Allan Kozinn wrote the following as the first sentence of a recent review:
Trendy ensembles that play accessible, eclectic new music get most of the attention (and listeners) these days, but you have to admire groups like the New York New Music Ensemble for continuing to champion the more rigorous end of the contemporary repertory.
One assumes by “trendy ensembles” he’s talking about any number of ‘bandsembles’ in the indie / alt-classisphere. I’m pretty sure the word “trend” has been used to describe the current new music ‘movement,’ but I think it’s usually been utilized in the ‘this-is-the-way-music-is-moving-in-the-future’ kind of sense and not in the ‘fad’ kind of sense. That’s interesting. Is this whole thing we talk about so much these days just a fad? Will anything relevant, meaningful, and lasting emerge from this ‘trend’ or will the next generation of composers come up with something new to overthrow the ‘relevancy’ many are working overtime to achieve? Will music by composers who are deemed ‘uncompromising’ be the transcendent new music?
R u an ensemble that ‘champions’ music by ‘uncompromising’ and ‘thorny’ composers?
Is it trendy 2 play ‘accessible’ music?
Are new music ‘bandsembles’ that play ‘uncompromising’ music more authentic?
Since trends come and go, when will this ‘accessible’ trend end?
Should ‘alt-classical’ b referred 2 as fad-classical?
Will it ever b trendy 2 play ‘rigorous’ ‘uncompromising’ music?
Who is creating relevant ‘alt-classical’ music?
Can you be ‘uncompromising’ and still play at ‘LPR’?
Would ‘uncompromising’ composers prefer their music be played in ‘uncompromising’ venues instead of ‘mixed use’ ‘spaces’ that serve beer and wine and ‘tapas’?
What is an ‘uncompromising’ venue?
A dungeon?
An operating room?
A dominatrix basement?
Merkin Concert Hall?
Could Charles Wuorinen write an ‘alt-classical’ piece?
If u ‘remixed’ some Wuorinen would he ‘sue ur ass’?
for me alt-classical is one way to self-identify the art that i (and others) choose to create outside of the traditional patronage and academy systems.
others see alt-classical as a marketing term used by some to rebrand their weak-kneed, grant supported ‘careers’, and in that i would agree.
i think you are mainly referred to the “east coast” flavor of alt-c which probably is more marketing driven by anne midgette and greg sandow (for obvious reasons).
although i run a similarly named website i don’t claim any ownership of the term and “let the market decide”. all i can say is if you go by my definition, alt-c has been around quite a long time and can at least be traced back to satie.
One question that comes to mind here as well: can it also be said that there is such a thing as being “uncompromisingly accessible”? From what I’ve seen in the prevailing trends in “new music”, the answer is a definite “yes”. At least in the academic realm, there is almost always a “push” in some aesthetic direction in most university composition departments.
Normally, when we think of this “push”, we think of all the horror stories of student composers at American universities being goaded into becoming “mini-Babbitts”/”combinatorialistas” in the 1960s-1970s. There are still some places that trend in some sort of prickly “avant-garde” aesthetic, but similar academic behavioral trends with different aesthetic end-goals have emerged as well. And the one that seems to be popping up the most as of late is that of the “accessible”.
I don’t think “accessible” is so much a “fad”, at least not anymore than dodecaphony was a “fad”. In my estimation, it is actually gaining the same sort of dogmatic adherence that the traditional “ivory tower” notion did. The main proponents of this aesthetic don’t really see it yet (or don’t wish to openly acknowledge it), but it is happening quite quickly.
This push toward some form of “conformity” is something that just happens in academia, intentionally or not, and it becomes particularly apparent in a field like “new music” where most of the “main players” have spent a fair bit of time in the academic music world in some form or another.
I couldn’t agree with Peter and Matt more: Firstly, composers are now tending towards creating whatever they like and not worrying about its historical context or relevance, . . . and by so doing they are essentially making themselves relevant. Secondly, I think Matt’s opinion that “most of the ‘compromise’ young composers make is in making sure their music sounds ‘uncompromising’” is spot on.
Perhaps the only thing that marks “uncompromising” or “rigorous” music as such is that it values structural consistency (consistent with what? convention? tradition? yeehaa!) and internal aesthetic justification of musical events much more than the way the music actually sounds. I, for one, prefer to listen to music
Standing in a sort of ersatz-awe of how deep and “rigorous” any music is is a personal privilege I tend to extend to music that first, and only first, impresses me with the aural experience it generates.
Tentatively descriptive titles such as “trendy,” “fad,” “Alt-classical,” “Contemporary classical,” “Bandsembles” and so on and on and on are all evidence of a state of flux in music. This is indicative of what we already know, that music, – in all spheres, – continues to evolve. We need temporary names by which to identify movements and thus such tentatively descriptive titles emerge. If you look back through the history of music you will find that the generation which composed music we term “Baroque,” “Classical,” or “Romantic,” etc etc is not usually the generation which named it; generally, it is the next generation which classifies and names a music era. So, I think that you should do as I do, – create whatever you like, title it whatever you like and don’t worry about it, the classification of our music, should we any of us be privileged enough to have it survive, is not up to us, but the generation after us.
IMO most of the ‘compromise’ young composers make is in making sure their music sounds ‘uncompromising’. What’s unique about the ‘alt-classical’ scene is that these composers are no longer forcing their music to sound ‘challenging’ and are rather letting it sound like the music they (we) grew up with: pop. This seems to be the main difference between earlier generations and ours. They added (forced?) pop flavor into their pieces. We are simply allowing it to naturally come out.