Speaking from the standpoint of someone who has written not an
inconsiderable amount of classical music criticism, I agree that notions of
"accessibility" and "audience friendly" certainly are annoying, but for the
time being, might well be necessary. Such hand holding as shown in the
review you quoted is indeed over the top; while it is not as popular as the
Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Berg and Sibelius concerti, as far as 20th century
violin concertos go, the Schoenberg is, by now, reasonably well entrenched
in the literature; I would say that it is even more "accessible," in a
purely unscientific sense, than the Berg.
However, I wouldn't agree that the onerous use of such terms in music
criticism constitutes a hidden agenda; whether this further affects areas
such as music education, concert promotions and the like I wouldn't know,
and as far as a free thinking society is concerned in America we are
generally less well off than we were 30-40 years ago. Nevertheless, at the
end of the 'Sixties, the controversy about the inherent musical value of
highly dissonant, non-tonal, formalized or aleatoric music was still very
much an issue among critics and the classical music establishment. In
response, many composers and music academies adopted a strong orientation
towards these fields in the 1970s, and I am speaking, of course, about the
United States and not Europe, where this transition began two decades
earlier.
In 1965, Milton Babbitt was quoted in a High Fidelity article as saying "we
don't care if you listen;" he says now that he was taken out of context,
however to say that attitude didn't exist among composers in the 1970s
would be a fallacy. Not all music is necessarily written by great
composers, and many critics at the time were poorly equipped to grasp what
was then called "New Music," so they relaxed the critical faculty in regard
to such works, describing them only in the most general terms so as not
appear behind the curve. By 1990, audiences were in revolt, with some
symphony subscribers staging loosely organized sick-outs when new music was
performed. While this was not the only factor in the so-called decline of
classical music throughout the 1990s, it played an important role in it no
matter what academics might have to say about it -- it's an established and
obvious part of the history.
The situation is improving now; composers are more concerned about
communicating, and orchestras and audiences alike are a little less spooked
about the idea of performing new works; in some quarters already there is
great enthusiasm about hearing current-day classical compositions. Critics
need to express their opinions -- otherwise they wouldn't be "critics" --
and I think we are a little better at measuring the relative good or bad in
contemporary music; key late 20th century composers like Xenakis, Cage,
Ligeti, Boulez et al are not an incomprehensible mystery to us. On the
other hand, the audience has not fully come back to classical music by 2008
and there is a concern that you should approach anything unfamiliar as
though you are the first person ever to hear it and describe it thusly.
Ergo, you get the "accessibilty" factor; an admittedly lame stopgap
measure, one
that I feel will pass with time and through increased cultivation of the
audience.
Nevertheless, this is just an example of the piper getting paid, and
unfortunately the dues being paid are for expenses accrued a little before
your career as a composer began. I beg patience, and there should be no
worries that such usage respresents some kind of conspiracy
somewhere against you -- it is a neccessary, and probably temporary, evil.
Accessible Music?
Charles Coleman
|
by Charles Coleman
Since the beginning of my compositional career, I've always had an unusual
problem with the word "accessible". For me, this word seems to be nothing
more than an opinion which is "masked" as fact, and can be manipulated by
certain agenda driven people to thrust their own cause and attempt to
damage other expressions of thought at the same time. This kind of tactic, I
feel, is an absolute detriment to any free thinking society.
I recently read a review of a recording containing the Violin Concerto by
Arnold Schöenberg. This reviewer, who shall remain nameless, states in his
critique that for anyone to like this piece, depends on "how hard you, the
listener, feels like working, and how much the performance rewards your
time and effort." The reviewer goes on to say that if you are new to this
piece, then you should "start with the finale. It contains several memorable
tunes and motives that recur with relative frequency, in a clear march
rhythm."
After reading this, I was predictably annoyed. It is a tale I've heard before,
many times. The theory that an "accessible" piece is primarily simple with a
tuneful nature, and a piece that's not so "accessible" is much more complex
and requires work from the listener in order to be enjoyed. Quite frankly, I
find this argument utterly ridiculous! I can respect this critic in his attempt
to influence the listener into buying the recording, but I believe his tactics to
be a form of unnecessary "toilet training" for people that already have a
decent head on their shoulders.
It is clear to me that all the great composers regardless of what musical
"language" they utilize, have an innate ability to take his or her materials
they come up with in their dreams, and then carefully develop these
materials into wonderful pieces of music which any listener, at the very
least, can feel in their soul. This issue alone makes the concept of "simple"
and "complex" irrelevant. A great composer's work transcends those petty
words.
There is truly an inner spirit within a great opus of any style which is a blend
of the composer's otherworldly talent, along with the circumstances he or
she is living through at the time, and the disciplined effort to make it all
work. No matter how different the composers like Bach, Beethoven, Ives,
Ellington, Adams and Prince are from each other, they all have this same
aforementioned qualities that make them who they are, tune or no tune.
These greats, like many others, have done all the work so that you, the
listeners, do not have to.
This is the way it's supposed to be. Listening is an illuminating and soul
touching experience, not work. One should simply let the music flow through
the body and it would do it's magic. Of course, there are numerous benefits
and pleasures in hearing a piece more than once, but one would be normally
doing it anyway because he or she got something out of it the first time
around, not because they hope they'll "get it" after hearing it a few more
times, due to their personal insecurities of not being "cultured" enough.
The fact is, accessible pieces of music are numerous in their sounds, styles
and expressions, large and small. And they all sound fantastic!
It's as simple as that.