wild OR relatively conservative it may be. So what’s in the simple
explanation? Usually a very brief bit of history… just as an author or would
do in setting a scene, a bit of benign humor, and then only in the most aurally
difficult cases do I bother to "explain the music." I would reiterate
that I do this no matter how wild OR relatively conservative the piece may be…
yes, even Beethoven gets the brief explanation. I find that with good programming
and common sense, the flow of a recital can continue uninterrupted. And
most importantly, the more recently composed pieces on the program aren’t immediately
set up for failure by a sudden condescending explanation.
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
So like a trip to the zoo, you get some
giraffe, some water buffalo, some songbirds, a snake or two, and the ever popular
monkeys. Musically, that might mean some Duke Ellington, some Bach, some
class=SpellE>Corelli
Carmichael and even something I may have created (is there a place at the zoo for
an animal with the head of a fish and the body of goat?)
(See also my recent “
href="http://www.artsjournal.com/sandow/2006/08/hearing_new_music.html">
class=GramE>Hearing New Music href="http://www.artsjournal.com/sandow/2006/08/hearing_new_music.html#comments">comments










Very interesting comments about contemporary music! It is unfortunate that many modern composers are considered “classic,” but if one were to merely assign the term to the 18th century style, that is a whole different thing. However, it also occurs that non-tonal listeners see their composers as greats, and tonal composers as has-beens, regardless of the fact both are writing for contemporary audiences. The elitism associated with so-called “intellectual” music has everything to do with some folks hedging their own interests, despite the very, very small audiences that music appeals to. Meanwhile, the rest of us are just pathetic beasts at the mercy of our emotions, listening to “classical” items we can understand and appreciate. Where money and popular appeal are concerned, there persists far more interest in music which is accessible to the listener. For the elite, the only “great composers” this day and age are the ones writing non-sensical junk requiring all manner of explanation to the average listener. As we used to say in New Orleans jazz circles, “that music ain’t sayin’ nuthin.”
I agree blue ray is the dogs!!! am waiting for the blue ray player to drop in price before I make a purchase in 2010!!!Planet Earth was my first, and still favorite non-action BD. Particularly when coupled with the BBC version’s audio track and David Attenborough at the mic. The visual of the flock of birds flying across the wetland in what looks like a crane shot that pulls back to 5,000 feet and keeps the birds clearly delineated is just one of a phenomenal number of “How’d They Do That?”, jaw-dropping scenes.