The Unbearable Irrelevance of Contemporary Music - a response to Samuel Andreyev

This is a response to the video by Samuel Andreyev entitled "Is Contemporary Music 'culturally relevant'? "

I didn't agree with everything Andreyev said in that video, and it's such an important subject for composers that I thought I would post my own view on it.

Support the Channel on Patreon:
Follow me on Twitter:
Follow me on Instagram:
David Bruce Composer Spotify Playlist:
My 2nd YouTube Channel:

[samuel_andreyev]

Hi David. I’m the first to argue for the need for composers and musical institutions to step outside of their bubble and learn how to interact with the public. I’ve repeated stated how urgent this is, and it’s what I am attempting to do, however tentatively and clumsily, through my channel and other endeavors. I don’t think it’s healthy that so many composers are ensconsed in academia or the machinery of public grants. My hope for the coming years and decades is that there will be a profound evolution in how such music is disseminated, which seems inevitable given the dramatic rise of the internet coupled with the collapse of public arts funding in many Western countries. It's either that, or an agonizing lurch into oblivion.

[benhudd]

As a student composer, my "popular" sounding works (neoromantic tonal orchestral pieces) are often praised by my non-musical friends and family, while dismissed by my colleagues and mentors for being not intellectual enough. I agree that contemporary classical music should do more to engage casual listeners while also making important points about culture and society, rather than simply existing for an academic, intellectual audience.

[Melissa]

I used to work at a classical radio station so I have a lot to say about this issue. I think classical musicians need to do A LOT more to get kids into it, and especially to see live performances by professionals. I think the way kids are introduced to music in American public schools isn't the best. They're taught to play instruments using the most confusing and boring methods. So they don't really see the point. And then the first and only live classical music they ever hear is their own scratchy out of tune school concerts. So they never realize what the ultimate end goal of playing an instrument is supposed to look like. Yet the teachers seem to not get that for some reason. They just wonder why the kids don't care and don't want to practice. Classical music is not taught in a way that's relateable. It's no wonder so many people think it's boring. Professional orchestras are going to have to solve this problem withing the next 15-20 years or they're going go the way of the Dodo. And yet they seem to not realize that or care any more than the teachers do, for some reason. I think every kid who's given an instrument in school should first be taken to see a professional performance. So they can hear what professional musicians sound like, so they say to themselves, "HOLY CRAP THAT WAS AMAZING! I WANT TO DO THAT!" Field trips to see the local city symphony should be just as regular as trips to science museums and historical villages. Places that don't have a symphony should bring in touring groups to play in the school. I don't understand why orchestra groups don't push for this. They could make a lot of regular money from schools paying them to perform. Plenty of other people and institutions make their living from performing in schools or hosting field trips. Do symphony groups think that's beneath them or something?

[mateigheorghiu]

I have so many things I could write about on this subject but I will restrict myself to comenting on what I see to be the core of your video: from 3:46 to 4:43.


I am composer living in one of the few places where financing for contemporary music isn't doing that bad: Finland. However, whenever one is trying to get funding for a festival, a concert, or their own work, apply for a festival, or a call for scores, they keep facing the same challenge: "X society/festival wants new, bold initiatives". That forces everyone to try to present the art they are trying to create or organize as something never before seen, special and courageous, when in fact... you could be just trying to get funding for that nice piano trio that someone commissioned you. Instead you present the piano trio as inspired by a certain Sanskrit text, whit 11 movements of 22 seconds played on 33 different extended techniques, throw in something to do with prime numbers, all to impress the reviewer, even though you haven't even written the first bars yet. Or, you quit the piano trio idea altogether cause you're worried you're not gonna get funding, and instead apply for a clarinet piece with live electronics and installation that uses a new program that will create "a new world of sound". So I think it is very much the institutions and the need for some kind of criteria that resonates with the expectation that art presents (MODERN music, not just any music) which forces composers to always think and act outside the box.


And that becomes the box.


Thank you for this amazing video and channel!

[Tantacrul]

Very much enjoyed this. Will make sure to trumpet some of my favourite works from the last 100 years more often. It's feels almost tragic how many of my favourite composers remain unknown today.

[stonesofvenice]

Actually, a lot of people hate contemporary art. I have studied in elite art schools and been in the art world more or less my entire life, and most people only attend such gallery openings with a kind of "emperor's new clothing" awkward silence when in reality they all secretly feel alienated and not interested in all in the work. If the art world wasn't a playground for money laundering of the world's elite, it would also fall into obscurity, much like a lot of the 'true' artists today have, who create actual valuable works of originality and beauty.

But yeah, I totally agree that "everything is NOT fine" - not at all. Art, real art in most forms, is not valued at all in society. I could go into a list of reasons for why that is, but it really comes down to a lack of aesthetic education and lack of art appreciation. Instead "history" of art is taught, and this is a mistake. Knowing the history of works of art does not teach people to understand the structure or meaning of works of art, and that's really mostly the problem as to why most people feel art is irrelevant to them: art is taught as a historical object, trapped in a time and place, and not as a deep and important element of the human experience in the here and now, in our lives in this moment. Just my two cents.

[rylprd]

I had a defining moment when going to see the new music ensemble "Earplay" during my time as an SF State composition student. At the performance, about 50% of the audience consisted of myself and my 15ish classmates who were required to attend. The other 50% were the composers themselves and their friends/family. The hall seated about 400 and was mostly empty, and one could not escape that feeling the entire time.

However, I never got an sense from the composers or performers that anything was amiss about performing to a mostly-empty hall. In fact, I could feel almost a sense of elitism in the idea that so few had the musical knowledge to "truly appreciate" the works performed. The performance that most sticks in my memory is that which featured a "newly invented instrument, " as the composer's notes proclaimed. Said instrument was a collection of random metal pieces affixed to a turntable powered by an electric motor that spun and caused the metal pieces to strike chimes and such hanging above. I felt almost insulted at the triumphant proclamation of having invented a new instrument. Was I supposed to place this device alongside a pipe organ, a violin, a trumpet, or an electric guitar in its musical capability or ability of a performer to utilize it for making music?

That was definitely my moment when I came to believe that music academia & this contemporary classical world care not for connecting with audiences, but rather for proclaiming whatever they create as high art and considering those who disagree to be somehow unable to grasp their supposed genius.

[citizensnips]

In the broadest sense, I think composers have become so caught up in the intellectual, in pushing the boundaries as it were, that they’ve forgotten that music essentially is communicative. It’s supposed to say something to people, and they need to be able to understand it. I was always obsessed as a songwriter (composer would be very generous but that’s where I want to be) with finding some original concept, but it’s a fools errand. The concepts we already know are tools to use, tools that convey meanings and emotions. They aren’t cliches, Mozart doesn’t own the Sonata Allegro form. We have centuries of ideas and themes to stitch together into an emotional journey, that’s where the originality is, just go nuts! Have fun with it. The rest will follow.

[thexalon]

I went through music conservatory studying composing. I learned a lot about music, and I still write (albeit not expecting to make any money from it), but one idea I ran through with everything I wrote was to pass it by an ordinary non-musician to see if they understood it. They didn't have to enjoy it (although they sometimes did), but if their reaction was "I don't get it", then I considered the piece a bad piece and treated it accordingly.

This of course made some of my stuff off-limits to most of the conservatory new music faculty, who were trying to push the boundaries of what was possible, constantly pushing me to make my music more extreme, less normal, and less focused on singable melodies or sometimes-consonant harmonies. I'm much happier writing where I don't have to concern myself with what they think.

[theemeraldruby]

I think the way classical composers are taught to compose is a major issue. At uni I just wanted to compose pretty flute duets/pretty music in general, but was actively discouraged because it wasn't 'intellegent' and didn't 'mark well'.

How can we expect composers to connect with their audiences if at uni we don't expect them to compose music, but simply compositions that Mark well!?

Anyway, since uni I've been composing beginner music as a way to learn to compose simple pieces of music that sound nice and won't bore the musician or audience for which it's intended (which is a surprisingly difficult task!) great video

[carloscolin]

Man, I love the comments box in this channel. I think contemporary music has given us a lot of things that we can use, by example: harmony to color a piece, new form structures, new ways of analysis, motivical approaches, microtonality, etc. And these are tools that can be used to create more interesting music that not only can be attractive to a general audience, but that can be rich in concepts and expression. Is about finding the middle ground, kinda like jazz (in the sense that it can have a complex harmony and still be attractive to listeners).
And I think being mindful about your audience isn't the same as trying to gain their favor. I think the most acclaimed painters and artists in general used themes, forms and motifs that were relatable to their audience, and they became great not by creating something unrecognisable, but by creating something original with something relatable. Music works with the ear and with time. Most men are primarily visual, and even today mankind can't understand/perceive time as well as it wants to. So being a little bit mindful about it maybe would be a good approach.

[hakonsoreide]

Once you said "conversation between the artist and society", that's when I knew I'd agree with you. It might be more obvious in the music world, but in the world of visual arts too, you sometimes feel you are exposed to works of art that are self-serving and made completely without any understanding on the part of the artist that art is first and foremost a means of communication. Contrived and deliberate attempts to be niche, obscure, and original seldom communicate anything particularly well as these tend to be purely intellectual exercises in avoiding what's been done before, whereas a desire to communicate something from an emotional viewpoint – disregarding whether it is original – is what people tend to respond and relate to.

When it comes to music, a lot of contemporary concert music sometimes seems an exercise in making something as cacophonous, non-melodic and atonal as possible, rather than having an emotional agenda expressed through music's unique ability to play with our expectations, how it lets us believe we know what's coming next only to surprise us followed by a moment when we again know what's coming next, subliminally tapping into our human instincts for survival.

That might still include cacophony, non-melody and atonality, of course. When it is done because you feel you have to – partly out of the fear of not being original – rather than because that is how you genuinely wish to express something, then that is what is communicated through the work. And listeners can tell the difference.


When I approach art, I don't want it to shut me out, as it will if it is busy with its own self-obsessed internal monologue; I want it to invite me in, to make me feel something, to communicate something that will only exist in my meeting with it as its genuine emotion, beauty, interesting ugliness, or accidental originality makes me see it, hear it and feel it. And thus it also makes me see something of myself in it. It needs to be interesting, and it needs to unapologetically be itself – not because the artist feels it has to be, but because that is what organically happened as the art was created.


Running the risk of repeating myself one time too many, I think originality is one of the keys to this: if an artist forces a work of art into being different than everyone else's out of fear of not being original, that usually makes art that communicates nothing (and, ironically, often ends up being completely unoriginal too). If the artist uses the art to express something never even thinking whether a work is original or not, that often makes art that is interesting and approachable.

[MangoldProject]

The cultural isolation of modern music is a direct result of the contempt contemporary musicians hold for the general audience. Perhaps they should be called contemptorary artists?

[nobodynoone]

Most people see "classical" as backgound music, or what you hear during a movie, rather than an art in of itself. It's a hard thing to grapple with but you can't sugar-coat it. Additionally, most composers choose to play what they resonate with, and increasingly, it is not classical.

[CRCVDE]

I am not sure if I completely agree with all the point's you make. The bubble part... Yes I do agree. But I can tell you, there are people who genuinely love "contemporary" music. I myself study classical piano and composition so I do have a academic background. But I played in and watched recent performance of Stockhausen's Aus Licht in Amsterdam and it was the most musical enriching experience of my life. I brought some friends of mine who are relatively conservative (maybe something like Prokofiev is their "limit" so to say) but they had goosebumps throughout the whole piece and shared my opinion regarding how this work affected me. Indeed some of them have an academic background in music, but there were also people amongst them who studied something completely unrelated to music like law. The hall was filled with people who don't have a music background and the reactions were surprisingly enthousiastic and very positive. It opened up conversations about a lot of topics between musicians and non musicians. An other example: once I was playing a Ligeti etude on a train station. After I finished a train mechanic came to me and said he really loved what I played. He asked me what it was and immediately wrote it down and said he will look it up as soon as he arrives home. Sorry but I am of the opinion it's incorrect to say this music won't be relevant in the future because it wasn't 100 years ago. Don't forget no one gave a damn about Bach's music only until 100 years after his death ;)

[darkwingscooter]

The problem is that the romantic "I like it if and only if it is good" attitude prevails among even a lot a serious classical thinkers and composers. As long as that is the standard art music's long slide into irrelevance will only continue. I agree to some extent with Aniruddh Patel that music (at least as a parole) is a technology. Specifically it is a technology of expression. Babbit was right that "who cares if they listen" insofar as the goal is not to produce likeable music, but to increase our range of expression. The social "selling point" for art music is the same as for any fundamental research. The warning should be that neglecting fundamental research in favour of applied is the beginning of the end for a culture. We don't remember past cultures that only applied existing technology borrowed from other cultures, however effectively they did so, and certainly don't mourn their passing. As a species we need growth and development to stay in the same place.


Conversely a lot of serious composers wear obscurity as a badge of honour for its own sake, which is almost as bad.

[macleadg]

I’m a classical musician, but I’ve always been put off by the stuffy, supercilious atmosphere of classical concerts. Classical musicians — composers and performers alike — could start by losing the snooty attitude that, for example, forbids clapping between movements (unless it’s an opera aria, when they’re ~ expected ~ to clap, even if the singer wasn’t that good).

For goodness’ sake: the audience wants to express their appreciation, and we turn them down? That’s so incredibly arrogant. It should come as no surprise that when we treat an audience with such disrespect, we don’t get a very large crowd. Classical composers have the same attitude: since a few great works (e.g. Rite of Spring) met with hostile receptions initially, they assume that their works are great (because they take it for granted that they are geniuses) and a hostile reception shows the audience’s lack perception not their music’s lack of quality (because they assume the audience are fools).

For every work that met with jeers at first and turned out to be great later, there’s probably 100 that have met with jeers because they actually just sucked — but no one remembers those.

(PS: I LOVE David Bruce’s music.❤️)

[johncrwarner]

I might be a weird person but when I lived in Oxfordshire - I regularly went of my own free will to the Barbican, Royal Festival Hall et al to hear contemporary music - it might be that I was brought up in Huddersfield where we have a Contemporary Music Festival which used to take over one of the regular subscription concerts in the Town Hall so I remember seeing a ballet-recitation-recital with music by Andriessen where the audience watched the dancing in mirrors and Peter Maxwell-Davis' 8 Songs for a Mad King where the woman next to me (I was in the cheap seats with the music students) grabbed my arm in shock when the singer actually smashed a violin.
Now I am in Bielefeld we have in the cultural mix some modern / contemporary music - for the 800th anniversary of the town we heard Hildegard of Bingen, Scelsi and Beethoven in the same concert - I liked them all.

[gabehizer]

I was trained as a jazz composer at Berklee College of Music and now mostly do pop/folk/country songwriting. I'm afraid that there are simply limits set by physics itself, as to how "far out" and dissonant music can go before most people will turn away from it. There's a reason a perfect fifth sounds "nice, " and it's not just because people were told it is supposed to sound nice. Good luck trying to get the populace to accept weird dissonant music with no repetitions or melody for people's minds to latch onto!

[BoggiFroggy]

We really need to have a conversation about how the "great masters" were writers of popular music and were involved in the popular culture of their day. You can't become Beethoven if you don't become Lady Gaga first. I tend to be disappointed in how classical music is portrayed and performed to this very day.