[Ontogenics] - Thoughts on art music
Reader be warned. This is a fairly big read and something I already wrote on audiotool.com (this version should have less misinformation). Enjoy.
From the middle ages and later after the baroque era (as far as I remember), these 2 were always put into separate categories. Though there was always significant crossover until the romantic era. What signified the hard-set difference before the rise of more complex class and wealth structures were sacred music and music for higher feudal class (higher art, consciously developed, financed, educated) on one hand and secular music, lower class (more on the amateur side) on the other. After the significance of separating the wordly and the sacred in art dissolved (or started to), it was aristocracy on one end (high art) and simple folk on the other (a.k.a. working class) - low art.
There was always discrimination of the abilities for poorer folk to compose, especially concerning larger works as they could rarely afford education, to maintain orchestras, let alone spaces to present work. And, yet obviously, there were significant developments even in the sphere of lower classes, namely, songs (but not only). Higher art adapted short forms such as songs too and there were always blurred lines and appropriation happening. Where it became visible was most prominently the case for 18th century's romantic era, as composers started to compose for themselves outside of utilitarianism.
Folklore has always played a significant role in all music, especially in the romantic era when nations tried to define their own national music styles. A clear distinction started to fade as religious institutions and aristocracy no longer held the upper hand in soloing culture. But folklore couldn't hold a candle to the high art definition, because of the collective, anonymous origin of most pieces. Here we stumble into another problem of high art. It seems that the definition only applies to longer works. Miniatures rarely acquire the status of high art. It seems that it is regarded as impossible or insufficient to create "higher concept" music in small forms.
This is apparent with the emergence of concept albums in pop music in the 1950s-70s as the improved LP emerged, with the ability to hold more than 40 minutes of material. The idea of the concept album was born.
As time went on, experiments with tape started emerging and techniques that were bound to studios. This was no longer radio, gig, festival or hall music. It started to get almost trapped in the medium that carried it. Physical media started to get affordable and the market now stood on music without live performance. Classical music was being recorded as well. As a consequence, both pop and classical music now experienced confluence.
While there's obviously still plenty of classical music being made, lines are even more blurred nowadays. Music is democratised enough for anyone to create higher concept music.
But what is "art music" then? Wiki defines high art (culture) as: "High culture encompasses cultural objects of aesthetic value that a society collectively esteems as exemplary works of art a society considers representative of its culture." This description, however, contradicts the beliefs of the 18th century definition - of creating a masterpiece standing by itself, made by the composers will, standing above simple utility.
Thus, for me, it remains unclear what to label as high art. Yet there are some ideas I have that are worth exploring. The Wikipedia definition should place non-artificial music in the forefront as it should the greatest influence on the general populus. Nowadays especially, classical music would place outside of significant influence by sheer quantity. Additionally, it would exclude the majority of music that's been written. Mozart, Bach, Haydn and many other pre-romantic composers primarily wrote utilitarian music and yet we place them as the high art composers. So is fine art just an arbitrary status symbol?
Yes and no. I think the definition is a little mean-spirited or um... copium to an extent. The romantics wanted their meaning of life outside of factories back and with the individualism of the time, being eternally known for having made good music sounded good.
It may seem that I've been ignoring the fact that it wasn't the one composer alone who defined their status. The general public and versed music critics (usually composers themselves) had a big saying. Yet most people who had a saying in what piece of art is a masterpiece with large impact were involved in high society somehow. Although that statement here ignores significant class crossover.
Our current society since the latter half of the 20th century is lead by popular music. Often included in albums. Albums could express a larger concept or story throughout several pieces. Certainly not dissimilar to a symphony, although the thematic selection is more variable. Why it is the long format that has the ability explore concepts of higher intent is honestly something I don't really understand. Regardless, there are albums that catapulted certain artists to stardom, and albums that we deem very culturally significant.
And therefore, I think there is art music amongst popular culture.
Here's my basis by which I'd categorize art music:
Art music should be:
1. Sufficiently inventive within its contextual sphere of cultural influence and challenging to the audience's familiarities and habits
That just means that within the context of adjacent genres, artists, time period, political and overall world climate and in regard to the artists own work, the music explores significantly new topics, adapts new sound approaches.
2. Communicate it's message originally, creatively, but clearly without straying too far from its intended message.
How I see it, this is meant more in terms of purely the music itself. This is almost solely defined by the tension/release nature of music. If the music is too simple or formulaic, indiscriminately follows genre conventions, or simply has an imbalance in melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, color and dynamic movement, it usually lacks the impact to leave a mark. On the other hand, extremes and indiscriminate chaos are hard to perceive and remember. These rules do not always count, however, they do most of the time. High art needs to communicate clearly. If every note contributes to the pieces logic, there is no added self-fulfilling effect and truly all is coherent within the piece, that is what I'd call absolute high music. Success in these areas means evoking strong feelings that are ideally more complex.
3. Its main purpose is art, not profit
In popular music especially, more profit and stability comes from sticking to the rules, going with the wave and hopping on a trend. While it would be diminutive to call all trend related music low art, in popular music, most of the time this music doesn't really challenge the habits of the listeners. Obviously people are to be properly rewarded for their work, but higher artistic expression should come from the need of the artist themselves to express themselves, to develop culture and develop aesthetics.
4. Disciplined
Art music should be built on logic and on the composer's success of putting their work on paper as closely to the original visions as possible. This includes stochastic and random approaches as long as that was the intention of the artist. It's helpful for an artist to build on a larger theoretical basis from literature or history, being able to communicate music terminology, understand the inner workings of sounds in relation, understanding the mechanisms of human perception and reception. Being critically able to evaluate decisions in composition and being able to add as well as remove parts to create over-composed, and perfectly edited music.
5. Impactful
It doesn't matter whether the piece had impact on 3 people or billions, as long as it produces a strong emotion or a lasting impression on the recipient (this includes the composer solely themselves), it fulfilled one of the most important requirements for art music.
Art music should, in my understanding, fulfill at least 3 of these categories.
Now, I understand that likely none of these ideas are original thoughts and the distinction between popular music and art music are likely quite arbitrary, but the thought of creating art that truly has an impact far beyond untilitarian and short-term scopes is an appealing one to most music makers.
Perhaps a theoretical basis could be inspiring to music makers to lean into their craft, create something of greater concept, subvert expectation and speak stories through musical means in just the right way to make an impact. If I know anything from my own music, is that your genuine feelings inserted into music will be felt by the audience.
First step is to go out there and create!
Comments
Post a Comment