Some Weaknesses of Postmodernism
There are many advantages to questioning the idea of “The Other.” Aside
from questions of social and musical diversity, the post modern de-centering of
power and authority broke down quasi fundamentalist Uptown and Downtown
aesthetic encampments that limited musical expression well into the late 70s.
For that alone, postmodern theory has served us all.
It seems, however, that more and more people find postmodern theory a bit worn
out. Foucault’s lectures at Stanford in the late 70s crackled with
avant-guarde excitement. Those in the know knew something big was up. By the mid
80s, it was clear the theories were dissolving ossified stylistic orthodoxies in
Postmodernism had flaws from the beginning (as do all aesthetic theories.) For
one thing, conceptions of “high and low” culture (and music) are not very
descriptive. They are vague, create confusion, and provoke unnecessary
ideological tension.
And worse, by leveling the relationship between high and low music, the very
problematic relationships between commercial and non-commercial culture in
capitalistic economies were largely brushed aside.
Rightly or wrongly, classical musicians (for lack of a better term) asked
themselves, why extol artists like Madonna, Dylan, or Springsteen, who hardly
need the help, while composers like LeBaron, Shatin, Payne, and Oliveros remain
so much less supported? There was often a feeling that “classical” composers
like those I mention were indeed different. The creation, production, and
reception of their music involved an entirely different set of concerns, goals,
and problems. Exercises in leveling the playing field between these musics were
extremely imprecise, and created as many (or more) problems than they solved.
Even though the "high-low" leveling concept eventually became a cannon
of "new" musicology, and much of new music, many "classical"
performers and composers were reluctant to fully accept the ideology. They felt
some of the popular music held up as examples was clearly lacking in musical
substance. If these classical musicians criticized the seeming superficiality of
much pop, they were quickly labeled ignorant, retro snobs, living in insular
worlds.
In reality, these classical musicians welcomed the way postmodernism opened up
new horizons and dissolved the deeply entrenched ideologies within their own
fields, but felt that the leveling "high-low" ideology eroded
essential standards and respect for the musicianship needed for their kind of
music – a music already deeply marginalized.
With better theoretical work, much of this confusion could have been avoided. If
the high-low arguments had also been placed in the context of commercial/non-comercial
music (instead of just high-low), some of the ideological confusion and tension
could have been avoided. We could have examined the artificial privilege of
classical music (in all of its white, classist, maleness,) but also have
acknowledged classical music's special characteristics -- especially as
problematized in market economies.
A less ideological contextualization would have also helped us more precisely
identitify the positive contributions many pop artists brought to their field.
It was ironic how postmodern theory sought to de-center power and authority, but
ended up creating an atmosphere where respect for pop came close to being an
obligatory and absolutist ideology.
By the mid 90s, the ideological standpoints between the supporters and
detractors of the high-low debate became so dualistic, divisive and entrenched
that few dared even address the topic lest they unleash a torrent of harsh
polemic. The ideological divisions began to inhibit exploration and creative
thought. Like serialism in the 70s, the voices became hoarse, repetitious,
entrenched, and boring.
So now, instead of repeating the same tired postmodern ideas, we need to create
new, more differentiated, more workable, and less ideological concepts that will
continue to help us better understand the extremely complex relationships
between high and low culture.
I very much appreciate the way postmodernism has opened up new horizons and
weakened aesthetic encampments in classical new music, but I also sympathize
with the classical musicians who feel an excessive ideology of aesthetic
leveling demeans their achievements, which are so long and hard to learn. In
some cases, postmodernism has even served to increasingly marginalize classical
music.
William Osborne
William@osborne-conant.org
http://www.osborne-conant.org
P.S. On the other hand, many Europeans could still learn much from postmodern
theory. In