Yes, Virginia, there are composers

QUITE OFTEN I HAVE STUDENTS ASK ME why serious music is not being written today. They are very surprised when I tell them that there are many composers throughout the entire world who write serious music all the time, and I try to explain to them that serious music today is in a sorry state of affairs. I have written about this many times before not only on this blog site, but also in previous articles for various news publications.

Part of the issue lies with composers themselves, because after the turn of the 20th century, many composers retreated to universities where they composed and taught composition. Their “retreat” was principally caused by three phenomena. Throughout history, composers have existed on commissions. While composers still depend on commissions, none of them receive commissions to the extent which composers received before 1900 or even 1880. Today it is virtually impossible for a composer to exist solely on commissions. The second phenomenon is the almost obligatory subservience of orchestra conductors, certainly in the United States, to their boards. Orchestra boards are aware, even subconsciously, that new music often will not sell. Therefore they are afraid to allow their conductors to program new music for fear the public will not buy tickets. The third phenomenon is conservative critics who are journalists (and not musicians) that have too much influence and are therefore believed by the public.

The musical arts have always been the slowest to change. I have no good explanation for that, but every time a new style or technique of composition emerges, it is often shunned by the public (and some musicians) for several years. Sometimes, the premiere of a new work causes a violent reaction. Witness the premiere of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring and Debussy’s Jeux and the famous riot that ensued. And of course, the reaction against Arnold Schoenberg and his 12 tone scale. Even some super conservative composers (Webster Young comes to mind) still think that its atonality can be compared to abstractionism in art, and therefore since abstract art has no meaning (!), atonal music has no meaning. In fact, there are many composers who blame the atonality of the 12 tone scale for the lack of audiences at concerts whenever a new piece of music is performed.

It is certainly true that in the 20th century, composers began exploring all kinds of new music because there had been 400 years of major and minor scales and they wanted something new. In addition, they thought major and minor was used up. It is very similar to the situation at the end of the Renaissance and the beginning of the Baroque, when major and minor emerged from the church modes. Many composers at that time rebelled against the new. And of course, newspaper critics have always had a very strong influence on the course an orchestra may take, what a composer writes, and the critic’s strong statement of how he thinks the public should react, rather than allowing the public to react without his influence. One of the best examples of this is the book written by music critic Henry Pleasants entitled The Agony of Modern Music. In it, Pleasants says that because composers today are not following old traditions, but instead striking out for new material, that Western music has come to an end. Pleasants blames composers (and some conservative composers have agreed with him) for becoming individuals and without a general movement to fall back on, their iconoclastic styles have destroyed the art.

It certainly is true that there are many styles of music existing today. Even in 1941, the musicologist, Alfred Einstein (not Albert Einstein), in his book, Greatness in Music, blames the multiplicity of styles for the lack of a single composer that can be called “great.” Einstein says that modern music has no commonality of practice and because of that lack, there is no technique for composers to refine in the way that Mozart refined the Sonata form, for example. He completely ignores the fact that composers can refine their own style, and that composers are not obligated to refine or follow each other’s style or innovation. Einstein strongly implies that composers can only become great if they have reached a zenith that is the culmination of a style that has been created before them. Apparently, Einstein, and many critics of today think that composers cannot create something that is entirely new, and then be called great.

There are many critics, and composers alike, who seem alarmed that no single composer (maybe two?) has emerged from the multitude who can be called great. I, for one, see no problem with this at all. Every serious musician has his own way of defining what is great, and it is wrong headed of critics and the most conservative composers to arrive at hard and fast rules for the definition of great. In that regard, critics have too great an influence on the public. In the last twenty years, the public has been so poorly educated on the subject of music that it has become fearful of even understanding it.

I have never understood why critics, and some musicians, and some super conservative composers have decried the abandonment of the past musical practices – they call it destruction – in modern music. One would think that their understanding of the fact that Classical period (1750-1810) forms were radically changed or abandoned in the Romantic period (1800-1900) would influence their outlook on music of the 20th century. And I would think that their realization, for example, that Beethoven’s influence on music and its style was so individual, that it is not a stretch to say that he was an iconoclast. Today, there are many people who do not care for the exploratory music of John Cage. That’s okay, but no one can deny that he has had a profound effect on the music and composers of the 20th Century.

In the Boulder/Denver area, there are three composers that stand far above the rest. They are David Mullikin, who I would classify as fairly conservative, Luis Jorge Gonzalez, who is moderate, and William Hill, who I would classify as cutting edge. All three of these composers have a great deal to say as composers, and I admire their music very much. They rely on the past only because they understand it so very well, and that understanding guides and drives them to something new. It is a terrible shame that so many orchestras and the concert going public make it so difficult for their music to be heard. I find it very disturbing that articles such as this still need to be written.

P.S.  In the September 18, 2009, edition of the Denver Post, Kyle MacMillan has proven his incompetence as a music reviewer by not discussing two works performed by the Colorado Symphony Orchestra in the concert that he is writing about.  First, was a piece by William Hill entitled Four Moments Musical, and second, Aaron Copland’s suite from Billy the Kid. It is clear that he does not know how important these pieces are, and that he does not possess the ability to write about them, nor does he realize the disservice done to the composers. This is a frighteningly good example of the above paragraphs.

Robin McNeil lives with his wife in Littleton where he teaches piano privately and continues to do research on the French composer Théodore Gouvy and the Medieval Mass. McNeil is an honorary member of the Institut Théodore Gouvy of Hombourg-Haut, France; president of the Piano Arts Association; and a member of the Henry Bradshaw Society (for the preservation and publication of rare liturgical documents). Read more of his work at OpusColorado.com.