I don't think anyone's suggesting that a new century hasn't begun, but rather asking whether this is reflected in music being composed (although, as I've just tried to suggest, one of the problems is that composition is no longer the only form of musical activity which will be archived as a primary source for future historians).

It's true we could have a discussion about whether the specific events you're referring to are reflected in creative activity, or indeed about whether those events are part of a broader Zeitgeist which is reflected in such a way. But I think what Richard was trying to say is that some of us would prefer to keep a more open-ended view of how to characterise the politics of the period, in order to indulge instead in a form of speculation which starts from the music and looks first of all for signs of change there, before asking what specific political or other developments they might reflect.

If you read my original post, I asked whether it might have an effect upon the music that's being composed. As we are only seven years into this century, I doubt we would yet have the full measure of what's occurring, but it might be possible to discern trends, or anticipate them.


I would be surprised if any characterisation of what's going on in terms of the music would not might recourse to any sort of external referent. But I suspect there might be another agenda involved in wishing to close down this type of angle, in terms of artists who like to survey the world but not accept that they themselves are part of it. But I'm not going to pursue that.

Anyhow, if we'd been around 1950 or so, and asking if music had changed or looked like changing since the end of the war (and how, and why), would that be at all strange to ask? And if that would be perfectly legitimate, why not a similar situation re 9/11? If one does not believe the progress of post-1945 music is any way related to the end of the war, fine, then 9/11 or other associated events can equally be treated as irrelevant.

It struck me how a combination of retro-mania and also the privileging of style (or 'styles') over individualism was a major factor in both classical and popular worlds. All lent spurious justification by lots of accompanying rhetoric about post-modernism, irony, and so on and so forth. If there is a way forward for 21st century music, I believe it will come from some sort of critical engagement with this recent tradition that somehow manages to resist becoming subsumed within it, if that is possible.

[apologies for both my inabilities with quotes + failing to post this on the prevoious page . . .]
[/quote]

is the bit I'd like to hear more views on. Too cowardly to do it myself.

I did read it. What my response said, if you have another look, is that while not discounting the possibility of such an effect we might just like to spend a while looking a posteriori, as it were: at 'that which (may have) been affected' first, before we start arguing about the nature of the '(possible) causes'.

And yes, this would go equally for a discussion about post-WWII music. Its relation to the world of which it was part is indeed not only interesting but also (still) massively underdiscussed, but equally interesting is an entirely different question such as 'Did music change more around 1950 than around 1910?' And I think we're having a comparable discussion now, which your contributions risk stifling (which is odd, since you initially seemed to have some interesting thoughts to contribute which were more). That's not to say I don't think the issues you raise are worth considering. But Richard didn't say that either. Simply that they might be worth putting in a different thread.

I agree with you quite strongly that that is often the case, as I'm pretty sure you know. But it's not always the case, and since present company seems to be me and Richard (whose own scorn for composers 'survey[ing] the world but not accept[ing] that they are part of it' has found ample expression in print) I think you should alleviate those concerns for the moment.

Can I suggest that if you want to respond further to this message you do so on a new thread. It would be nice to continue the discussion, for the moment at least, in the style that Richard, autoharp and Ron have started off.

Again, I was actually saying something much closer to your position than you seem to imagine. You move very easily from 'multi-layered' to 'diversity and pluralism', when I was quite specifically trying to avoid implying the latter by the former. By 'layering' I was trying to imply something moving through time in complex, overlapping ways, whereas 'diversity and pluralism' seems to me to suggest an array of static positions between which one might choose. (Actually, one interesting question would be which of these ways of viewing the situation, if either, is what Ferneyhough is getting at with his metaphor of 'parallel universes', which I haven't read for a long time and am not sure I ever understood properly but which seems oddly content to put forward something resembling the latter option.)

On the other hand, I find it slightly odd you complain about the lack of real diversity of substance in today's music at the same time as telling me that Boulez and Cage are now revealed to be less radically diverse than they might have looked at the time ...

And I am looking at the music itself, which as far as I can see doesn't seem to have changed significantly since the 1990s - it's still stuck in the 'end of history' mentality that you invoked, but wondering if there might be the seeds of change, and offering a possible explanation for that. But to add to all this, these wider social changes might not simply affect what's written and how it is performed, but also how it is perceived as well. The music that conveys a 'history is over, let's party and go shopping' can sound very different in an era where it's surely clearer than ever to a wide range of people that history is far from ended.


Well, I don't know how contributions can 'stifle' (anyone is free to post what they like).


This present company seems never, for example, to want to discuss such issues as music and gender, and how they might affect things. How music itself is developing depends on where we delineate the actual field of what is being considered. There are, and have been, differing strands of musical production which have co-existed with others that have become more prominent and successful - the reasons why some are more prominent than others has been posited by some as to do with the dominant values of those in control. I bring all that up because we might consider how 'what is 21st century music actually?' is a question that is inevitably coloured by where we look from which to derive our conclusions. And when, for example, the supposed merits of Western culture are continually invoked as an ideological weapon in the 'War on Terror' (when presented in terms of the 'Clash of Civilizations'), then such questions become vital. That's another angle, of course; the basic point I'm trying to bring into this discussion is how, if we are delineating a new period in history, we do so - and can we do so without considering the attributes of that which preceded it? And those (in the case of the post-modern 1990s) seem tied in with the very 'end of history' conception you alluded to. I'm asking - is that mentality still in place (in large measure, I believe so, but others may have different opinions on this) and is reflected in composition, or have things changed, especially since 2001?

I don't necessarily read 'diversity and pluralism' in those ways, more simply as 'there are lots of very different things going on simultaneously'.


Well, that's because I'd take it further and say that there's not just a lack of diversity of substance, but a lack of substance at all, which wasn't the case in the 1950s, to me. But the point I was trying to make is that this era might have its defining attributes as much as those earlier ones did.

That's an interesting thought, which to me raises a few sub-questions:

(a) Has the restriction in access to traditional performing resources not been a process that has been occurring for quite some time, certainly since the middle of the 20th century?
(b) Are there not perhaps more performers today who play quite challenging and complex contemporary music than there were, say, 40 years ago? And whilst the opportunities for many of them to bring such music to more traditional concert settings are few, there is a more extensive circuit and set of institutions for new music than perhaps has ever been the case. With this in mind, is it necessarily true that access to 'traditional performing resources' has decreased in very recent times (or is this just a blip)?
(c) In terms of the use of electronic resources of one type or another, has there been a relatively steady increase in such things in (say) the period since the 1950s onwards? Or have composers turned away from electronics in some periods, and turned back to them in successive ones? The costs of such things have, I imagine, been progressively decreasing through that period, so that might be a linear trajectory (but correct me if I'm wrong on prices).
(d) (a sort of agglomeration of the other questions). Has there, therefore, been a steady decline in terms of access to traditional performing resources, accompanied by an increasing use of electronic ones on the parts of composers, especially in line with lowering prices? If not, how do the specifics of now relate to those of other recent periods, and if we didn't see the same processes at play then, are there other factors about today that would suggest that we would now?

(I don't necessarily have answers to these questions, nor am I positing them, just wondering what people think)