'Crisis' in Contemporary
Music? What Crisis?
THE HEART OF THE
MATTER
by
David F Golightly
Is contemporary music in a state of
crisis? Answers range from 'certainly'
to 'possibly' to ' not at all'. I would
like to contribute some points to this
continuing debate which, if not altogether
original, are ones which I think do
not receive the attention they merit.
Colleagues, I believe the fundamental
debate is not about style or language,
and that the solution is not about marketing
or education. Maybe we all need to invest
time and energy examining the traditional
reasons why artists have always tried
to express themselves, be it by music
or any other art form. It may well be
that contemporary music 'is in crisis'
but maybe the real issue and solution
is not just about educating the listener
or consumer, but, to ask 'who is to
blame?' Have we lost sight of the reason
why we are composers?
Music publishers have invested a substantial
financial amount in contemporary composers,
which is an admirable commitment to
the future of ‘classical’ or ‘art’ music.
To publish and market a new composer,
or indeed a new piece, requires not
only a lot of financial nerve but also
a high level of artistic and cultural
bravery. Music publishers work in a
unique environment. They run a business,
have to balance the books, and all investment
has to be justified. Also traditionally
a country's cultural heritage was entrusted
to their ability to develop and nurture
the best of new composing talent. Not
only do they have to be able to recognise
a new and exciting voice, but they also
have to try and predict future stylistic
developments and to 'publish for the
future' not just for ‘the now’. Get
it right - and the country can draw
on a vast reservoir of creative talent.
But get it wrong - and we become a rubbish
dump for mediocrity and the inane. Into
this arena, fraught with pitfalls and
potential for mistakes, I believe, publishers
have always tried to bring a certain
amount of expertise and honour - protecting
their artists from the financial complexities
of modern society, ensuring universal
copyright is registered and investing
time and money into the partnership.
All right: they are running a business
for profit - but composers must appreciate
that it can a very risky business indeed.
But are publishers getting it right?
At no other time in the history of art
music has the consumer been more educated,
more knowledgeable and had such easy
access to a wide range of musical styles
and genre. From teenager to granny they
all have experience of dramatic orchestral
tapestries through the medium of films
and television. Given the popularity
of the film Lord of the Rings, for instance,
you have to acknowledge that a whole
new generation has been exposed to an
experience of the drama and excitement
generated by a large orchestral canvas,
the very building blocks of classical
or art music. I believe the general
public has taste and more importantly,
‘instinct’ and can recognise great classical
music regardless of the style or uniqueness
of the voice - providing, that is, the
composer has talent, is skilled and
wants to communicate. That does not
necessarily mean writing in a traditional
style and not developing your own voice,
but rather holding fast to those elements
that reward the listener and performers.
In my view, however, publishers have
often promoted composers who lack these
essential ingredients and, most importantly,
the indispensable ingredient of 'heart'.
Performers and audiences, I believe,
should be rewarded by those emotional
elements in music which make us all
'more than we are'. Recently I was in
the foyer of my local music college
when a young man approached and showed
me a score. He was at great pains to
point out that he had studied orchestration
for years and that 'that in itself was
a great skill'. But orchestration is
not about what is learnt, but what is
needed. The arrogance and sheer blindness
of his approach distressed me. Too many
of our young musicians think that composing
comes from learning rather than, as
I believe, directly from the heart.
I did not disillusion the young man
but left him to the mercies of academia,
to which, I am sorry to say, publishers
also too readily succumb. Even in merely
financial terms, for publishers to ignore
the educated judgment of today's consumers
is surely foolish.
There is a whole industry of academic
pretentiousness that has been nurtured
and cultivated by the contemporary music
establishment which is, in my opinion,
a million miles away from the motivation
and philosophy of composers from past
generations. Having cultivated the weed
you have little choice but to try and
justify its existence. Why? Is it not
better to cut your losses and acknowledge
that music, as all art forms, has to
communicate if it is to reward. There
is a vast worldwide market for good
classical or art music if it communicates
- that is, has drama, energy. Some of
the diet that has been served in the
last forty years does nothing but alienate
a consumer who instinctively knows the
quality of the real product. regardless
of the style. How often has music that
is questionable been commissioned and
consequently published, and what turns
out to be its one performance defended
on the grounds that 'the language, and
style are so new that it is bound to
be difficult for audiences to appreciate'.
That statement may have been true for
Beethoven’s day but not for today's
highly educated audiences with their
access to a vast information highway.
I was once shown a score by a leading
contemporary composer and the lecturer
who was praising the work pointed out
its great beauty of line and phrasing
- and that the written score 'alone
was a work of art.' I happen to be a
tuba player and pointed out that the
orchestration was such that no matter
how much counterpoint and beauty of
line existed on paper, to write for
tuba in its topmost register as the
composer had done meant that all the
listener would hear was that instrument's
rather tiresome honking quality. This
remark was met by great derision and
incredulity that I should question the
composer’s 'genius'. (For me the genius
would have been the player who could
have played such high notes molto pianissimo
in order that the other woodwind instruments
might be heard.)
Of course composers have to stretch
and challenge both performers and audience.
Nobody writes harder music than I (ask
any of the ensembles that have commissioned
works from me), but music is much more
than a technical exercise. You cannot
learn to be a composer! Composing is
a talent that you develop, an instinct
you follow, in fact a matter of the
heart - the very ingredient which provokes
the 'special response' from performers
and their audience. Years ago I suffered
a lot of jealousy and criticism from
so-called more experienced musicians,
who just did not know the meaning of
the word 'instinct'. Consequently their
music lacked heart: it might be interesting
and have fascinating textual colour,
but if it lacks a soul what justifies
its existence? Or am I missing something
here and does a higher spectrum of a
musical stratosphere exist somewhere
that is apparent only to those individuals
who appreciate the most extreme 'Avant
Garde' If so please tell me: I am willing
to study and learn if you can convince
me of the validity of your secret!
How can you align a contemporary piece
of art music (that may repeat a similar
phrase over and over again, or a vast
ever changing sound world where dissonance
is piled on dissonance with no perceptible,
and I underline the word perceptible,
logic to the gradient), with the dramatic
vivid orchestral colours of a film score?
True - to anticipate a reply - 'one
is absolute music and the other is wallpaper'
(pretty sophisticated wallpaper, too,
I might add!). The tragedy is that,
in today's climate, the essence of heart
and soul, traditionally found in all
music is now, in the wallpaper, not
the absolute, and worse - the consumer
knows it. I accept that a lot of good
contemporary music has been written
and published in the last few years.
The media and general public however
tend only to remember the disasters.
The good pieces may be played more
than once and even enter the repertoire,
but the bad pieces merely reinforce
the impression that art music has lost
touch with its source and is now part
of the self-indulgent world of the elitist
musical establishment. Please note -
before you form a lynch party - that
this is not necessarily my opinion,
but what I believe is a public perception,
rightly or wrongly, provoked by the
music of contemporary composers in the
last forty years.
No one has more respect for the BBC
than I. It has, for years, fought a
rearguard action to maintain standards,
trying always to support what it believes
is music of the highest calibre. Radio
Three, traditionally, has supported,
broadcast and commissioned the best
new pieces especially from young talent.
Many established English composers,
past and present, owe their success
to the patronage and support of the
BBC. Working under, sometimes impossible,
financial constraints it has tried to
bring to the public attention music
that it considered to be of the highest
visionary and artistic worth. However
there lies the rub. It is what it perceives
to be worthy and contributing to an
ever-evolving musical stylistic language.
Get it right - and English music maintains
its place on the world’s cultural stage
Get it wrong - and a cultural desert
will emerge. The responsibility is immense
and one that must surely weigh heavily
on its management's shoulders.
To be fair the BBC has had considerable
experience and a proven track record
but in today’s musical environment there
are many more factors and unknown social
variables. I believe that they do need
to keep in touch with public taste and
interest and not always consider it
can dictate the evolution of the language
of music. By the nature of both reputation
and cultural heritage, it has to walk
a tightrope of academic and artistic
validity. Sometimes I feel in the last
forty years it has stumbled, and as
we all know it is the stumble that provokes
the gasp that the crowd remember.
The Proms festival is a tremendous
celebration of the BBC's efforts on
behalf of classical music and English
composers. I for one appreciate and
stand in awe at its courage, though
sometimes I also worry that a number
of the pieces, commissioned and performed,
are only remembered because of their
provocative and controversial sound-world
and not for any artistic or emotional
merit. I sincerely hope my worry springs
from naivete and that on this occasion
my assessment and instincts are wrong.
Despite all the criticism Classic FM
has done much to generate and raise
public perception of classical or art
music. It is true that it does not play
vast amounts of the more avant garde
contemporary music, though I do understand
that as much as 40% of its output is
devoted to music by living composers.
Classic FM has also been accused of
reducing the listeners' attention span
by concentrating on something akin to
a menu of musical snacks, that is, of
cheapening the product by presenting
it in an abridged format. The fact that
this approach is more in keeping with
the marketing philosophies of today's
society seems to be of little consequence
to the critics, who question how a person
can perceive or value the artistic merit
of absolute music if you just broadcast
a fragment of its totality. Maybe, having
spent years researching and evaluating
the potential product, the academics,
from their perspective, have a point.
It would be much more rewarding and
aesthetically pleasing to listen to
a complete string quartet, than just
one movement. However we live in a consumer
environment and to market a product,
no matter what its artistic stature,
you have to employ the elements that
are psychologically common to that society.
Musical snippets, for instance, feature
prominently in today's advertising campaigns.
Consumers may not realise they are hearing
classical music, or know the composer,
or be able to name the piece, but are
we entitled to criticise Classic FM
for employing the same principles in
their broadcasts?
I personally believe they have simulated
and encouraged a tremendous potential
for our product as contemporary composers,
much more than we could have ever dreamed
possible. I am reminded of a certain
football club which plays Prokofiev's
music just before the beginning of the
game. When a London ballet company visited
the town’s main theatre to perform Prokofiev's
Romeo and Juliet it was amazed to find
the venue had been sold out three months
in advance. I do not know the percentage
of football supporters in the audience
but the previous visit, the year before,
had not been very well supported. Coincidence
or not? It would be interesting to find
out; and, by the way, one of the club’s
best selling CDs is apparently a recording
of that very piece.
I personally believe that Classic FM
has made a tremendous contribution to
the public acceptance and understanding
of classical music with its intellectual
and emotional demands. If I have a criticism
it may be that sometimes they seem to
allow air time choice to be dictated
by the marketing requirements of their
advertisers, but really! - they have
to live, and you cannot have everything.
Which brings me to the record companies.
I suppose an apt description of the
individuals that run 'the majors' as
they are known, would be 'tough cookies
with hearts and pockets of gold'. I
do believe they live on different planets
from those of composers or indeed artists.
However in their defence they have to
operate in an environment where judgment
and instinct are paramount. Like music
publishers they have to anticipate public
taste and demand. Get it right and the
financial rewards are reasonable - and
I stress the word reasonable. Get it
wrong and the financial pressures from
their masters are colossal.
Most A&R people I have had dealings
with have been very genuine and committed
musicians. They constantly have to pick
their way through a diplomatic minefield,
dealing with composers and performers
who may have very fragile egos and who
may have very little understanding of
the commercial world. With the best
will in the world you cannot justify
investing thousands of pounds in a product
if your instinct tells you there is
going to be a limited return, no matter
how much you believe in the composer.
I remember the head of marketing of
a major record company kept the recording
I had sent him of my first symphony.
He had kept it, said his secretary 'because
he liked it so much'; unfortunately
he and his team did not consider it
to be of significant commercial value
to market. Not much consolation for
the poor composer who had invested so
much time and effort in the project.
The record companies, like most of
the music publishers, are at the moment
under siege. The only way they can compete
against the thousands of composer-publishers
and small record labels is to invest
a considerable amount in marketing and
tap into their network of world wide
sales, distribution and returns. However
they run the risk of becoming victims
of pirating and copyright infringement,
with their product posted on the web
for any individual, i.e. thief, to download
free of charge. The more successful
they are, with the marketing of a product,
the greater the danger of piracy. Is
it any wonder, considering the risks
involved, that most are reluctant to
gamble on a new composer or more importantly
a new musical style or language. I personally
have a lot of sympathy for their position.
True, they may have their successes
but I also bet there is a lot of gnashing
of teeth over the many failures we do
not hear about.
I may have lost money over the recording
of my first symphony, but it was my
work and I believe in its artistic merit.
This amount in any case would be a fraction
of the cost a major record company would
budget and risk on a new composer or
piece. I hope, at the very least, that
artists will always try to be fair and
see both sides of the coin.
However I also believe the record companies
have to accept some blame, and are to
a certain extent responsible for their
own predicament with regard to classical
music. There is a limit to the amount
of return, no matter how popular a Mozart
symphony may be, if the product market
is shared with countless other recordings
on of the same music. This practice
of over-recording has saturated the
market and restricted the investment
in new blood and new products. Any manufacturer
will tell you this is a recipe for disaster.
You have to continue to develop and
improve your product if you hope to
maintain consumer interest. To be fair
having witness public and media reaction
to contemporary music over the last
forty years and the extremes of stylistic
language used can we blame the reluctance
of what are essentially business ventures
to invest in a product that has such
adverse public and hence consumer perception
and reaction. (Even the most optimistic
of composers would have to admit there
would be a limited financial return
and demand for a recording of a certain
piano piece by John Cage)
Mention of John Cage brings me finally
to my fellow contemporary composers.
One of the great privileges of my life
was to spend so time on the board of
The British Academy of Composers and
Songwriters. I will just never cease
to be amazed at - and hopefully never
forget - just how much time, energy
and generosity of spirit my fellow composers,
both popular and classical, gave in
defence of the music of their member
composers and musicians. These individuals
who work so hard for the rights of artists
and composers regardless of the cost
or drain on their own creative resources
and energy cannot be praised enough.
What is it that makes them work so
hard and so long to defend and promote
the worth of British Music and composers?
Certainly no financial gain, as I know
all gave of their time freely, and in
some cases, this unselfish commitment
went on for years. I believe it is nothing
more than a belief in the rightness
of what they do as composers - a generosity
of spirit that fuels a desire to help
and support the value of British music
and creative endeavour regardless of
its genre.
I never witnessed one moment of envy
or jealousy from these talented individuals
- just a wholehearted commitment to
the work of their fellow writers. Therein
lies the hope! If all writers and composers
have such integrity then the journey
to producing art and music that has
worth will be revitalised. I do not
pen the words 'Brotherhood of composers'
lightly. I believe passionately in the
integrity of my fellow musicians and
artists. The world needs our vision
more than ever. The real music and art
will survive and be triumphant, because
it contains those elements that are
at the core of the human spirit.
A crisis in contemporary music? Audiences
and performers will always eventually
recognise integrity and the beauty found
in music that reflects the soul of its
creator. No government, agency, tyrant,
social ignorance, greed, prejudice,
corruption, analysis or scientific theory
can stand against that universal truth.
You may say that artists, writers and
composers are mere dreamers; but it
is this belief in the higher ideal that
touches all, to replenish and revitalise
society. To each his own, all to have
their place, each to contribute, in
his or her own unique way, to the elements
that make us 'more than we are'.
(My thanks to Adrian Smith for his
assistance as editor and Arthur Butterworth
and Mike Briggs as advisors.)
© 2003 Modrana Music Publishers
ltd
