|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who
says classical composers can't reflect popular culture? |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of us know Beethovens Pastoral symphony, and Im sure
most of us have smiled at the peasant band in the third movement. Beethoven
is having fun here, depicting rural musicians with more verve than technique
-- especially the one who plays the bass line and seems to know just three notes.
So now tell me something.
Could classical music make an equally affectionate contemporary joke? Wouldnt
we be just a little surprised if a composer wrote an American Pastoral and
brought us an off-key rhythm and blues band from a rural Southern roadhouse?
And yes, I know
that some composers have done things like this. Im going to talk in detail
about Christopher Rouse and Michael Daugherty, but of course we all know pop-influenced
music by Copland, Gershwin and Bernstein. William Bolcom, too, brings relaxed
vernacular styles into his work.
The problem is, though,
that Copland, Gershwin, Bernstein, and Bolcom havent dealt with contemporary
pop, which means rock and its many allied styles, from R&B to hip-hop. Copland,
for example, caused a commotion with his populist works, but the pop idioms
that he adopted -- Mexican folk and dance music in El Salon Mexico, cowboy
songs in Billy the Kid, old Southern and Shaker folk tunes in Appalachian
Spring -- stood apart even from his own life, and certainly cant evoke
America today.
Rhythm and blues -- to
return to my opening example -- is, by contrast, right in our face. Its
music of our own time and place, a style that swept into the American mainstream
with the rise of rock & roll. That means it might bother part of the classical
audience, people who didnt like rock & roll when they first heard
it many years ago, and wont feel affectionate towards R&B, maybe even
seeing it as some kind of mass-market threat.
But does current popular
music really endanger the concert hall? For those who quickly answer "yes,"
Id like to point out a few problems with that position.
First, other arts dont
seem to feel the same threat. Playwrights, poets, and novelists freely incorporate
pop-culture elements, and so do painters and sculptors. Twyla Tharp long ago
choreographed a dance to the rock & roll of Chuck Berry, and the world didnt
come to an end, not even when she put the piece on the same program with a dance
shed choreographed to Brahms.
Next, theres the
tiny matter of classical musics past. Classical music used to welcome
other styles with open arms. Mozart imitated Turkish percussion, which was almost
a fad in 18th-century Europe. And Gypsy music -- originally a vigorous, even
rough country folk style -- charmed composers as diverse as Brahms and Liszt.
So whats
the problem now? Elsewhere in the musical world, styles are melting into each
other. Arab singers have adopted the pounding pulse of Western dance music;
Jamaicans, emigrating to American cities, brought reggae with them and transformed
rap, which acquired a loping reggae beat. North Indian music, in its
own culture a severe, classical idiom, slipped easily into rock with the Beatles,
who also enlarged their style to include Western classical techniques, which
also were used by other rock artists, ranging from (to cite only some of the
ones who did it well) Led Zeppelin to Elvis Costello and the Pet Shop Boys.
The British art-rock band Yes even shifted time signatures, in the manner of
many 20th-century composers. So why does classical music hold back?
When embracing diverse
musical styles -- and the diverse people who sing, play, and dance to them --
is on the worlds musical menu, why does the classical concert hall stand
apart? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The simplest reasons are logistical. The orchestra might be the grandest of
all resources for any classical composer, but if you ask Scott Johnson -- a
composer and electric guitar virtuoso whose work has been recorded by Nonesuch
and by Philip Glasss Point Music label -- it hasnt kept pace with
modern life. Orchestras dont include his own instrument, or the electric
bass, both crucial in much of todays music. But, as Johnson sees it, theres
an even more basic omission, one thats several generations older than
the rock era. "Orchestras," he says, "dont even include
-- " "The saxophone!" I broke in, laughing.
Johnson knows, of course,
that orchestras use saxes, and electric guitars, too, in pops concerts, but
thats exactly his point. Their very presence on the pops stage seems to
prove they arent considered fit for serious art. But its also important
to note that Johnson doesnt want to turn the orchestra into a rock band,
or a sax-heavy swing ensemble. He gets quite involved, in fact, explaining ways
to create a rock beat without hiring new orchestral personnel. "If you
want a drum set," he says, "theres no doubt that half the people
in the percussion section can do a good job with it." Or -- and here his
voice gets lively, as he delves into the kind of technical details composers
love -- you could write the beat out, notating the rhythms rock drummer might
improvise. One player, he says, could handle the heart of a drum set, the basic
kick-drum, snare, and high-hat cymbal. "Then, with the guts of the groove
under one person's control, youd spread the rest of the cymbals and cowbells
and tom -toms out among the rest of the percussion section.
Still, Johnson's lifelong
dream is to mix classical composition with the everyday music of America,
and his own ideal orchestra would include what we still think of as pop instruments.
How, he wonders, can the orchestra become a contemporary ensemble when it doesnt
even make the sounds that, for nearly every citizen of the modern world, most
define todays music? In Holland, another composer, Louis Andriessen, asks
the same question, and writes many of his scores for a shifting ensemble he
calls The Orchestra of the 20th Century, which often includes saxes.
Johnson's imagined orchestra
might use winds, brass, and light, amplified strings, with the sound fleshed
out by contemporary instruments. Among those, he says, "what I would really
like is a guitar section, that could make three-note chords out of single notes."
Though, as he sadly adds, "if I did write something for orchestra I wouldn't
go for a guitar section, because the piece would never be performed, ever."
And where would he get even a single guitar? Maybe the pops concert guitarist
wouldnt be right for Johnsons music, because hed need someone
with contemporary-music chops -- someone who can sightread complex scores and
might otherwise need fancy classical technique. Pop instruments might be a financial
burden for your orchestra, too; if you wanted to tour the piece they play in,
youd find yourself paying extra for people who might not perform on every
program and wont often be called to perform with your orchestra.
By now, Johnson is listing
all the problems that might arise. Synthesizers can be trouble, he knows, because
merely saying "synthesizer" doesnt mean anything. Synths play
many sounds -- that's what they're for -- so he needs to specify a precise sound
played on a particular model, perhaps even supplying its detailed parameters
on a floppy disk. At the very least, he says, hell give a general description
of what he wants ("a harp-like plucking," maybe, "sustained with
the reverberation of a sampled piano"), so someone can recreate it on another
instrument. And of course electric or amplified instruments require something
that orchestras don't usually make time for: a sound check before each concert.
Thanks to all this, Johnson
says, "we have a disconnect between two types of music -- though
maybe, he says, the distinction is, in the end, "more psychological than
practical," a matter of "institutional inertia." |
|
|
|
|
It's the
Instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But how great are the psychological obstacles to blending
pop and the orchestra? Here we have a mystery, because two notably successful
composers Ive mentioned, Michael Daugherty and Christopher Rouse, have
done it with no trouble at all. Rouse -- a true fan of rock & roll
who drops band names the way musicologists cite Köchel numbers -- has written
rock-inspired works, including Bonham, a 1992 tribute to John Bonham,
Led Zeppelins extravagant drummer. And though prominent composers dont
usually do such things, Rouse wasnt trying to make a point. "I wasnt
setting out to create some new type of music," he says. I just thought
it might be fun. My teachers might have grown up in the jazz era, but I grew
up in the rock era."
He wont, of course,
just imitate rock. "You have to make it interesting," he says. "You
cant just regurgitate Bob Dylan songs." Lately, he adds, hes
moved away from pop-music sounds, but, again, not for any ideological reason.
"I guess I wanted to write a different kind of music," he offers,
"more introspective, or something like that."
Still, Rouse hasnt
given up on rock. He might be a little down on the ubiquity of popular culture
-- "Its completely overwhelmed everything, so its hard for
people like me to get even a hangnails worth of attention" -- but
his percussion concerto, Der Gerettete Alberich, premiered last season
by Evelyn Glennie and the Cleveland Orchestra, has a distinct rock reference.
"Theres a point near the beginning where Evelyn takes over a drum
set, and turns the Dawn motif from Wagners Gotterdammerung
into heavy metal," Rouse says, with a smile thats unmistakable
even on the telephone. "It just seemed like something impish to do."
As for Daugherty, hes
a composer that a friend of mine might like, a friend whos precisely the
kind of smart, inquisitive under-40 listener the classical music world wants
to attract. "The problem with classical music," she told me once,
"is that it isnt noir enough." Her reference, of course,
was to "film noir," the dark and troubled genre that brought elements
of 20th-century art to movies in the 1940s. Daugherty has in fact tackled film
noir, and his music bounces off other things in pop culture that my friend would
recognize. Take, for instance, his Spaghetti Western, an English horn
concerto that the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra premiered this fall. This piece
was inspired, as you might have guessed, by the famously spare and ironic Italian
cowboy movies stirring Clint Eastwood and directed by Sergio Leone. Its movements
have wonderful Italian titles, translations of phrases that evoke the films:
"Strade Volte," ("Empty Streets"), or "Assalta dOro"
("Gold Rush").
And then theres
Daughertys Metropolis Symphony, based on Superman; his chamber
piece Dead Elvis, in which a bassoonist plays Elvis Presley, and an opera
called Jackie O. Coming soon are UFO, which hes writing
for Evelyn Glennie and the National Symphony Orchestra, and Hells Angels,
for David Zinman and the London Philharmonia..
How easy was it for him
to establish himself, writing works like these? "A lot of composition students
might have gotten discouraged in the '70s and 80s," he says. "They
might have said, Im not going to deal with the concert music world.
Im going to start a rock band, or go to Hollywood and write film music.
There was no possibility for them to get their love of pop culture into the
orchestral world."
But slowly, he says, "different
perspectives were allowed into concert music," starting in 1983 with the
New York Philharmonics Horizons festival whose theme was "The New
Romanticism" -- encouraging, as Daugherty stresses, the open display of
emotion. Even so, when he started writing his Metropolis Symphony in
1987, he still felt that "it was not a cool thing to do" -- though,
cool or not, the reaction was "fantastic."
Christopher Rouse introduced
Daugherty to David Zinman, who began conducting his works, and since then Daughertys
never looked back. Part of his secret, hell note, is that hes always
had support from orchestral players and from conductors (especially Zinman).
Here, I think, Daugherty benefits from a peculiarity of the classical music
world. Contemporary work is still not performed often enough for any composer
to blanket the field. Conductors have their own favorites, and anyone with a
conductors avid support will get played.
But, as he himself stresses,
Daughertys compositional technique also helps his success. The content
of his music might be unusual, but he works hard to make sure that musicians
will enjoy playing his work. "Ive spent a lot of time hanging around
orchestras and studying scores," he says. "Ive spent a lot of
time trying to get my technique down in that area. I try to get the sounds I
want, but the parts are idiomatic. If I want something complex, Ill do
it with a combination of instrumental choirs." Daugherty, then, is both
an innovator and a traditionalist. And hes happy, too: "I feet as
if Ive integrated my life and my art."
But heres the
mystery. If Michael Daugherty can build a career writing music about pop culture,
why hasnt anyone else on his level done it? Why havent other leading
composers quoted rock, like Christopher Rouse?
Why, in fact, does Daugherty
himself seem not to ask these questions? Here we have yet another classical
music curiosity. There isnt much aesthetic debate in the field, so someone
who takes a surprising path does so quietly, without banners or manifestos.
When I asked Daugherty why other composers dont do what he does, his reply,
very simply, was, "I dont know. Maybe well see more of it in
the future."
Rouse, too, didnt
have many answers when I asked him why more composers dont quote rock
& roll. "It should be an increasingly natural thing to do," he
told me. "Im stumped." He suspects that young composers are
discouraged from getting into rock. "Some of my students," he says,
"arent even aware of the pop and rock music going on around them.
I suppose theres some residual sense that high art shouldnt sully
itself by mixing with the vernacular. Youre surrounded by scowling busts
of Bach and Beethoven, looking sternly down at you. On some subconscious level,
you think youre supposed to stay within that tradition." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just For
Fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So now were back to the war -- or alleged war --
between classical music and pop. As Christopher Rouse suggests, this perceived
conflict might stem, at least in part, from "a sense of real paranoia in
the classical music world. Were threatened with extinction, so theres
a circling the wagons mentality." This paranoia gets so intense,
at times, that even pop crossovers -- Paul McCartney writing symphonies, Michael
Bolton singing arias, Aretha Franklin belting "Nessun dorma" at the
Grammies -- seem to be a threat. Which makes no sense. Did McCartney steal classical
listeners, or even classical funding? Does anybody think that the throngs who
heard his Standing Stone would otherwise have flocked to Ligeti?
If anything, these
crossover projects, whatever their artistic value in classical terms, draw
attention to classical music. Theyre good publicity and we all ought
to be grateful. (Besides, Franklins "Nessun dorma" was great
singing. [For a little more on this, see my review
of Aretha Franklin singing with the Detroit Symphony.] Maybe it wasn't
exactly Puccini, but then Franklins "Eleanor Rigby" was
even further away from the Beatles, and her fellow soul singer Otis Redding
recorded a version of "Satisfaction" that was lightyears from
the Rolling Stones. The pop world can handle reinterpretations. Why cant
we?)
Are we afraid of pop
because its commercial? "Look me in the eye," all but shouted
one of my composer friends, "and tell me that pop record companies dont
want to make money!" Of course they do, but how, exactly, do they manage
it? The executive director of an important East Coast orchestra had one answer
to suggest; he told me that pop executives deliberately manufacture music with
no staying power, music that will become obsolete, thus forcing the pop audience
to buy new records.
But, as anyone who knows
pop music can tell you, this is a myth. Its self-serving (since it makes
us feel that classical music has to be superior) and its dangerous, because
it stops us from understanding how pop really works, and what place classical
music really holds in the musical world that pop dominates.
The truth is that the
pop music business cant dictate what music people will like. If anything,
its forever playing catchup; if theres any solid rule, its
that the audience wont like tomorrow what it likes today. Pop record companies
need to guess next years trends, and since they usually fail, theyre
always scrambling to record what theyve belatedly learned the audience
wants to hear.
Smart musicians, meanwhile,
know how commercial pop music is, and (along with smart people in the pop audience)
not surprisingly complain about it. As a result, pop has developed an alternative
wing, where art is valued more than commercial success. But here theres
a great contrast with classical music, because pops artistic styles pay
for themselves. In a huge market even the fringes are huge, and you can make
money recording music as foreign to the mass audience as Milton Babbitt would
be.
It goes without saying,
of course, that pop -- unlike classical music -- reflects contemporary life.
When Martin Scorsese, no slouch as an artist, made his film Goodfellas, depicting
three decades in the life of the Mafia, he used pop music to set the tone for
each era. Could he have used classical works -- Babbitt for the 50s, George
Crumb for the 60s, the newly tonal string quartets of George Rochberg
for the 70s? Get real.
And this brings me back
to where I started, with Beethovens affection for the music around him,
and our own wariness, especially when we compare ourselves to any of the other
arts. Pop and rock, we need to learn, are much more than commercial fluff. Theyre
a deep expression of the world we live in. They can rise, sometimes, to artistic
heights, just as classical music does; they can also serve, in the simplest
possible way, as our folk music. To see how that happens, visit Shea Stadium
in New York to watch the New York Mets. When their closer. John Franco, comes
in to pitch, the sound system plays Chuck Berrys "Johnny B. Goode,"
the assumption being that baseball fans get the connection because they know
the song, and love it.
Can classical music speak
in the language musical and cultural -- of contemporary life? Of course
it can. As weve seen, there arent any immovable obstacles, technical
or artistic. But to come alive in our own century, classical music will have
to reestablish a connection Beethoven would have taken for granted, a profound
and nourishing relationship with all the other kinds of music that our friends
and neighbors love. That music includes pop. If we turn away from pop, we turn
away from America and from the world. |
|
|
|
|
Circling the
Wagons
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This piece (which appeared in the official
publication of the American Symphony Orchestra League) got a lot of
favorable comment -- though maybe the people who hated it haven't been
heard from yet. For another approach to the same subject, see my unpublished
essay, Why Classical Music Needs Rock & Roll.
Symphony Magazine, December 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |