John Smythe writes:

>I think that the real problem is that not a long time ago, composers,
>(as a voice of the Church or not), were prophets and "seers" in their
>own way--explaining our ends and purpose, or lapses in experience and
>understanding, with music.  The difference is that today composers seem to
>have given up *seeing* for their fellow men and have instead endeavored to
>become prophets and seers for their chosen art in and of itself.
>
>Oscar Wilde once said that artists don't walk among the crowd, they are
>the bystander that observes crowd.  I believe that many modern artists,
>in search of the How, have taken it one step further--they have become
>observers of the bystander.

I don't know if any statements can be made about "artists as a whole".
I've met artists who take their role as seers very seriously.  However the
problem of quality is always there, many of these artists make art which is
not particulary good.  The New Age movement is filled with mystical
spiritual seers.  And moons.  And unicorns.

The simple matter of our art society is not that artists are estranged
from "their" audience.  Instead it is that there are layers and layers
and layers between most artists and having an audience.  The two groups,
as I've noted before, that do most of the gate keeping have fairly narrow
ideas about what they want in art, and that, in turn, is what they present
to the public at large.  It is true that our current art society places
more emphasis on the critic than the artist, I would be willing to bet that
most people on this list know more about Edward Rothstien's ideas on Music,
Rosen's ideas on music, Alex Ross' ideas on music, than say Lee Hyla's
ideas on music - or even Glass or Adams' ideas on music.  This is
fundementally anti-artist regardless of the artist and his work.  It makes
the artists work merely material for the critics fight for remaking the
world in the critics image.  Few reviews are written in the major outlets
which are not anchored around some declaration of what "ought" to be so.
As far as I'm concerned what Anthony Tommasini thinks ought to be so,
or Paul Griffiths, or Alex Ross, or even Charles Rosen - is utterly
immaterial.  None of these men compose well enough to matter.  And yet
they, and not composers, have a great deal of say over what is done and
what is funded.

Since the desire of the people who are interested parties in classical
music is to keep the composer as a servent, and many composers feel willing
to fill this role, that is what we shall have for the forseeable future.

- - -

But it is not going to remain so forever.  There are several composers
who have, and have displayed, a greater ambition.  I think John Adams has
displayed this in his most recent work, I think that Rouse shows signs of
it, I think that Lee Hyla definitely has.  I know I have.  This ambition
is to put the work, and not the chatter about it, back at the center of
artistic discourse.  And more over to make the meaning in art to be about
something other than the state of art society.  Commentary is on its way
out.

I've outlined before my belief that both the Romantic Reactionary, and
the Modern Conservative, really speak the same language.  They both
derive their dogma of art from the Victorian, when the purpose of classical
music's institutions was to civilise and educate.  The insiders knew better
than the outsiders.  The place for this dogma is long since passed, because
there are other places to get music than these institutions.  Instead we
are in the position of justifying what we do to the outside.  It is
essential for the health of classical music that the old long running war
between Post-Romantic and Modern come to an end, because neither group
speaks for all that many people.  What they say does not ressonate out
there beyond the walls of classical music.  Not long ago there was a
"contemporary" concert in Boston that was 75% works by dead guys, and 25%
works of a guy who wrote like the dead guys.  This is not an aberation, but
very common.

One of the great benefits of the days when artists had to scramble is that
they turned to their pens to write.  We know a great deal of what Debussy
thought, what Berlioz thought, what Wagner thought.  Liszt had articles
ghosted for him.  Right now there are no major composers who are doing the
same, and quite frankly the range of opinion which is published on a large
scale about classical music is very narrow, so it would make no difference
if we did.  We thus get followers and minions who are perfectly content
to recite dogma, because they don't have to face what happens when dogma
blocks musical creation.  We have a classical world which has two camps
which largely don't talk to each other, and pretend the other does not
exist - or is composed of people who aren't really human.  Examples of
dogma from both sides supplied on request.

- - -

In the end even the victories of various clubs kill the music.  An
orchestra that cycles through a little tread mill of repertory works,
without any conviction that they need to make the case for these works
will phone in their performances.  A world where musicians are told to
shut up and play the latest critical darling's works is a world where
those musicians will hinder the music before taking a pay cut - they don't
have a dog in that fight, and have no reason to give up one dime for it.
A world where a group can get a good review just by playing three works
from various professors of music, even though the critic does not show up,
have no incentive to make the case for those works, or even choose works
from anywhere but the approved sources.

None of this is going to change until the world which is classical music
changes the way it talks about music, the way it chooses music, and the way
it explores music.  Right now there are several almost unknown composers
who are at MP3.com's classical site.  I haven't heard of ARG, Fanfare or
Grammaphone deciding to review any of them.  And yet there they are, and
having spoken they should at least get a fair hearing.

Stirling S Newberry
[log in to unmask]