Have We Come To Accept Other Compositional Systems Yet?
On December 25, 1949, the New York Times published an article written by Aaron Copland entitled “A Modernist Defends Modern Music: It’s dissonant and cerebral — but it’s still music, and closer to the past than you think it is.” I was initially drawn to this article due to the second half of the title, specifically the worlds ‘closer to the past’. I interpret this as an implication of a less-sudden change from old musics (for the purposes of this post, pre-20th Century) into Modern Music. Given that much of our class’s discussion has related in some way or another to composers writing about modern compositions (specifically Aaron Copland), I saw this article as another example of someone living through and working in collaboration with the rapidly changing Western Art Music scene, as well as having first-hand commentary on it.
Copland states outright what I personally attribute to the present-day attitude of atonal music: “[Ultra-modern music] was heard only by the comparatively small group of people who attended concerts. The rest of the world may have read about it, but rarely had any direct contact with it.” (Page 1 / Middle Column / Paragraph 1). With my own experience having gone through three music programs in the last ten years, I believe this is still the case: a large amount of 20th Century music is unfortunately performed and attended by a comparatively small percentage of the population. This is again speculative, simply because attitudes towards 20th Century music cannot be quantitatively analyzed today, given a lack of replication in past studies on the subject. (You cannot replicate a study that was not there to begin with). As Copland later states about Ultra-Modern Music, his replacement for the term Modern Music which relates to the music written at the time of the article, “However one calls it, almost anyone can identify it as music that falls strangely on the ear: music that is different.” (1 / Middle / 2)
This is an excerpt from the aforementioned article, listing a variety of famous 20th-century composers. Fast forwarding to nowadays, how easy is it to differentiate these composers? Would you rank this list differently, or does this list seventy-years removed from this article’s publishing still stand somewhat true? If we still consider this list as being valid, could this be a sign that we still have not grown to accept the nature of this new treatment of musical language (as compared to music pre-breaking of tonality)?
As part of this article, Copland writes a few typical questions one would hear as related to Modern Music. The first of these, and perhaps the most obvious, asks “Why must new music be so dissonant?” To move further past Copland’s answer — which in summary states that if you cannot understand new music’s dissonance than you do not have enough experience with it — if comprehending modern music is something that requires a “different treatment of the elements of music — harmony, melody, timbre, texture” (2 / Left / 3), then is it time to redefine what ‘dissonance’ would mean as it relates to modern music? Vaguely speaking, could we redefine dissonance as now being something that is not consonant? In this hypothetical solution, if something consonant could be redefined as something expected, even if creating a traditionally-dissonant harmony, then any movement away from the expectation could be perceived as dissonant to the rest of the work. If we were to do hear music like this (which is obviously easier said than done), each piece would have its own dramatic effect created by a difference in material, in a similar way that we hear a dissonant triad as needing to resolve back to consonance in other musics.
Fast-forwarding to a similar article that tackles this question nine years after Copland’s, Howard Taubman’s March 23, 1958 article “In Time To Come?” states outright as its subtitle, “Twelve-Tone Music is Major Influence but Public Has Not Yet Accepted It.” Interestingly, it takes the initial stance on Modern Music as not being popular due to its rare performances — specifically mentioning Webern’s ‘shy appearances’. (Left Column, 4th Paragraph). In all fairness, he was arguably the ‘most strict’ with serial composition, and as related to Copland’s list, “Very Tough” to understand.
This is in stark contrast with the next paragraph however, where Taubman writes, “Berg, whose works have a compassion that makes him most readily approachable of the three [Schoenberg and Webern being the other two], seemed for a time to have some acceptance in the concert hall, but of late his music has rarely appeared.” (Left Column, 5th Paragraph). I am very curious about this statement, specifically about the contrast between Taubman’s and Copland’s assessments of Berg. (Copland also labeled him as “very tough”). Could this be a coincidental argument point simply having to do with individual opinions of a composer? Or perhaps could it be a shift in public opinion when it comes to a composer’s acceptance? (This refers to the part of the quotation saying Berg was accepted in the concert hall at a point and time).
Aaron Copland, “A Modernist Defends Modern Music”
Howard Taubman, “In Time To Come?”
#Mus533
