Budget Records
One of the main reason why I'd even joined myspace.com was due to an active group that discuss about Steve Reich's music (which sadly I'd yet to participate, since there's this unreasonable rule of preventing people to post in forums for 7 days after joining myspace.com). Being mildly addicted to message boards/ forums of any kind, I was recently seeking high and low in the cybernet, looking to take part in intelligent discussions on contemporary classical music. However, most of the results from google search churn up with classical music forums that rarely touch on 20th century music; and even for those which do, they don't really embrace the multitude of music that came out in the twentieth century, like neo-classicalism, serialism, atonal, polytonal and minimalism music. The discussion on 20th century music in those forums, to my dismay, are concentrated most exclusively on the late-romantics like the music from Mahler and Rachmaninoff. One thing is constant in all the forums though: the composers from the much earlier era are held in much higher regards than the more recent times.
While I do think that the masters from the romantic and baroque era have really set the groundwork for music as a language we could associate with today, I'm concerned with how people are resistance to the styles that have evolved through time. If the whole classical genre is seen only as music based on those era, isn't it sending a strong signal that classical music, unlike music that's accessible to us these days (pop or otherwise), is unchanging and inflexible?
It's in my opinion that there's a misconception stating that people prefer classical music to distinguish themselves as individual with "high class" taste, as opposed to the average radio listeners. This misconception should've easily proliferated especially amongst those who doesn't listen to classical music. However the 20th century, as opposed to the previous centuries, seen a diminishing importance of the stratification system. In fact, in most part of the world, class was totally threw up, and replaced sadly with other denominations that I shall not touch in this case. Anyway, the diminished class status importance, also created a whole generation which is intolerable to anything deem different or elite. Just think about it, would you consider a person a snob, just because he/she prefer to go to opera instead of movie theater; or one who prefer to go to a orchestra performance instead of a 'live' Brittney Spears performance?
Is classical music for elitist snobs then? I really think not. The impression of this class thing is really a misconception, for music is music afterall. The misconception could primarily also be traced to the impression of the inflexible artform, for if an artform is an ever changing and adaptable one, one would definitely not attribute it as "high-class". For instance, while still life paintings, like Van-Gogh is considered high-class, the more famous Campbell Soup Can painting by Andy Worhol isn't; while the abstract surrealistic art of Picasso is considered high-class, the work of Lichtenstein isn't. So, if people were to understand the contemporary music as one which is changing with times, and challenging the concept of music as an artform, like how Warhol and Lichtenstein challenges the visual artform, this misconception of "high-class" music would definitely be removed.
However, there's a problem here. Why are people more familiar with works by the masters from the earlier centuries, than the composers of the twentieth century? For one, historical figures that are signficant in setting landmarks would always be more celebrated than any other figures seen in recent times. For instance, most people will know about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln when one talks about the presidents of the United States of America. How many then would remember Reagan, Carter, Roosevelt and Hoover? Hence, it make sense that people know about geniuses like Amadeus and Ludwig, instead of Dmitri Shostakovich or Philip Glass.
The other culprit, sadly, is budget records. A friend of mine mentioned to me a fortnight ago that record companies are killing classical music by releasing records at bargain prices. For example, more and more compilations of the greats are sold at 2 for 1 disc price. So, for a shopper who have no concrete idea of what he/she wants to get, given a choice of getting a contemporary CD or a bargain price CD of a great, the choice would logically be on the latter. It's makes all kind of economical sense. However, it also means, sadly, that the people are still not exposed to contemporary music, and hence enhancing the image of inflexible classical music.
I do doubt that this situation would improve much, since even as I'm typing this, EMI just announced an new release of 25 Encore edition CDs at bargain price. I think any attempt of proposing a solution here would most likely fall short. However, I do have the following recommendation to make.
For me, contemporary music is just as inaccessible a fortnight ago. However, the wondrous of the net provide some interesting internet radio that play solely on contemporary-classical pieces. One of such station, which I tune in everything I get broadband access, is Contemporary-Classical station. That's where I got exposed to serialism music from Berg, Webern and Shoenberg, neo-classical works of Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Britten, the eastern-influence of Tan Dun and Tekemitsu, as well as minimalism works of Glass, Riley and Reich. Best of all, it's free!
While I do think that the masters from the romantic and baroque era have really set the groundwork for music as a language we could associate with today, I'm concerned with how people are resistance to the styles that have evolved through time. If the whole classical genre is seen only as music based on those era, isn't it sending a strong signal that classical music, unlike music that's accessible to us these days (pop or otherwise), is unchanging and inflexible?
It's in my opinion that there's a misconception stating that people prefer classical music to distinguish themselves as individual with "high class" taste, as opposed to the average radio listeners. This misconception should've easily proliferated especially amongst those who doesn't listen to classical music. However the 20th century, as opposed to the previous centuries, seen a diminishing importance of the stratification system. In fact, in most part of the world, class was totally threw up, and replaced sadly with other denominations that I shall not touch in this case. Anyway, the diminished class status importance, also created a whole generation which is intolerable to anything deem different or elite. Just think about it, would you consider a person a snob, just because he/she prefer to go to opera instead of movie theater; or one who prefer to go to a orchestra performance instead of a 'live' Brittney Spears performance?
Is classical music for elitist snobs then? I really think not. The impression of this class thing is really a misconception, for music is music afterall. The misconception could primarily also be traced to the impression of the inflexible artform, for if an artform is an ever changing and adaptable one, one would definitely not attribute it as "high-class". For instance, while still life paintings, like Van-Gogh is considered high-class, the more famous Campbell Soup Can painting by Andy Worhol isn't; while the abstract surrealistic art of Picasso is considered high-class, the work of Lichtenstein isn't. So, if people were to understand the contemporary music as one which is changing with times, and challenging the concept of music as an artform, like how Warhol and Lichtenstein challenges the visual artform, this misconception of "high-class" music would definitely be removed.
However, there's a problem here. Why are people more familiar with works by the masters from the earlier centuries, than the composers of the twentieth century? For one, historical figures that are signficant in setting landmarks would always be more celebrated than any other figures seen in recent times. For instance, most people will know about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln when one talks about the presidents of the United States of America. How many then would remember Reagan, Carter, Roosevelt and Hoover? Hence, it make sense that people know about geniuses like Amadeus and Ludwig, instead of Dmitri Shostakovich or Philip Glass.
The other culprit, sadly, is budget records. A friend of mine mentioned to me a fortnight ago that record companies are killing classical music by releasing records at bargain prices. For example, more and more compilations of the greats are sold at 2 for 1 disc price. So, for a shopper who have no concrete idea of what he/she wants to get, given a choice of getting a contemporary CD or a bargain price CD of a great, the choice would logically be on the latter. It's makes all kind of economical sense. However, it also means, sadly, that the people are still not exposed to contemporary music, and hence enhancing the image of inflexible classical music.
I do doubt that this situation would improve much, since even as I'm typing this, EMI just announced an new release of 25 Encore edition CDs at bargain price. I think any attempt of proposing a solution here would most likely fall short. However, I do have the following recommendation to make.
For me, contemporary music is just as inaccessible a fortnight ago. However, the wondrous of the net provide some interesting internet radio that play solely on contemporary-classical pieces. One of such station, which I tune in everything I get broadband access, is Contemporary-Classical station. That's where I got exposed to serialism music from Berg, Webern and Shoenberg, neo-classical works of Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Britten, the eastern-influence of Tan Dun and Tekemitsu, as well as minimalism works of Glass, Riley and Reich. Best of all, it's free!
posted by Unknown | 00:39
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home