Aesthetic Orthodoxy In New Music
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
One might ask why the new music scene, especially in NYC, ended up so
strongly divided into ideological encampments?
Was part of the problem our conception of the “new music concert?” For at
least four decades, the publics for new music were often comprised largely of
composers and specialized “new music performers” seemingly suffering from
forms deafness created by their aesthetic ideologies. The aficionados were
literally unable to hear music outside of their encampment, because they refused
to genuinely listen. A good example was the BMI Awards starting in the 60s and
going well into the 80s. For the most part, they might as well have said that
composers writing something other than New York Bebop Serialism need not apply.
In the last ten years, new music and its publics have become a little more
diverse. Post-modernism’s analysis of how power is allocated made the sources
and weaknesses of aesthetic orthodoxy more apparent. But the old totalizing
habits of mind remain. Ironically, deconstruction now seems to be moving toward
becoming the latest all-encompassing ideology. One example might be the almost
faddish incorporation of elements of pop into “classical” new music
concerts. It is almost an obligation in some circles – a hip jeering at power
that has ironically become the new center of power. Composers who might question
such a reliance on pop are ironically seen as part of the “opposing camp.”
And, of course, we are to forget that pop is the essence of the corporate music
business, and one of the largest manifestations of cultural isomorphism in the
history of humanity. Once again, a kind of cultural and social deafness is
setting in.
When I lived in
An extraordinary atmosphere of cronyism evolved. Careerist composers hardly
considered wider publics, and instead sought to write music that would
consolidate their position within a specific collective of composers who shared
their style. This cronyism inevitably led to aesthetics that became ever more
rarified and socially alienated. At least two or three generations of composers
almost openly accepted a sort of quid-pro-quo form of careerism that seemed to
slowly kill critical thought or dissent within the ranks. This seemed to
contribute toward an enormous loss in professional standards. The “objective
subjectivity” Frank mentions was often completely lost. The standard became,
you scratch my back and I will scratch yours so we can strengthen our power
base. As a result, the Up- and Downtowners often tried to colonize institutions
where they could get a foothold. Many of our better-known schools and journals
are still shaped by this history. It is one thing to try to create a school of
thought, but another when it becomes totalizing and careerist.
Another aspect of cronyism was created by the poor funding of the arts in the
USA. We ended up with only a small number of cities that significantly supported
new music (essentially only Manhattan) with the result that a large number of
composers were concentrated in small areas. This seems to have become a breeding
ground for rarified orthodoxy and cronyism.
In a similar way, cronyism in new music was further compounded by America’s
educational class system. A few very expensive, elite schools became the
arbiters of taste and jealously held the reins of power in new music. Differing
views, and especially dissent, were seldom tolerated.
Are cronyism and a loss of critical dissent still a problem? If so, what are the
solutions? I know some of the usual approaches. Juries are rotated, but often
among the same set of narrowly defined peers. And there has been an attempt to
widen our appreciation of musical styles. The Pulitzers might include a jazz
person now, but how much has that changed the tinge of cronyism that seems to
color the prize? Our schools have become less shaped by aesthetic orthodoxies,
but there are several very famous and powerful schools where quasi-totalizing
philosophies still seem to be practiced.
I wonder if some organization like the AMC or a university might host a
symposium addressing the problems of subjectivity and objectivity in new music,
and with a specific focus on how to analyze and deconstruct some of the
totalizing aesthetics and cronyism that have shaped our recent musical history.
It’s almost as if it is an embarrassing topic we do not want to mention.
William Osborne
www.osborne-conant.org
Wednesday, May 10, 2006, 9:37:07 AM