Why is modern music SO UNPOPULAR?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 май 2024
- Thank you to all my viewers who submitted questions for this video. It was filmed on May 27th, 2024.
==
HELP KEEP THIS CHANNEL GOING!
One-time donations:
www.samuelandreyev.com/donate
Patreon:
/ samuelandreyev
PRIVATE LESSONS IN COMPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Contact me via samuel.andreyev (at) gmail (dot) com
NEW DOUBLE VINYL ALBUM JUST RELEASED!!
Order yours today: divineartrecords.com/recordin...
LINKS
Website: www.samuelandreyev.com
Twitter: / samuelandreyev
THE SAMUEL ANDREYEV PODCAST
On Buzzsprout: www.buzzsprout.com/266909
On Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0MYQHsG...
On iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast... 
Видеоклипы
I'd like to predict that 100+ years from now: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, DaVinci, Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, Escher, etc. will still be respected
Yup. And none of these contemporary hacks.
In no way was Escher in the same class as those other artists. He knew a few tricks, that is all. He might be remembered and even respected, but he is not all that.
@@theosalvucci8683 Actually, in some way Escher was the Bach of visual art. In a BIG way. I know a lot about Escher because I, myself, have been designing optical illusions for over 30 years. I may actually be the _living_ MC Eshcer. I was even born in the same year that he died. It's very provocative what you say, however, about Escher not belonging to the great art masters of the past. Because you are right, an optical illusion is just a trick. A trick of perception. But, I think Escher did turn that into a world magic. And it wasn't just a "few" tricks he had, as you claimed. To be accurate, MC Escher is the _definition_ of perspective art. And NO ONE has been able to come close to matching him (except maybe me. And I wouldn't even go that far. I'm more of the Debussy of perspective art. Escher is Bach. There is even that famous non-fiction book, "Escher, Bach, Godel."
In the 1950's and 60's there was a new science of crystallography that was still being developed. Now, _before_ MC Escher became world-famous thru the original Hippy communities he was noticed a decade earlier by the European Scientists because they were informed that he had figured out all of the types of the regular division of the plane (which is the basis of crystallography). And he even had notes or "drawings" for each method. He had figured out the whole thing independently of the Scientific community. When asked to attend a seminar, Escher, during the big dinner that night shocked everyone when they asked him about his formulas for the regular division of the plane. It turned out that he had none. He knew nothing of it at all. And, in fact only had an average understanding of math. Nothing much past algebra. He was a below -verage student in high school even. Yet, he had figured out the entire science of crystallography--visually. Which, independently at least, is something on the level of your Leonardo DaVinci. Escher was the Renaissance Man of his own Renaissance.
BUT, maybe you are right; maybe MC Eshcher's works could be nothing more than high-level exemplary studies in visual perception. It's a question I sometimes ask myself as I have been working on similar art for decades now. (I don't reflect on this much at all because I work round the clock. Almost without stop). Yet, maybe MC Escher's works are actually transcendent. Even ultimatey spiritual. Just like JS Bach, that geeky little counterpointalist sitting around connecting those tiny little dots on the page.
Humbly, yous, _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole_ (And yes, that is the name of my uTube channel). Amen.
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole Look, if you draw like him or are inspired by him, I have no criticisms. In fact, I have no criticisms of what you wrote. I just find his work shallow and gimmicky. Once you go through the agony of a complex perspective drawing like one of a dodecahedron that was mastered by Durer and Piranesi, it is all downhill. But I noticed that Escher's prints work because he broke the laws of perspective in one area, obviously under the influence of Ukiyo-e prints. That this is how those stairways to nowhere seemed to work. To my mind, his prints could have been more mysterious and involving. I'm thinking of an old Art News Annual that I had, which used the collages of Ernst to illustrate a short story by Borges. But I am an artist myself, and I studied perspective as a student. So I have my prejudices. I'll check your channel out.
@@theosalvucci8683 I appreciate it! And also, I'm not necessarily defending MC Escher as art (per se, at least). All I'm saying is that there is a spiritual element to Escher in it's message of duality vs unison. Summety vs. Chaos. I notice d you mentioned Druer, who I'm a huge fan of, and it's kind of sad the he is not recognized, or at least spoken of as a Renaissance Man in relation to Da Vinci, or even science people like Tesla or Victor Schauberger, the water-vortex guy. // I'm also interred by your critique that Escher's prints could have been more mysterious and involving. My whole point of tackling the optical illusion is because I want to revel the true cosmic implications of such art.
Thank you so much for this discussion. I've been ever inspired by it.
_The Acoustic Rabbit Hole_
As a rock musician who studies contemporary composition, I really think you have a point, that both domains need each other. And I am glad that one of our professors shares this point of view and always takes examples of all domains in music
Ditto
As an amateur composer mainly focused on Neo-Baroque-ish fugues and counterpoint, I found your every argument and explanation in this video preciously insightful. Illuminating, even. Elliciting of eye-opening self-reflection while still keeping a firm academic respect for every subject mentioned. Thank you so much.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.
Much of the best music in the "rock" format has not been discovered yet. Witness the Xian Psych genre that has slowly been discovered over the last 20 years. Remeber, a good percentage of the greatest composers in the last 50 years were Christian by choice (as was Stravinsky). There are hundreds of Christian artists now being discovered that were lost. All of it is extremely rare on private press, discovered many years after its release by thrift store crate diggers. Some goes for over $1000 a record now. Not sure if you're aware of the xian psych genre. It's psychedelic Christian music from the 60s to early 70s. It is extremely hot amoung the cogniscenti/hipster crowd. There's a playlist of about 330 songs on youtube in the magmasunburst account. Big money is paid by even non-Christians for these artists that just put out one lp on private press labels. It's because the power of the message shines through and the musicians were usually somewhat trained and sober and this music is just too powerful and people are noticing.
I absolutely loved your response on the question about "personal harmonic language". I was lucky to have an awesome composing teacher tell from the get go "composition itself can't be taught but what can be taught is form." From that point on I understood that composition has nothing to do with chords and motivs but with the storytelling.
Yes, it is very much like storytelling, or going on an adventure. There needs to be a payoff for listening, something that compels the listener to come back and listen again. If there’s a “formula” for composing, this in my view is at its heart.
58-year-old, unemployed guy who loves music, but can't play an instrument, who listened to this video while doing the dishes says:
I absolutely loved this video. Thanks.
vagely similar, agree and feeding the algorithm...
@pkmcburroughs I absolutely loved this comment. thanks for sharing.
Real thoughts back-to-back. "You need to get into a different room" - I've been fearing for this to be true. It's so daunting but I need to hear it. I don't even make music. Your commentary was just that all-encompassing.
I am a printmaker and engraver and a lot of the topics discussed also touch on visual arts and arts in general. Thank you, it was very valuable to listen to.
Question 1: That's why I stopped writing novels; if you don't have an audience you are writing in a vacuum...it's a from of communication and if there is nobody (virtually) being communicated to then a person is writing for their own edification.
Which is no bad thing. After very early success Havergal Brian spent most of a very long life (he was 90-something when he died) writing music that he never expect to hear or be recorded. He did it nonetheless because he had to.
I like the definition that art is art if the artist presents it as such. So it's a declarative thing.
This was fantastic! Thanks for sharing. I really appreciated the bit about taking time to listen to new things while still acknowledging "the goal isn't to listen to everything." Over my life (I'm in late 30s now) I've cultivated a nice cyclical engagement with music. I go through periods where the majority of my listening is stuff I've never heard; other periods where a majority is focused on a very specific composer, set of pieces, or even a single piece (for example, last year I spent 3 months of an hour+ every day listening to, reading about, or studying the music of Robert Ashley); and other periods where the majority of time is "revisiting old favorites." I do a little bit of each of these practices on the regular, but there are definite periods where the focus is on one more than the others. This keeps my engagement with music fresh and consistently immersive. I don't write music as much these days, and when I do its more akin to "doodling" in that going through the act of making music I'm honing my thoughts/feelings/craft and challenging myself, although I do take it more seriously than the word 'doodling' implies and I am proud to share the results and hope it effects those who listen to it.
The absolute inundation of post-Lachemann and post new-complexity works is something that has made me engage less with contemporary "academic" music.
However, I'm still continually impressed by a lot of the music coming out of the Wandelweiser collective. Jurg Frey has been making absolutely incredible music that I find difficult to place in a "tradition," although I can think of some composers that strike me as "similar" in the effect the music has on me.
You had me at the correct and apt use of “phenomenology”. To look to aestheticians to find the source of meaning in beauty was a nice but straightforward explanation. Aesthetics I woefully admit to have overlooked in my philosophy studies, so thank you for opening my eyes
Not in the mood right now - but I am subscribing - looking forward to circling back. I find it interesting that I am passing - but not letting go. Thanks for your work.
Thank you, Samuel. Your insights are fascinating and authentic and I really appreciate your frank delivery. Love the black background, it really helps the listener focus on what you have to say, which in this episode is all very valuable.
Thank you for answering my question about musical material. I needed to hear that! Totally agreed.
Thank you for the interesting question!
Excellent thoughtful answers to all of the questions. Your channel is a beacon for all stranded in these existential situations. For what it's worth, I get a shot of inspiration or adrenaline to reinvigorate my own activity..Thank you
Perhaps you are already familiar, but to me there is nobody who more precisely detailed the phenomenology of the work of art than Martin Heidegger’s essay, ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’. It is for me the most influential text I have ever read and I find perfectly describes the relation to the event of truth that art presents in a manner that goes far beyond the subjective metaphysics of Adorno or Hegel. I am actually currently writing about language and music that attempts to reconcile with the musical implications of this text! On a side-note, I believe I’ll be seeing you in Fontainebleau as a fellow guest-composer this summer :)
Wholesome answers to some very relevant questions. Thank you for this.
Thank you for these insightful perspectives.
Great stuff man !
Great insight, in the way that you approach or discuss each topic - Gaining more perspective
Thank you for taking the time to give such thoughtful answers. clearcut and well informed answers like yours have helped me answer fundamental questions about myself and my music, and getting one step closer to compose with a free mind.
Keep going!!
Don't worry, we will make it popular again.
Amen, brotha! The world resistnace-movement has begun! Robert Edward Grant all the way!
Thanks for another great video. Although my amateur compositional development is slow, you do a good job of pointing out rabbit holes one should avoid going down, which is very helpful. Your advice is also quite useful in many contexts outside of music.
Really enjoyed this!
This was amazing. Thank you.
Great questions, great answers in this video
What a superb video, glad to be a subscriber.
Thank you Sam!
Really a... inspirational video(?)
I keep thinking your answer to those questions, especially with the "attached to one subject" section. As a composer myself, I also find myself entrenched into 1-3 aspects, despite trying to be with more varieties...
Love videos like this because I can watch it multiple times
Fantastic thoughts, thanks
This channel gets better and better. Thank you
Thank you. I’m working hard to improve it.
Thank you, very interesting!
For some reason I was subscribed to this channel but this is the first video I probably saw. It was interesting thank you.
re Q1. Neither the perceiver nor the perceived; the magic is in the meeting. Beauty is in the person-meeting-the-thing.
Thank you! Very good points
Love your videos
Transformations of materials… Brilliant 🤩
When you have the Lost soundtrack resembling Alban Berg, and the Luke scene in the Mandalorian sounding like Bruckner, I think modern music percolates fine into popular culture, it's just a bit behind in the influence. And Bernard Hermann's Vertigo - a huge influence on most film composers - was like fusing Debussy with the Second Viennese School. Movie buffs often recognize Ligeti's or Takemitsu's music. As you point out Bowie (with Low especially) and David Byrne were very experimental with ambient and world influences, as was Bjork and Sonic Youth early on with all their crazy tunings. Jonny greenwood practically lifts Penderecki. Nowadays you have composers into Buchla modular music, Musique concrète tape machine simulations small enough to fit on your desk or in your computer, bands like King Gizzard experimenting with microtonal tuning. Ensemble InterContemporain performances are freely available on youtube, as are Netherlands Bach Society's. Maybe today people listen to pop as background music more, but I think the cross-pollination of serious, formerly "academic" music with popular music persists just fine.
I agree, composers still seep into the culture, it can just take a while.
Perhaps what’s changed is not the appetite for compositional music in the general public, but rather the mode. We’ve exchanged the opera and the ballet score for the film and television score.
Great video.
Thank you.
As to the first question. I'm reminded of what Alan Watts said, "No matter how hard you hit a skinless drum it won't make a sound." Thanks for the great videos!! Also, congratulations on the new baby
Thanks Tyler
I have been an Alan Watts fan since the 1960s. He had many insights.
Thought provoking and stimulating on many levels. The “other room”……. I like it!
Thanks!
Please make a list in descending order of importance / potential impact of music you would recommend to people, if they haven't heard it yet.
You already mentioned three or so, a bigger list would go a long ways.
I'm always on the lookout for music i haven't heard yet, even though I mostly listen to electronic or ambient music. When a producer i follow shares a private playlist of their favorite tunes and inspirations, that's a jackpot day for me.
I could recommend Peter Thoegerson, if you haven't heard of him yet. It's pretty demanding to listen to - polyrhythmic, polymicrotonal...
If a tree falls in a wood with no ear to hear it does it make a sound? No, vibration is only sound to an ear, but a Picasso floating around Jupiter is still a work of art, awaiting an eye.
Yet, if a tree falls on Rauchenberg painting in an empty forrest, does anyone appreciate it?
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole if a tree falls on a deaf man in Jackson does he drop a Pollock?
@@sophiafakevirus-ro8cc Does that mean that Micheal Jackson squats to drop a Pollock?
You should totally see my stuff at _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole,_ friend.
You don't need ears to have vibration present.
@@directcurrent5751 the zen koan is:
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to HEAR it, does it make a SOUND?
No. Because sound is the way we translate vibration.
Humanity wants to believe itself as the ultimate creator. This is a tragedy, because it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the creative process. The creative process is about finding what already exists as potential and placing oneself second to that.
It's my favorite kind of music, not popular because it requires concentration and doesn't pander to lazy listeners.
I do enjoy some contemporary music like Stravinskys Rite of Sping and the
more romantic contemporary of Alban
but Shostacovatch leaves me stressed
I remember Hindemith years ago It was
some sort of opera which I found delightful with humor laced into it One
of the most bizarre piece I heard was a
opera by Shoenberg, all the rules of
composition were thrown out, it was
the most unique music I ever heard
I can't say I loved it, but it was interesting I try to be open to different
forms of composition and novelty is
one aspect
You are a brilliant speaker! A wealth of knowledge and insight carefully regulated, illustrated and presented with clarity and conviction. I remember in the 1970s, having been present with Stockhausen at one of his musical 'performances' (electronic music) he came up with quite a conventional piece for clarinet and piano! So, a spasm of innovation is often followed by a period of consolidation or even retrospection. Perhaps you'll do a demonstration of your process of compositional trajectory? (No pressure!) Perhaps one chordal sketch and one melodic/motivic development - on either macro or micro level.
Interesting show.
I liked the advice to listen each day: 'we've got to open things up to find things'
👏well said
This video is pure gold
Yes one needs to find the direction you truly need to follow and go for it. Find the compass and be true to your deeply felt vision.😊
This is great. Where is your right hand, or do you only use it when conducting?
I listened to some of Samuel Andreev's music on Idagio.
It's good fun.
Finally, someone definitively answered the question of what happens when a tree falls in the forest. Done!
I can identify with much of this. In Conservatory i was a double major, composition and performance. I did really well in the comp department. Got straight A's. Loved theory. Studied a whole lot of modern and avant garde techniques. Submitted scores and actually won a prize once. I was working on another score for a competition when I suddenly stopped and asked myself, my "performer" self...."If this part was put in front of you, would you want to play it?" The answer was no. I asked myself again, my "general" self..."Would you like to listen to this piece, or to attend a life performance"? The answer was still no. I put my pencil down, put the score paper away in a cabinet, and haven't writted a "serious" note since. My ability as a composer simply isn't at the same level as my own personal aesthetic both as a performer or as an educated musician in general. I am lucky enough to have realized this while young enough to secure a position as a Principal player in a reasonably prominent US orchestra. I love what I do, am able to fulfill my desire to express myself in this manner, along with playing chamber music. I haven't missed composing, not for one second. The fact is while pretending to be a composer, I was BSing myself. It's interesting how many people took my BS seriously and thought I was actually kind of good at it. Thanks.
I can't put a note on the page until I understand what I am trying to say. As a player myself also look at a part and ask would I want to and enjoy playing that?
Wisdom came to you in that moment of humility, of honesty.
I share the fascination with non-musicians as well as a fascination with outsider art, because I truly believe there are things we can learn about ourselves and our art by simply observing the approaches taken by people who aren't burdened by knowledge of the "wrong" way to make art.
Great insights!
I do think that currently today there are some cross pollination between electro acoustic music and electronic/lap top artists that are closing the chasm slightly between popular and avant garde.
Congratulations on the two children!
Thanks! #1 is now six years old, #2 is just over two weeks and doing grand.
Your argument is premised on the idea of 'originality' -an obsession, for better, or for worse, of the 20th Century - being the be all end-all of composition. I don't think Bach, Mozart, worried about that so much insofar as they employed the language(s) of their day.
Yes. I agree with your observation.
Great compositions need not be "original" nor "radical" nor "breaking all constraints and rules " and yet be great. I have a feeling that after the apogee of Western classical music during the late romantic era, composers wanted to "break away"from the "traditions" of previous masters. This is not only in music , but in the other arts too. I wonder , perhaps , psychologically there is an inherent fear or distaste of being compared to previous masters in terms of talents and skills ? Hence this running away to radical abstractions and reconceptualization of what exactly is music or even art? I don't know ...I am just wondering if this is so.
Bach and Mozart, for starters, relied on pleasing whatever noble/church to stay relevant and survive.
I'd rather be obsessed than bored to death.
Regarding the last question, I ultimately agree with the answer, but also recognize that the main point asked was dodged.
What you are seeing is the power of previous avant guard ideas projected forward.
“I met Boulez when I was a student”. As a composer, you are perpetually “a student”.
“The question, inexorably, is whether it is good. And this is a decision which only you, on the basis of instinct, experience, and association, can make for yourself. It takes independence and courage. It involves, moreover, the risk of wrong decision and humility, after the passage of time, of recognizing it as such. As we grow and change and learn, our attitudes can change too, and what we once thought obscure or ‘difficult’ can later emerge as coherent and illuminating. Entrenched prejudices, obdurate opinions are as sterile as no opinions at all. Yet standards there are, timeless as the universe itself. And when you have committed yourself to them, you have acquired a passport to that elusive but immutable realm of truth. Keep it with you in the forests of bewilderment. And never be afraid to speak up.” - Marya Mannes
Sam, regarding the questions raised around @4:50, Jandek and Captain Beefheart seem to be two creative people without musical or compositional training who really couldn't technically play much (Beefheart was a decent blues harp player and singer, though he wrote his most compelling work on the piano, which he could not really play), but they none the less were quite expressive and original, forging something artistic despite their limitations. Based on your videos analyzing their work, I assume you agree? Thanks for another great video.
Yeah, I was surprised he didn't bring them up for that question. I think it's because they did seem to have "something to say" instead of just randomly gesticulating.
There is no question in my mind that Stockhausen was a showboater that relished in the intellectualism of modern music and did not care about approachability.
True. Not all art is easy and friendly. So what?
@@samuel_andreyev it gets to the question of What is art. Should it be approachable? Must it be enjoyable? I should have connected my statement to the original presentation better.
The question about traditions is very intriguing, and I like your response, Samuel.
The problem is, many pieces, genres, styles, and even entire periods, that objectively made a big impact on later composers, are often overlooked when talking about "the western musical tradition/canon".
This is especially true for the medieval period.
Like, why nobody talks about plainchant? Why nobody talks about organum? Why nobody talks about the medieval popular dances (ballads, lais, virelais)? These styles are literally the basis for all we do today, in both popular and classical music!
We ought to have more attention to medieval music.
Also, if I understood correctly, you just had a child! Congratulations!
J.S. Bach is your favorite composer’s favorite composer, but who was _his_ favorite composer? 😀
If I had to hasard a guess: in the medieval era, far less emphasis was placed on the particular subjectivity / biography of individual artists. Perhaps in the current form of our culture, we respond less to such things; our predominant model is still the romantic artist-genius. But I think it depends on the context. For instance, in Paris I heard quite a lot about medieval and renaissance music when I was a student there. And the English are crazy about all things medieval.
Great great...
“Since the ground of the limit [the point of engagement between self and thing] lies neither in self nor thing, it lies nowhere; it exists absolutely because it exists and is as it is because that is how it is.”--Friedrich Schelling
“The limit does not exist.” - Cady Heron
bravo
Amazing questions and very insightful answers! Thansk for posting this video. There is one thing that puzzles me though. You said that a piece of art floating in space where no one is looking is not art at all, and has no meaning. So what puzzles me is this: take for example Shostakovich's 4th symphony, which lied in the drawer for 25 years, because Soviet authorities halted its performance. Was it not art while it was in the drawer, and only became art when the authorities finally allowed its performance? Did it become art with its first performance, or was it art all along, just waiting to be discovered?
What current composers do you think escape the compulsion to bite the styles of the mid to late 20th century? Is there even a way to do that without going further back for inspiration? Also, Congratulations!
From my perspective: I heard so much modern classical music in my teens and twenties and somehow it was all serial music or at least very calculated and cold. It put me off modern music for over a decade, but through RUclips and blogs I’ve discovered that for one, modern, modern music seems to be much better than schönberg et al, or at least much more emotionally resonant to me, and for another (?) so much modern music isn’t played well, because too many orchestras and ensembles won’t put in more time to rehearse it than they put in a standard repertoire piece with standard techniques and form. Forget about all the novel techniques and blends you won’t master; you can’t hope as a musician to achieve any sort of emotional connection to a piece with one to three rehearsals. And if you don’t feel anything how the hell are you supposed to move your audience to feel anything?
Totally
excelent ¡¡
No answer is givento the question.
Alfred Wallis, the 'naïve' Cornish artist comes straight to mind on your second question. Interesting things about him - 1, He was so influential. 2, He had zero self promotion.
17:25 asks the question in the clickbait title. This definition of "modern music" is music after 1890 composed for concerts using classical instruments and classically trained singers. That's definitionally unpopular. It's so unpopular that most people haven't heard of it and haven't heard it, unless it's used in the soundtrack of a movie, and don't like it when they do hear it. For instance, that out of tune choir noise that makes 2001: A Space Odyssey such a horror movie? That's "modern music." The reason Samuel Andreyev talks so much about "modern art" in this video, leading into that question about "modern music" is that it's the same thing, except one is "paintings" that no one likes that are just like a canvas filled up with one color or random drips of paint, or sculptures that are literally just old manufactured urinals, and the other is the equivalent of that but in a musical composition for classical instruments or voice.
With absolutely no qualifications on the matter, I’d like to weigh in on Andreyev’s (I think valid) observation/contention of the artistic “fertility in the air“ of our culture from the 50s to the 90s. Post-WWII, you had a period of demonstrable rapid growth in material prosperity and the “middle classes”. Nations and (some) corporations were looking for a way to prevent the recurrence of another world war, and globally linked economic growth seemed to be the way to guarantee it; ie, get economics to do what politics had failed at.
This turned a blind eye to the fact that many of the largest corporations were involved in arms manufacturing and trading, thus requiring “the forever wars”. It also failed to account for free trade agreements, deregulated global financial markets and digital technology. But, hey, logic, transparency and forethought were never cardinal virtues of this system.
The paradigm here was undergirded by technological development, which in turn was based on scientific materialism. These were tied in our cultural imagination to a powerful progress narrative, and to liberal democracy, so that there emerged a pervasive belief that the West now had a reliable recipe for what Fukuyama came to term the “end of history“.
Except that in the mid-70s, probably beginning with the oil crisis, the elites got gnarly and wanted “their” money back. Neoliberalism gained ascendancy as an ideology and practice, and the “wealth pump” (Turchin’s cliodynamics research) got switched on, resulting in widening inequality and the inevitable death of the middle class. And, as you allude to, there was a concomitant demise in the arts.
In my country, Australia, virtually all arts programs not overtly in the service of corporate interests had the life squeezed out of them - a process which continues to this day.
I think calling this current period “a bit of a sleeper stage” probably underestimates the depth of the dilemma/s we face. Capitalist modernity instantiates increasingly abstracted and disembodied ways of thinking and acting, resulting in collective dissociation and the withering of direct experience in our relations with the world. Which can be seen everywhere, including post-modern art.
I’d go more for Jonathan Rowson’s characterisation of this as a metacrisis: “the historically specific threat to truth, goodness and beauty… arising from the spiritual and material exhaustion of modernity that…manifests institutionally and culturally to the detriment of life on earth”.
This is an evolutionary bottleneck, a time of reckoning. Our whole culture and way of living needs reinvention and re-embodiment within an animate world.
You could say some true “fertility” is desperately needed.
SA: I prefer not to let comments get under my skin. Just let it roll off and know you've exposed something that may make a mind more open - in time. Thanks for all your posted efforts.
Thank you Samuel, you have created a beautiful video with perceptive and intelligent responses to the questions posed. I like how you get to heart of things by asking the right questions.
Interesting. I just discovered your channel and will be watching more. I have many opinions@
this was a very thoughtful and insightful lecture. Given your knowledge of art, I wonder what period of poetry or poets you admire.
Dante was a pretty decent poet
I think the question of originality in contemporary music is interesting. I think the comparative lack of originality compared to the 20th century is observable in most artistic fields. There's always originality on a smaller scale but even in pop music, I'd say that the 80s and early 90s were probably the last time where something truly new and revolutionary happened with the rise of electronic music (which is of course much much older) and hip hop. Popular music today sounds very different from the stuff that was happening in those days but there haven't been any seismic shifts since then, more just minor changes and a diversification of subgenres. Part of the reason is technology: both electronic music and hip hop were the result of new technological possibilities hitting the mainstream. There has been no radically new technology since then that allowed us to create entirely new sounds that have never been heard before, just a sophistication of the technology we already had.
But of course it's not just technology, especially not in other artistic fields that are less dependent on it. I think there were points in the history of 20th century art, literature and art music where it felt like everything, at least on a formal level, had already been explored. Basically people asking themselves: where do we go from here?
Take art for instance: after many great artists had explored the possibilities of abstractionism in all its myriad forms from monochrome paintings and simple geometric patterns to abstract expressionism and maximalist approaches, how could you go further than that and come up with something radically new? I love the abstract work by Gerhard Richter for example and they're certainly original in the sense that you can't confuse his work with the work of other artists but compared to the radical newness of the first abstract artists, it's not really that revolutionary. I think that's part of the reason why so many artists in the 20th century started to explore representational forms of art again, it probably felt like you could do more original things in that field by incorporating some of the lessons of the avantgarde.
Literature is another good example. I would say that with the complete dissolution of language by the dadaists, the experiments of concrete poetry and the multilingual and multidimensional language of Finnegans Wake, a point was reached very early on in the 20th century that kind of set the limit of how far you can go in literature. I certainly am not aware of any literary work since then that comes even close to the mindbending experiments in Finnegans Wake or the complete destruction of ordinary language by the dadaists. Maybe the experiments of the Oulipo group, but that's about it. There have been attempts to exploit the possibilities of the internet to create nonlinear works of literature but those are still pretty conventional compared to the stuff Joyce and Kurt Schwitters were up to decades before.
I think that's why the avantgarde and the experimental have been less dominant in literature than in other artistic fields: there was simply no way to go further than the most radical experimentalists. There was a return to more conventional forms with some modern twists. Or at least a more mild form of experimentalism like in the works of people like Pynchon, Thomas Bernhard or Nabokov. If the avantgarde view that was so dominant in art music for so long had been as influential in literary circles pretty much every writer after James Joyce would be considered reactionary.
I would argue that you have the same issue in contemporary music. I mean really, after the experiments of serialism, electronic music, aleatoric music, spectralism, microtonality, new complexity, etc. how much further can you go? For some reason the avantgarde discourse remained much more dominant in music than in literature or the visual arts. And this avantgarde discourse still seems to be fundamentally modernist in my opinion, postmodern approaches never seemed to take off in art music with a few exceptions like Schnittke's polystylism.
There doesn't seem to be anything similar to pop art or the eclecticism of postmodern literature in contemporary music. Where's atonal dance music, that's what I want to know. As much as I love contemporary music and avantgarde experiments, I just think it's an illusion to expect something fundamentally new coming from these directions. It's all been explored to death for decades and decades.
When I talk to people in the contemporary music scene, I still hear arguments and approaches that seem utterly antiquated to me, like the idea of shocking audiences with new sounds (where are these new sounds? where are the audiences that can still be shocked?) or even more ludicrous: the downright Platonian idea of waking people from their bourgeois slumber of complacency or the oldschool 60s Adorno-inspired ideas about music having to avoid being incorporated into the capitalist mechanisms of the cultural industry (at least that's what I hear from people in Germany, I don't think Adorno is as popular elsewhere). It seems to me like these views and approaches have calcified at some point and people continue chasing some modernist dream of the new avantgarde sound that will change everything. I don't think that's very productive.
The trick to music and art will be to find those we resonate with. Bigs changes are happening that I think are moving us towards a new Dark Ages. 2 major art schools closed that ruled the local artworld in Phila. For 100 years. Tenured professors are being asked to take early retirement. Spotify made it more difficult for indies to be found. But artists will keep producing because they can't help it.
This man is a Godsend bro
I found these questions intriguing, and your way of approaching them extremely clear and hit the real crux of the matter dead-on, time and time again. You are clearly a very thoughtful, experienced and intelligent person, and the composing community is lucky to have someone of your talent standing up and addressing important matters such as these. Thanks for the questions, and for the great answers.
By the way, the last question had me thinking about Bobby Fischer in the chess world. He did NOT, (as I understand,) make more than a very bare-bones effort to put in the effort to create vibrant social networks amongst the important characters within chess. He just didn't have the personality for that (by and large.) But he was such an overwhelming talent that that alone drew people to him, and many of his fans helped with that side of his career. But folks like him come up once a generation, if that. If you're not the Bobby Fischer of the composition world, you need, like Samuel said here, to put in the hard yards, nurture those important relationships and communities - whilst working hard on your education and your craft - to do well as a composer in this (or, as Samuel rightly reminded us,) any generation.
Every so often there is a talent so transcendental that the music world sits up and takes notice, but this is extraordinarily rare, and just as often, such individuals remain unnoticed because they do not have adequate social support in place; the moral being, don’t bet on it.
You have a lot of really great points in this video. I’ve theorized that a contribution to a lot of modern music being so bland also comes from how accessible music is nowadays. You can listen to almost anything, anytime, anywhere for free. Music has less value based on a supply and demand basis when compared to the rest of human history. It almost seems like there is an over saturation of blandness that lacks any musicality. Along with the lack of having anything important to say at all. Now mix in social media which encourages shorter attention spans and dopamine highs, I speculate most artists are in it for the wrong reasons
Musicologist here! So in the furst place, i find really funny that this is an actual discussed topic. Its true that what we perceive as "modern (academic) music" is somehow dead. But this doesnt mean at all that the study, experimentation and expansion of the creativity of the form is dead. So, what is actually dead are the institutions that traditionally used to hold what we assume is academic. But in the last 30 years we have been experiencing an amazong expansion of what we think is music. And it wasnt played or composed by what we usually understand as "composers" (this is also very funny, because we dont recognize everyone that creates music with a creative pupouse as composers; but whatever). The really creative music is being made by electronic music artists, is being made by what we know as producers in most of the cases. One good example of this could be Aphex Twin. He is probably one of the most important electronic musicians of our era, and he has some extraordinary weird and experimental music. But he also has millions of listeners, so he is recognized by people, which only means that: new music is done, it can reflect what our reality is now, and people enjoy it. The answer made on this video is just a very old-fashioned and classistic way of understanding music. Why wouldnt Aphex Twin be considered as a composer? Well, there are many reasons: he does not use conventional scoring, nor conventuonal composition rules and materials. And he does not belong in the academic space (he mostly started to develop in the club scenes; which is a space that still is seen as just "popular). So, what i mean is that the problem most of nowadays "composers", are comoletely out of the real and actual music world and the spaces were it is being made. They still try to find a new way of expanding western theory, and completely ignoring what the innovations of the music craft are right now. I get your point, and in some point it looked like you were just going to reach to this idea, but i think you guys in the academia are stucked in it. Discover, open your mind, and feel free to call everyone a composer! Haha
“Classistic”
@@TTFMjock im spanish man cmonn hahaha
If Aphex Twin wrote the exact same music for film, he'd then be labelled as a "film composer", so I feel like these terms are more musically suggestive rather than definitionally specific. Being formally educated in orchestral composition is implied, but it's by no means a requirement (Come at me, Composer Police, LOL). You could also argue that there's not a huge difference between what the experimental electronic non-classical writers/composers are creating, and that of the early electronic academic composers.
I've also come to believe that the problem with contemporary classical isn't necessarily the music, but that it's being presented to the wrong audience. People who go see a Beethoven symphony usually don't want to hear the contemporary stuff, but those who listen to the more experimental fringes of non-classical might be interested if presented in a different way. Merzbow probably has more of an audience than the average composer. And I also doubt that a lot of Kubrick fans realize how much Ligeti they've actually listened to and haven't minded.
I was surprised with question #2 (which i thought you gave an excellent answer) that you didn't mention Jandek of which i know you find fascinating?
In an interview, I believe Burt Bacharach replied to a question as to why he didn't focus on 'serious' composition by deciding that he had to choose between struggling to get his works played and obtaining commissions; which probably meant struggling financially by his standards ... and ... living the life he wanted for himself. He characterized the situation by commenting that he enjoyed his fresh orange juice every morning. Popular music was the better pathway to that. So I suppose as an artist you have to prioritize your wants and desires and make the appropriate call for yourself. Enjoyed your well considered analysis and responses.
Beyond his preference for comfort It's obvious when you know Bacharach that he was too sentimental, too much a 'lover', to stay in pure abstract or spiritual forms. There was no place for the typical expressions of love and straightforward sentiments in modern music. And I reckon it's one of the causes of Bernstein's relative sterility as a composer.
@@cyberprimate Well. I think in part the decision was based on his own assessment of the chances of standing out against the rarified strata of serious composers. I agree he was a romantic, but he really had a drive to succeed and knew where he could. That being said, I'd kiss the ground for the kind of talent it took to compose something like 'Alfie' which I believe is a masterpiece of the songwriter's art.
Please run for president
Donate to my campaign here: www.patreon.com/samuelandreyev
My music is in the category of that painting you talked about going around Mars and Jupiter. It has about as much life as Mars and Jupiter.
As for why contemporary music is unpopular, and I know you don't mean contemporary pop music, I feel it's because it is in constant conflict with physics and acoustics... The desire to come up with an alternative to tonality has led down some deep rabbit holes, hasn't it? Every composer having to compete with physics is just too much. And I trace this all the way back to equal temperament, which in itself is an argument with acoustics. New subscriber here, and I'm going to keep with it! I retired from college music theory teaching in 2017 but I'm not dead yet :)
Welcome!
What strikes me in the observation of a current deficit of outstanding works is that in the 70s or 80s it used to be the opponents of modernity who said that. Now that slight bitterness exists in both camps. I heard someone like Beffa say a similar thing, that we're in a less exciting, transitory period, like at the end of the baroque era. What could be the weak signals of the next cultural paradigm?
❤
You are fast :-)
Because like modern art and literature it's written to impress their fellows, not to delight or edify the general public.
The general public is not at all uniform.
Question 3: This is an interesting response....it could be that just about everything has been tried and that the focus should not be on novelty but some kind of creative synthesis...the historical model of musical development as linear is not something I ascribe to...in all other areas of thought, political developments, environmental cycles...shows that the past repeats itself and eventually what goes around comes around. It could be that where modernism left us and the avant garde experiments of the 1950's through 1990 was actually a dead end....because it had picked music apart into very singular and fragmented fixations, such as timbre. Sometimes the way forward requires some connection to where we have been.
The topics raised are bloody complicated. But you do an amazing job on answering them. I sit here wanting to type something, but a counter argument appears in my head. The best I can do is explain me. I'm an unsuccessful musician making music that has something of Robert Wyatt about it. I'm 63 and believe if I have any success it comes from the fact that I'm unsuccessful, in the classic meaning, I don't have to do music for anyone except myself. Am I happy with this? Sort of... Is the best I can do. Sometimes yes sometimes no. I feel the subject we are talking about here, is very philosophical, and has no real answers. What does annoy me is when people make sweeping statements about things like success etc.... I could go on but wont as I'm a bit too lazy to type this. All the best David
Sir, your justification of the answer in the first question is really advocating for the eye of the beholder option… you are literally saying it: the inert piece of art is not doing anything per se until the cycle of communication closes with an eye that poses on it.
Art is made to be observed. Creation and observation go hand in hand. The first observer is always the artist.