Let me preface this by saying I do not in any way believe that classical music is dead. Just because something is not wildly popular does not mean that it is dead. Also, I use the term 'classical' in this article to mean 'serious concert music'. This article could also be taken out of context as nothing but a dissertation on why the music of the past was 'better', which I do not believe. That being said, why is classical music not as popular as it was in the beginning of the 1900's? Something changed, and we only have a couple of choices.
Did the musicians change? Are we just generally more interested in writing pop and rock music now? Some would say yes, but I would say they need to take a closer look at what is being made now. There is still great 'classical' music being made, from the likes of Philip Glass, Arvo Part, and many others. Why are neither of these brilliant composers as popular as Liszt was in his time? Do musicians just pander to what will sell? Of course. It has happened throughout all of western music history. But in the past, they were ripping off classical composers, and trying to write in that style, because that made money, which brings us to the next option.
Did the audience change? There are plenty of people who would say that this is the case. There are also plenty of people who would say that the Apollo moon landing was staged; doesn't make it true. The more I live (and I've spent precious little time living as of now), the more I came to the same conclusion as the writer of Ecclesiastes: There is nothing new under the sun. The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. Circumstances change, humans don't. What, then, were the circumstances that brought about such a radical change in what music was popular? What happened in the early 1900's to bring such a drastic stylistic switch?
You guessed it. As soon as music turned into a wave form, and the 'listening experience' turned into the best reproduction of that wave form, music had to adapt. The whole history of music leading up to that point had been completely without consideration of what would sound best when recorded. Thus alterations began. Electrical instruments were introduced, which could be more accurately replicated on album, being electrical to begin with. Then, when classical music lovers tried to utilize the exciting new possibilities of recordings, it was always a compromise. The recording was always meant to sound as little like a recording as possible, whereas the new music turned gradually more and more towards the album being the final product, and then trying to replicate that sound onstage. Basically, the exact opposite.
So, in light of this, lets analyze where we are now. Orchestral music today is largely represented in movie music, which, while sometimes being utilized outstandingly (I am a huge fan of movie scores), is also to blame for offering the world some of the lamest, simplest and most childish orchestrations from a classical mindset. But, in order to make an impression on a wave form, composers like to create huge orchestral jabs, and adrenaline pumping rhythms that seem almost childish when analyzed musically. But this is often required to make the recording sound big and exciting.
I think recordings might be the very hardest on the piano. How many times have you heard the complaint about a recorded classical piano piece "When I turn it up loud enough to hear the quiet parts, the loud parts hurt my ears"? It's true. Recordings just can't do justice to either the quietest pianissimo or the most majestic fortissimo. It is impossible, and this is probably just as true with all orchestral instruments invented before the recording age. Piano is just nearest and dearest to me.
Well then, what to do. I know this whole articles has seemed a little snobbish, looking down on modern music, and it is not meant to do that at all. I love film music. I love good, popular music. I love the electric guitar. I also love my recordings of great classical music performances, which would have been lost had it not been for recording technology. Humans, and music, have benefited hugely from recording technology. However, my advice is, well, first of all never compare classical and popular music. But second, if you feel you have to make the comparison, do so for each of them in their optimized environment. Whether that means the stage or the album for popular music is up to you, but I certainly believe that classical music can be far better judged where it was meant to be: the concert hall.
-Colin Thomson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good post. I'm not sure I entirely buy that as music became something that could be experienced outside of a live context that classical music declined - but I don't buy any of the other explanations I've ever read either.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought - a friend has done quite a bit of work tracing how 'church' music has changed throughout the years. How simple chants turned into more complex chants - with counter-melodies, and different parts, etc. - eventually you get the choral music of, I don't know, the 1600-1800's.
the words are the same throughout, but the music gets more complicated, and changes.
Pop music, however, is generally much simpler than classical music. There are less instruments involved, etc. So it's sort of like maybe we've started the process over again with something that's 'simple' and slowly things will get more and more complex.