When it comes to music theory, what do
you think of? What is the first thing that comes to mind? Are you
thinking: ugggghhhhh I hate
theory?
Or perhaps worse: oh,
theory was my favorite subject!
Well, what about subject matter? Perhaps roman numerals, voice
leading, chord spellings and different pitchoretical treatments?
(Yeah, made up word there.)
Looking back throughout music history,
compositional “Innovation” (with a capital “I”) seems to
have, in some capacity, either consisted of harmonic, architectural,
or aesthetic expansion. After all, isn't that what defines the
different musical periods – groupings of artistic aesthetic?
Rebelling against the boundaries of traditional “forms”, playing
with convention, and searching for “new sounds”?
Yes, okay, there have also been technical improvements made to
instrument fabrication, the Mannheim school and all that – but what
about the rest of music? What about rhythm, gesture, orchestration,
technological integration, and correlation to culture? Where are the
accounts of these elements of music? Why are these accounts not
integrated into theory curricula?
Why
are students still
doing 17th
century four-part harmony and realizing figured bass? Why
aren't they analyzing rhythmic development in rap? Why aren't they
analyzing the popular music of today? Is it because it's not “good”
or “real” music? On Soundcloud, Bonobo put up a track five days
ago, and it already has more than 65,000 plays. I wonder if even the
venerable Beethoven gets 65,000 performances / plays in a week.
The larger point here is this: categorically throughout history,
musicians have studied the current music of their culture and of
those that came before them – both to learn from what was
successful and in some cases not so successful (sorry Telemann.)
Over time, the volume of created music on which to gaze lustily has
ballooned to such an egregious size, it's almost silly to try and
keep up. Meanwhile, the amount of current, popular music of our time
being analyzed is inversely proportionate to the amount of music
we've had our heads stuck in from 1500-1975.
Now, we (the “learned” ones) have sort of entered this myopic,
rarefied existence. We've self-appointed ourselves as the harbingers
of “true” musical culture – writing the “real” music,
performing the “real” music, analyzing the “real” music.
While we knights forge onward with our quest, music educators can't
find jobs. Their programs and budgets are being cut, orchestras are
disintegrating before our eyes, performers are working at coffee
shops during the day and dreaming at night, and composers are
clamoring, dancing like marionettes, pleading to be programmed on
concerts.
Composers
need to enter
competitions, residencies, music festivals, commissions,
collaborations, and get lots
of
performances. Why? To legitimize themselves to show others that we
know what we're talking about. (So wait, what's the degree for?)
But again, why
would someone pursue all of this just
to
meet the status quo? So that we can get a university job and
perpetuate this rarefied environment we've evolved into?
Yeah yeah,
okay, I get the rant. Where are you going with this?
Well, I suppose the crux of all my questions is this: What are we
really doing with ourselves?
The culture now is different than 1832.
A
composer can't make a living just writing string quartets because no
one has anything better to do except play string quartets. Less and
less and less people are attending “classical” music concerts.
Is music dying? How many people do you suppose attend Bruno Mars
concerts? 30-40,000 a concert? Again, I have to ask, is music
really
dying or has the culture just changed?
There was a time when composers were seen as Innovators (there's that
capital “I” again) being years, decades ahead of their time. Is
it possible that over the last century we've been so happy patting
ourselves on the backs that we've missed the fact that it's 2014?
Surely
there are worthwhile things being written today by people we don't
respect. Yes, we can all rant about how much we don't like a certain
pop star or any other successful musician, (after all, they haven't
put in the real work like we
have) but at the very least, they're doing something
that I'm not. After all, there's a reason why they're rich and going
on tour and I'm just trying to connect ends.
Perhaps
instead of looking at Bach to be the be-all-end-all of perfect
voice-leading, we can think of Bach as being the best for
his time period.
Is it possible that voice-leading techniques are different now? Is
it possible that harmonic treatment, architectural forms, and
ensembles have changed? And after all, just what about the inclusion
of electronic components!?
Wasn't it Beethoven himself that said, “the barriers are not
erected which can say to aspiring talents and industry, 'Thus far and
no farther.'”
When did we decide were were done learning? When did we decide we
knew how music should be, what “real” music was?
It is important to ask questions. We cannot be aware of ourselves
without them. More importantly, neither can we be aware of our
future.
