Scott Peterson wrote:

>One of my oldest friends is a fan of New Age piano music.  She heard
>me playing some of Debussy's piano music recently and commented that
>it was beautiful, and asked what it was.  She was surprised that it was
>considered classical and not New Age, then asked what the difference was
>between Debussy and George Winston.  I started to sputter something about
>the advanced harmonies and revolutionary use of...and realized I couldn't
>really answer fully, as I simply didn't have either the vocabulary or
>enough knowledge of theory.

I'll have to be frank and say that I don't think any vocabulary would
suffice to make clear a difference.  It's all too subjective.  You aren't
deficient, the language is.

>Basically, I ended up saying that it sounded as though many of the New
>Age pianists had been influenced by Debussy's use of color but had smoothed
>down any of its rough edges for easier consumption.

I'd like to know where this idea of "for easier consumption" comes
from.  True, some pianists-composers are looking for soothing sounds, just
as some classical artists are, but that in no way characterizes all of the
music I've heard.

This is the second time new age has been mentioned on the list
recently.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen much indication that the opinions
voiced are informed, and that's a shame for people who love music.  We all
have strong preferences, and limited time to get to know what's out there,
but publicly dismissing works, styles, composers, performers, etc. that you
don't know seems to me to be antithetical to the celebration of music.

In this I find some uncomfortable congruence with the arguments made
by lovers of contemporary classical music.  The argument is often made
that people have judged music they don't know.  This isn't always the case,
but it is true often enough to cloud the discussion.  I've been enjoying
what's called new age music for some time now.  Actually, I sometimes
wonder (as with the moderns and the term "atonal") just what is meant
when referring to the label "new age".  When we say new age do we mean
synthesizer-driven space music a la Tangerine Dream or Pete Bardens, or
do we mean world-music influenced groups like Ancient Future or Shadowfax,
or perhaps the propulsive beat-driven music of Dancing Fantasy, or perhaps
the pop/Celtic-influences in the vocal music of Enya or Dream Garden? The
subset I'm most interested in might be called acoustic new age chamber
music.  Artists such as Eric Tingstad, Nancy Rumbel, George Winston, Philip
Aaberg, William Ackerman, David Lanz, and several others.  For most people
on this list, these names probably don't register.  That's cool.  But if
you don't know the names (or some like them), you don't know the music.
If you don't know the music....

But back to the topic of this post.  Is there a distinct difference between
the music of some new age pianists and that of Debussy? If there is it's
probably difficult if not impossible to articulate.  I think that's because
we have no context.  Who was the greater composer of piano music, Mozart or
Rachmaninoff? Other than expressing a preference, it's nearly a meaningless
question.  What might be an interesting question is: are any of Mozart's
piano sonatas on the same level as Rachmaninoff (or vice versa)? So why not
ask that question here.

Have I heard any new age piano music that rivals the quality of Debussy's
preludes, etudes, Estampes, or the Suite Bergamasque? No. I don't think
it's even a close call.  But then I haven't heard *any* piano music written
in the past 30-40 years that has risen to that level.  Though hardly an
enthusiast or advocate, I'm familiar with many classical piano works
from this period, and none are even close to Debussy's best, IMHO.  So
the much-reviled new agers are far from alone when it comes to lack of
achievement.  As I mentioned, I often find I like acoustic new age music
the best.  Some of it strikes me as the best "classical" music written in
the past few decades.  To my ear much of it follows a stylistic tradition
closer to the classics than some modern idioms that are considered
classical.  I've been trying to resolve this apparent contradiction for
years without success, but I think I've learned a lot along the way.

A final thought: new age has been effectively dead if not gone for some
time now.  I haven't bought a true "new age" recording in some time.  It
really only existed as new age for about 10-15 years.  Most of the artists
have moved on to other styles, and many have diversified into film music,
multi-media, etc.  So the total body of work we might evaluate is extremely
small, and pretty much ceased growing.  Given that, it's rather impressive
that there's any new age music that rises above the mundane, but I think
some of it does, if only barely.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/