# Has postmodernism made us all into merely consumers of music instead of listeners?



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

I've tried to start a discussion on the scope of 'classical' music on a website in my country which generally only discusses pop music (because it is album-based which is difficult to use for classical works). I've tried to make clear that classical music is not always either old and stiff or contemporary and soothing but that 'classical' music can be wild and calling for revolution (like romantic music) or modern and 'ugly' with electronical noises. But for some reason they don't seem to get my point. For them it is all simply a matter of taste. Then it dawned to me that perhaps they are all 'postmodernists' which could explain their incompetence to understand that music can be revolutionary or consciously 'ugly. The irony is that my article on the many types or stages of classical music describes the (dialectical) development of western music, ending with postmodern music, with attention to religious and political contexts (https://www.musicmeter.nl/forum/13/10332/0#5996419; Google Translate can do the job but I am willing to provide a translation of my own). But exactly this development has led to musical consumentism: the contemporary listener is merely a consumer. Perhaps the historical development basically comes down to this:

Music in ancient times is communication with the gods (via ecstacy)
Baroque music is the glorification of God
Classical music is entertainment for the aristocracy
Romantic music is the uprise and emancipation of the people and the passion (and the glorification of the genius)
Modern music is utopian totalitarism
Postmodern music is music incorporated by capitalism: each his own

So in the contemporary postmodern time capitalism has rendered all music - including all music of the past - into a matter of only to like or not to like, to buy or not to buy which has rendered all music void of meaning, impact and thus danger or revolutionary consequence. Music can only invoke a personal 'this music makes me happy' or not so. Why do people don't fight anymore when they watch Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps? You would think it's because we've become very tolerant for such primitive and wild music (and dancing). Yet it could be that we've become not more tolerant but that we don't experience the music to be so wild and provoking anymore because we've become simply consumers of music which renders all music to be exchangeable and equally harmless because everything is now only 'a matter of taste' ('different strokes for different folks').

Has postmodernism made us all into merely consumers of music instead of listeners? Has the meaning of all music been lost since we only care if we like the music or not? Has music become a means to keep the people tame and in control instead of arousing them to revolution? Has music listening become merely escapism or 'a personal experience' because revolution is not an option anymore in the postmodern world? Does most postmodern music sound so tame and soothing - so focusing on a satisfying personal experience - because the listener has become socially isolated and politically powerless rendering him an egocentered consumer?

What do you think?


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Postmodernism? I think the more appropriate antecedent would be neo-liberalism, or perhaps the state of postmodernity (whose existence is dubious). Also, barely anyone is a 'postmodernist'. It's quite a difficult, tiring position to hold, limited to academics and the more cynical among us. 

As far as I recall, neither Jacques Derrida, Lyotard, Thomas Pynchon or John Cage served on advertising boards or handled big capital.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Tallisman said:


> Postmodernism? I think the more appropriate antecedent would be neo-liberalism, or perhaps the state of postmodernity (whose existence is dubious). Also, barely anyone is a 'postmodernist'. It's quite a difficult, tiring position to hold, limited to academics and the more cynical among us.
> 
> As far as I recall, neither Jacques Derrida, Lyotard, Thomas Pynchon or John Cage served on advertising boards or handled big capital.


I think postmodernism and capitalism are intertwined. As I wrote: modernism is utopian totalitarism (like communism). Postmodernism is the antagonist of this totalitarism of 'one truth': all perspectives are equally 'true'. Of course, the postmodernists were 'left winged' because they aimed at giving minorities a voice and they gave the political world 'multiculturalism'. And of course they oppose capitalism as the dominant 'totalitarian' economic power in our times. Yet their multiculturalism simply follows the logic of capitalism: each it's own. The capitalist doesn't care about truth too: he sells whatever you want to buy. So even if the postmodernists don't know it they are really the cultural complement of capitalism.

PS. Marx called unionism - the dominant form of socialism in England and US - "socialism for capitalists" because the bargaining between unions and companies truly follows the rules of capitalism (so the outcome can only be capitalism). Likewise I would say that multiculturalism and postmodernism can think of themselves as marxism but really they are "marxism for capitalists" because they follow the logic of captalism.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Agamemnon said:


> The capitalist doesn't care about truth too: he sells whatever you want to buy.


It's probably more accurate to state that capitalists try to sell whatever *they* want you to buy.

Having said the above, I am a fan of capitalism. In its pure form, capitalism is a highly efficient foundation for developing and distributing economic resources.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> Having said the above, I am a fan of capitalism. In its pure form, capitalism is a highly efficient foundation for developing and distributing economic resources.


I'm not sure what you mean by "pure." In it's purest form capitalism has an instability where monopolies can be established which become entrenched and prevent competition. Capitalism only works well when competition is preserved and there are efficient markets where people have access to information and real choice. Judicious regulation is required to maintain these conditions.

Returning to the initial post, capitalism may influence how I find and listen to music. It doesn't influence how I experience it.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

No. Your explanation is way too simplistic for a way more complicated phenomenon. Because people make (and spend) a lot of money on music, doesn't make it primarily an economic entity -- except that composers have always had lives to support so there has always been at least one basic economic transaction involved. If people can maken money off of comosers/musicians, they wilol. If they can't, they'll move on to something else -- like soft drinks or real estate. But to blame an "ism" is to over-simplify something that can't be simplified.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I see classical music as a personal expression of one's personality and being, using composition and performance (talking about your ideas through your works and instrument) as the vehicle.

So, the 'unstable' and ever-changing factor here, which will always continue to threaten rigid 'historical' notions of what classical music is, or is supposed to be, seems to be the human factor. 

As each new generation comes along, living in whatever new reality that has developed, they will express their experiences of the ever-changing 'now' into the reality of the musical forms which they have learned to use, in their lifetimes, in their 'now.'

This seems diametrically opposed to any idea of a 'history' which is rigidly fixed and defined. 

So, we can say, classical music is about 'time and changes,' and the time is now; and time is always changing.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I'm always surprised at the rage the term "postmodernism" makes. I think that modernism in music happened when composers wanted to be pioneers of new sounds, and postmodernism happened when (some of the same) composers were tired of experiments in music. I believe the change happened in the 70s.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

”Has music become a means to keep the people tame and in control instead of arousing them to revolution? Has music listening become merely escapism or 'a personal experience' because revolution is not an option anymore in the postmodern world?”

What kind of a revolution do you have in mind or would like to see? Anti-capitalist? Or is it the general idea that people are politically, economically, or aesthetically asleep? The problem with revolution is that it can get you killed. I wouldn’t want to be an investigative journalist in Russia under Putin the Poisoner. But if someone feels called to revolution, they’re going to go ahead anyway and they have been known to change the world.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

If I understand correctly I think there are two different ideas here - one is about economics, i.e. music as a consumer good and how the changing economic forces over history have played a role in that; and the other is about aesthetics, i.e. how, or whether we enjoy or appreciate or experience music differently as a result of the economics, would that be a fair assessment?

One thing I've mentioned in other threads is that I feel the biggest factor that has changed the economics of music is not capitalism, but technology. I think the invention of the phonograph and the ability to record music and mass-produce it has been the driving force, more so than just 'capitalism' in general, though I acknowledge these are intertwined. (Another post pointed out that the invention of the printing press allowing for publication and distribution was another major factor.) I think moving to recording-based music made music cheap and expensive and turned it into something that could be consumed whenever and wherever we want, effectively making it less valuable and less valued, perhaps no longer something worthy of our full time and attention as it might have been before. And add to that the fact that we no longer need to contract with other people to make the music for us - even though a human has to perform for the original recording, once complete, the experience of the music has lost a human element since we now only buy a recording and something to play it on (and nowadays not even that - we can get it free on the internet). Isn't this more of a driving force behind our experience of music over the last century than 'postmodernism'? Or are these part and parcel of the same thing?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "pure." In it's purest form capitalism has an instability where monopolies can be established which become entrenched and prevent competition. Capitalism only works well when competition is preserved and there are efficient markets where people have access to information and real choice. Judicious regulation is required to maintain these conditions.


Right you are. By "pure" my meaning was that humans are not screwing around with the system. Unfortunately, there are a lot of nasty pigs at the top of the food chain and in the halls of Congress. When they join forces, as they often do, you better keep your hands on your wallet.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> "Has music become a means to keep the people tame and in control instead of arousing them to revolution? Has music listening become merely escapism or 'a personal experience' because revolution is not an option anymore in the postmodern world?"
> 
> What kind of a _revolution_ do you have in mind or would like to see?


Perhaps I should post a translation of my original post on the Dutch website to make these things clear. I believe most music was revolutionary like all art has been. For example romantic music. In the original article I write about it (translated by Google Translate):

"Romanticism seems to be the big counter movement against classical music as it was in art and philosophy against the Enlightenment. Not the reason but the emotions get the upper hand and with that they no longer seek the measured but the infinite and unfathomable: the music floods its classical shores and becomes wild and violent (a favorite subject of romantic painters is the storm) or rather sweet and sentimental (such as many piano music by Chopin and Beethoven's Mondscheinsonate). Romantic music often wants to portray something, eg an idyllic landscape, but of course the passion is central: romance is the all-consuming passion for your loved one but also for your people and with that the willingness to sacrifice yourself for the other and / or for your homeland (in a sense, the romanticism reverts to the medieval knightly romanticism where the knight sacrificed himself for his king or the beautiful lady, but the king is now being replaced by his own people). It tells about unattainable or tragic love, the pride of your nation and the fire of revolution because romantic music is no longer the music for the aristocrats, who wait the guillotine, but from and for the people who want to get rid of their oppressors. Just as the Grimm Brothers searched for the primal stories of the people ('fairy tales'), romantic composers go in search of folk songs and write musical odes to their own people (eg Sibelius' Finlandia). Cynically said, this romantic nationalism of the 19th century would lead to the world wars of the 20th century. The romantics turn away from bourgeoisie and civilization and celebrate the nature and the free-spirited existence of the gipsy in particular, as in Bizet's opera Carmen (artists want to become 'bohemian' themselves). It is music full of burning passion and revolutionary fire and with it music that can still make the hearts beat faster: listen to Sibelius' Violin Concerto, Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 or De Sarasate's Gipsy Airs, for example."


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Spoken with passion like a true artist. Perhaps it will be up to you to start the next revolution. “Cynically said, this romantic nationalism of the 19th century would lead to the world wars of the 20th century.” It certainly helped fan the flames. Perhaps the next revolution that’s needed? The awakening to the frailty and vulnerability of the earth’s survival because of an unconscious humanity that does not see its own connection with nature—that they are one and the same. It’s possible that another revolution in the arts could be part of it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> Right you are. By "pure" my meaning was that humans are not screwing around with the system. Unfortunately, there are a lot of nasty pigs at the top of the food chain and in the halls of Congress. When they join forces, as they often do, you better keep your hands on your wallet.


Humans screwing around with the system, isn't that the essence of capitalism?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Humans screwing around with the system, isn't that the essence of capitalism?


No, it's the essence of illegal/criminal activity.


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

> Has postmodernism *made us all into merely consumers of music* instead of listeners?


Don't blame postmodernism or capitalism, if it happens, you do it to yourself.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I'm always surprised at the rage the term "postmodernism" makes. I think that modernism in music happened when composers wanted to be pioneers of new sounds, and postmodernism happened when (some of the same) composers were tired of experiments in music. I believe the change happened in the 70s.


I don't believe there is such thing as postmodernism in music. There are no concrete definitions for it and far too many conflicting arguments as to what it actually _is_-it's a more tiresome debate than anything I've seen on TC.

Is Berio's _Sinfonia_ modernist or postmodernist? Gander's _A Cold Cadaver with Thirteen Scary Scars_ could also be described as one or the other depending on how one chooses to discuss it, same as the music of Philip Glass, La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Arvo Pärt, Thomas Adès, Helmut Lachenmann, Moritz Eggert, Luigi Nono etc etc etc.

Every new composition is simply music that has never been composed before, music that has the essence of contemporary ideas. Musical quotation, neo-romanticism, minimalism, post-minimalism and even _pastiche_-the things that come to mind when I think of postmodernism-have all been experimental in their own way; they've all been ideas that swam against the current and could only have flourished as modernist ideas.

That being said, there's no music that doesn't exist outside of the legacy of music from the past. All the composers one might think of as 'modernist' are always strongly inspired by or reacting to the music of the immediate past as well as music history as a whole, and could even be described as not 'pioneers of new sounds' but simply a continuation of music as it always has been, a reflection of stylistic and aesthetic trends across history.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^^ I think there is a big distinction between Modern and Postmodern art in perception and narrative. There are polar extremes, for me Prokofiev and Cage are opposite ends of the spectrum, and huge mix in between. Being aware of the difference in perceptions helps me in listening to either type. I feel the Modern aesthetic is generally more traditional, with new form of expression, while Postmodern is an entirely different aesthetic, even when the forms of expression are not new.

Berio's Sinfonie is clearly postmodern to me since it seems to have a more open narrative.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Y'all, I love this discussion. Great topic with some great insights.

IMO...

The key differences between modernism and postmodernism are how they view the cultural space - not necessarily how their works look or sound.

Modern art believed in progress. Each work aspired to be some kind of bold new step--not in just any direction, but _forward_. The universe of art was one-dimensional. On that dimension, one direction (backwards) was wrong and the other (forwards) was right.

But progress isn't easy. Art was supposed to be a struggle. The challenge for the artist was to discover those steps forward, and the challenge for the audience was to appreciate them.

This view is inherently elitist. Some artists can invent really productive new techniques and styles; most can't. Some audiences can appreciate those innovations; others can't.

Of course the masses were among the latter. When a modernist said something like "pleasure is the only law," he meant the pleasure of the elite, deeply perceptive observer, not the "man on the street."

But this was a damning contradiction. Modernism felt compelling because of analogies between technology, science, political and social progress, and the arts. But political and social progress undermined elitism. As the masses gained the power and confidence to consume the arts they liked, modernism was doomed.

Postmodernism just accepts that different people like different things. There is (supposed to be) no elite to tell us what we should like. The only question is whether anyone will buy it. The artistic space is multidimensional, and as artist or audience you are free to move through it however you like.

This means (in the musical realm) that postmodernists can make "modern sounding" music, music that challenges listeners the way modern music did. Crumb's _Black Angels_ must have been about as challenging to its first audiences as anything Stravinsky or Schoenberg composed was for theirs. The difference isn't in the novelty of the techniques or style. The difference is that people didn't assume Crumb was trying to find some way "forward." He was just doing what he wanted to do. It might have been different than what had come before, but no one worried about whether it was better. The fact that modernist critics could perceive it as a progressive work didn't matter.

Reich's _Music for 18 Musicians_, on the other hand, is an explicitly postmodern work. It's too "easy." Almost anyone can enjoy it. It can be played in a shopping mall or an airport (two quintessential postmodern spaces). The fact that it was innovative doesn't excuse it from a modernist point of view.

But this doesn't mean that we're reduced to consumers. The audience was always consumers. Postmodernism simply embraces a wider audience, and doesn't demand that we all agree.

Within the limited field of the arts, I just don't see - can't even imagine - a very persuasive refutation for postmodernism. How am I to PROVE that someone who enjoys country music or hip hop or world beat music is wrong? When people try to do that, all I see is insults. Some of the insults are cleverer than others, so that's something, but I don't see persuasive arguments.

That can make people uncomfortable - especially people who are attracted to the "high arts" at least in part because of their traditional cultural cachet. We sometimes want the kind of credit we might've gotten in the old days. We demand it with the cleverest insults. But it's just a temper tantrum in an almost empty theater. The masses aren't listening to us, and they're not going to.

Outside of the arts, though, I don't see much value to postmodernism. Morally and epistemologically, it's useless at best, at worst evil.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> Outside of the arts, though, I don't see much value to postmodernism. Morally and epistemologically, it's useless at best, at worst evil.


I don't even think postmodernism has a real meaning. As always, music people want to hear will endure until they get tired of it. "Great" music will enjoy popularity longer, but it too, in its time, will be forgotten. Beethoven? Was he, like, with a group?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

science said:


> This view is inherently elitist.


Maybe I don't know enough about the concept of modernism, but I don't think it's inherently elitist. To me it seems like just a simple desire to create new ideas rather than follow traditions. I would consider myself a modernist artist/composer, but I don't feel superior to others. I don't think that pre-modern music is inherently worse, I just don't prefer it. I think it's more elitist to think that everyone should only like traditional ideas and ignore new ideas than to appreciate old ideas as well as appreciating and creating new ideas. If modernism is elitist, it seems like all other eras and styles of music should be considered elitist as well.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Fredx2098 said:


> Maybe I don't know enough about the concept of modernism, but I don't think it's inherently elitist. To me it seems like just a simple desire to create new ideas rather than follow traditions. I would consider myself a modernist artist/composer, but I don't feel superior to others. I don't think that pre-modern music is inherently worse, I just don't prefer it. I think it's more elitist to think that everyone should only like traditional ideas and ignore new ideas than to appreciate old ideas as well as appreciating and creating new ideas. If modernism is elitist, it seems like all other eras and styles of music should be considered elitist as well.


Well, really, they were. Elitism was the way of the world.

If you think people should NOT create or like a certain kind of music (traditional or popular), you could be a modernist, but you sound postmodern to me.

Also, you're a big fan of Feldman. I'd bet most people who distinguish between modernism and postmodernism would call him postmodern.

You might have some reason not to like the term postmodern, but if you get used to it, you might see yourself in it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

science said:


> Well, really, they were. Elitism was the way of the world.
> 
> If you think people should NOT create or like a certain kind of music (traditional or popular), you could be a modernist, but you sound postmodern to me.
> 
> ...


Lately I have been contemplating whether Feldman's early music was modern and the later music postmodern. It seems like that might be the case if modernism is about creating new systems of rules, whereas Feldman doesn't seem to use any rules or tangible structure later on. But isn't abstract art such as Rothko a style of modernism? That's usually what I compare his music with.

But do you have any proof/examples of modernism being inherently about elitism?


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2018)

With the whole thing about 'elitism' coming into the discussion, would this mean that Boulez is actually more of a post-modernist?

A few things to consider:
- In the 1960s he said that he is no longer the avant-garde.
- He was constantly looking back at composers like Ravel, Debussy, Webern, Schoenberg etc for inspiration, as well as non-western musical cultures.
- He was interested in writing music 'of his time' rather than any adamant belief in progress for its own sake.
- When asked if he thought the music he wrote and conducted was for some 'elite' audience or that you need some kind of 'elite' training in order to listen, he responded with disbelief and commented on the fact that if _that_ is supposed to be somehow 'elite' then he would prefer the whole world to be 'elite' (he was adamantly against elitism, and for a period of time he even preferred not to associate with the Darmstadt Summer Courses because of it)
- He set up the New York Philharmonic Rug Concerts, $5 tickets for anyone of any age or background to come and enjoy highly contrasting programmes featuring music from the past as well as the most recent modernist music composed by people like Ligeti, Stockhausen, himself and others.
- He spoke favourably of pop music and considered it extremely culturally relevant to the modern world, a musical culture of constant rejuvenation and renewal, unlike the 'museum culture' of classical concert hall repertoire and relative lack of development in instrument design and build in the classical music world.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

shirime said:


> With the whole thing about 'elitism' coming into the discussion, would this mean that Boulez is actually more of a post-modernist?


Boulez definitely had a postmodern mindset at least as early as the 1970s; I don't think anyone could show that better than you have.



Fredx2098 said:


> Lately I have been contemplating whether Feldman's early music was modern and the later music postmodern. It seems like that might be the case if modernism is about creating new systems of rules, whereas Feldman doesn't seem to use any rules or tangible structure later on. But isn't abstract art such as Rothko a style of modernism? That's usually what I compare his music with.
> 
> But do you have any proof/examples of modernism being inherently about elitism?


The definition and characteristics of "postmodernism" are contested and have changed markedly just during the past 30 years. For example, Derrida used to be just about the essence of postmodernism, but the term has acquired a much broader meaning, while Derrida has been almost forgotten except as a bogeyman. (Outside of a very specific academic context, about ninety percent of the time that someone drops the name "Derrida," they are trying to insult someone by associating them with him.)

So I want to be clear that I do not intend my comments here merely to represent something like "what everyone thinks these things mean." People are inconsistent, while I'm arguing for a particular view. I'm not all alone in my views; I've been influenced by a lot of people. _I think_ I'm summarizing or framing ideas that are vaguely held by a lot of people. _I think_ we're slouching toward agreement about these terms.

Another thing to keep in mind here is that TC has had a number of very strong voices rejecting modernism and postmodernism without distinguishing between them. When they say "modern" they mean both. You'll sometimes hear that usage out in the world too, depending on who you talk to.

Anyway, on my view, "postmodern" does NOT name any particular style of music or art. It's a cultural attitude, not a style or a set of styles. However, some works of art and music reveal attitudes that mark them as definitely postmodern, but other works of art from the same period could well be called modern. That was what I meant to show with the example of Crumb's _Black Angels_.

With that in mind, I feel pretty sure that most people who think about a distinction between postmodernism and modernism would put all of Feldman's major works on the postmodern side.

Feldman is a full generation younger than Rothko, and it's hard to be much younger than Rothko without being postmodern. Cage is probably the best example of a transitional figure in music between modernism and postmodernism--I could imagine someone arguing that Cage invented postmodernism in music.

Maybe I have proof that modernism was inherently elitist. But before I try to What would constitute proof? What would proof look like?

But even if I don't have proof, most people who've thought much about post/modernism would agree that post-modernism reacts to modernism as if modernism were elitist. Postmodern artists have often explicitly rejected the notion of elevation in the arts--the distinction between "high" and "low," which they attribute to modern art (and of course to a lot of earlier periods, but no one living in the 1970s or later needs to react to any earlier periods, while no one living around that time could help but react to modernism).


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

science said:


> Boulez definitely had a postmodern mindset at least as early as the 1970s; I don't think anyone could show that better than you have.
> 
> The definition and characteristics of "postmodernism" are contested and have changed markedly just during the past 30 years. For example, Derrida used to be just about the essence of postmodernism, but the term has acquired a much broader meaning, while Derrida has been almost forgotten except as a bogeyman. (Outside of a very specific academic context, about ninety percent of the time that someone drops the name "Derrida," they are trying to insult someone by associating them with him.)
> 
> ...


If you say that postmodernism isn't a style of art or music, how/why can/do you then label certain composers as such? I'm still confused about the meaning of the word and difference from modernism. On wikipedia it says "the postmodernist movement formed partly in reaction to modernism. Even so, postmodern music still does not primarily define itself in opposition to modernist music."

Proof of modernism having to do with elitism would be something like quotes from modernist artists exhibiting a pretentious elitist attitude, or some kind of manifesto saying that modernism is superior to other forms of art. If you don't have an idea of what proof could be, how could you make such a bold claim about an entire style of art and group of artists?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

shirime said:


> With the whole thing about 'elitism' coming into the discussion, would this mean that Boulez is actually more of a post-modernist?
> 
> A few things to consider:
> - In the 1960s he said that he is no longer the avant-garde.
> ...


I always felt Boulez was more conservative than some. I wouldn't label Boulez a postmodernist. His music appeals in a more traditional manner. If anything I thought he became more conservative in his later decades. Didn't he outrightly hate so-called Postmodernism?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Fredx2098 said:


> If you say that postmodernism isn't a style of art or music, how/why can/do you then label certain composers as such? I'm still confused about the meaning of the word and difference from modernism. On wikipedia it says "the postmodernist movement formed partly in reaction to modernism. Even so, postmodern music still does not primarily define itself in opposition to modernist music."
> 
> Proof of modernism having to do with elitism would be something like quotes from modernist artists exhibiting a pretentious elitist attitude, or some kind of manifesto saying that modernism is superior to other forms of art. If you don't have an idea of what proof could be, how could you make such a bold claim about an entire style of art and group of artists?


Well, the claim isn't even nearly original to me. That's a fairly common perception. I'm not sure whether you're genuinely unaware of it or if you simply don't like the fact that people see modernism that way. If it's the former, just read about postmodernism; if it's the latter, nothing I could show you would constitute proof.

Wikipedia has some useful notes:



> The postmodern impulse in classical music arose in the 1960s with the advent of musical minimalism. Composers such as Terry Riley, Henryk Górecki, Bradley Joseph, John Adams, Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Michael Nyman, and Lou Harrison *reacted to the perceived elitism and dissonant sound of atonal academic modernism by producing music with simple textures and relatively consonant harmonies*, whilst others, most notably John Cage challenged the prevailing narratives of beauty and objectivity common to Modernism. *Some composers have been openly influenced by popular music* and world ethnic musical traditions.


Another article says:



> Kramer enumerates 16 (arguably subjective) "characteristics of postmodern music, ...." According to Kramer (2002, 16-17), postmodern music:
> 
> 1. is not simply a repudiation of modernism or its continuation, but has aspects of both a break and an extension
> 2. is, on some level and in some way, ironic
> ...


I find that all pretty clear and roughly the same thing I was saying.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I always felt Boulez was more conservative than some. I wouldn't label Boulez a postmodernist. His music appeals in a more traditional manner. If anything I thought he became more conservative in his later decades. Didn't he outrightly hate so-called Postmodernism?


I wonder what he would've meant if he said something like that. He conducted Zappa, after all.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

science said:


> Well, the claim isn't even nearly original to me. That's a fairly common perception. I'm not sure whether you're genuinely unaware of it or if you simply don't like the fact that people see modernism that way. If it's the former, just read about postmodernism; if it's the latter, nothing I could show you would constitute proof.
> 
> Wikipedia has some useful notes:
> 
> ...


Some key words there are "perception" and "perceived". Someone perceiving modernism as elitist doesn't make it so. That's just a baseless assertion. I've read about modernism and postmodernism, and I haven't seen anything that suggests that the concept of modernism is about an elitist feeling of superiority. Modernism being perceived as elitist isn't proof that it is elitist. If you can refer to something that isn't just someone's negative opinion from outside modernism, that would be better. I'm not trying to defend modernism or oppose postmodernism; it just doesn't seem like what you're saying is logical. If Schoenberg or someone said something like "atonal modernist music is better than all other styles of music", that would be more convincing. Still, that has nothing to do with any definition of modernism that I've ever read, even if some of them did have an elitist attitude.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Fredx2098 said:


> Some key words there are "perception" and "perceived". Someone perceiving modernism as elitist doesn't make it so. That's just a baseless assertion. I've read about modernism and postmodernism, and I haven't seen anything that suggests that the concept of modernism is about an elitist feeling of superiority. Modernism being perceived as elitist isn't proof that it is elitist. If you can refer to something that isn't just someone's negative opinion from outside modernism, that would be better. I'm not trying to defend modernism or oppose postmodernism; it just doesn't seem like what you're saying is logical. If Schoenberg or someone said something like "atonal modernist music is better than all other styles of music", that would be more convincing. Still, that has nothing to do with any definition of modernism that I've ever read, even if some of them did have an elitist attitude.


The conversation feels a bit chippy to me so I'll drop it. I don't think I could say anything about this much better than I have. It's ok if we disagree.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Thanks for the interesting discussion so far. I find the discussion quite semantical ('what is postmodernism'?) so I would like to ask anew:

"Why do people don't fight anymore when they watch Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps? You would think it's because we've become very tolerant for such primitive and wild music (and dancing). Yet it could be that we've become not more tolerant but that we don't experience the music to be so wild and provoking anymore because we've become simply consumers of music which renders all music to be exchangeable and equally harmless because everything is now only 'a matter of taste' ('different strokes for different folks')."

For I think we don't listen to music the way e.g. Stravinsky or Beethoven wanted us to listen. I don't think Beethoven wrote his music with the intention: 'I hope you like it. If you do then you can buy my record or we can be friends on Facebook' which is the way we 'postmodernists' deal with things. I think Beethoven believed he expressed something very deep and important through his music: I think he believed that his music is an expression of his deepest feelings and therefore (being a genius) of the true essence of mankind. Probably he wouldn't care if you like his music or not; he would only hope that you would recognize the deep Truth of his music so his music would make you also a part of the new movement of Truth which he has expressed in music. We - as postmodernists - may find it odd to find 'truth' in music or art because truth has to do with propositions/words and to us all art and music is simply entertainment (you like it or you don't like it) as in postmodernism there is no more Truth but only opinions of equal worth. But in Beethoven's Romantic Age many artistst and thinkers believed that the highest Truth cannot be said in words because Truth is sublime - beyond rational understanding - yet art and especially music is able to express the deepest truths. I guess this weight and consequence of music has been lost to us which I tried to explain by 'postmodernism' which dominates contemporary art and society. And the same goes for Stravinsky and other modernistst: people rioted over Stravinsky's not because they couldn't stand it or it hurt their ears but because in modernism art/music was still about Truth: Stravinsky caused riots because some people found his music to be the Truth while others wholeheartedly disagreed and believed Stravinsky represented a wrong track.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Agamemnon said:


> Thanks for the interesting discussion so far. I find the discussion quite semantical ('what is postmodernism'?) so I would like to ask anew:
> 
> "Why do people don't fight anymore when they watch Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps? You would think it's because we've become very tolerant for such primitive and wild music (and dancing). Yet it could be that we've become not more tolerant but that we don't experience the music to be so wild and provoking anymore because we've become simply consumers of music which renders all music to be exchangeable and equally harmless because everything is now only 'a matter of taste' ('different strokes for different folks')."
> 
> For I think we don't listen to music the way e.g. Stravinsky or Beethoven wanted us to listen. I don't think Beethoven wrote his music with the intention: 'I hope you like it. If you do then you can buy my record or we can be friends on Facebook' which is the way we 'postmodernists' deal with things. I think Beethoven believed he expressed something very deep and important through his music: I think he believed that his music is an expression of his deepest feelings and therefore (being a genius) of the true essence of mankind. Probably he wouldn't care if you like his music or not; he would only hope that you would recognize the deep Truth of his music so his music would make you also a part of the new movement of Truth which he has expressed in music. We - as postmodernists - may find it odd to find 'truth' in music or art because truth has to do with propositions/words and to us all art and music is simply entertainment (you like it or you don't like it) as in postmodernism there is no more Truth but only opinions of equal worth. But in Beethoven's Romantic Age many artistst and thinkers believed that the highest Truth cannot be said in words because Truth is sublime - beyond rational understanding - yet art and especially music is able to express the deepest truths. I guess this weight and consequence of music has been lost to us which I tried to explain by 'postmodernism' which dominates contemporary art and society. And the same goes for Stravinsky and other modernistst: people rioted over Stravinsky's not because they couldn't stand it or it hurt their ears but because in modernism art/music was still about Truth: Stravinsky caused riots because some people found his music to be the Truth while others wholeheartedly disagreed and believed Stravinsky represented a wrong track.


You may well be correctly characterizing the difference between how romantic or modernist artists and postmodern artists have perceived themselves, but their perceptions don't have to matter to us.

Outside of foraging societies, artists have always been producers and audiences have always been consumers, but the ideological significances they saw in their production and consumption are fascinating historical contexts for their works. I don't feel at all guilty that I don't share their ideologies; instead, I'm so deeply grateful to live in a time and place where historical thinking is so valued that I can enjoy knowing about those contexts.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

science said:


> You may well be correctly characterizing the difference between how romantic or modernist artists and postmodern artists have perceived themselves, but their perceptions don't have to matter to us.
> 
> Outside of foraging societies, artists have always been producers and audiences have always been consumers, but the ideological significances they saw in their production and consumption are fascinating historical contexts for their works. I don't feel at all guilty that I don't share their ideologies; instead, I'm so deeply grateful to live in a time and place where historical thinking is so valued that I can enjoy knowing about those contexts.


Maybe a more obvious example is Bach's Matthaus Passion. Of course an atheist can enjoy the work as well but does he fully gets the work as Bach intended it? Or doesn't it matter if you are christian or atheist while listening to Bach? And if it doesn't matter, is it because the atheist can understand the christian meaning as well (he simply rejects is as untrue) or because the christian also doesn't experience the truth of Bach's work anymore?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Agamemnon said:


> Thanks for the interesting discussion so far. I find the discussion quite semantical ('what is postmodernism'?) so I would like to ask anew:
> 
> "Why do people don't fight anymore when they watch Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps? You would think it's because we've become very tolerant for such primitive and wild music (and dancing). Yet it could be that we've become not more tolerant but that we don't experience the music to be so wild and provoking anymore because we've become simply consumers of music which renders all music to be exchangeable and equally harmless because everything is now only 'a matter of taste' ('different strokes for different folks')."


The reaction to the Rite was specific to the tastes and the cultural battles of the time. There have been more recent disturbances caused by new music but these were protests of _their _time. Similarly, as we know, there are many who passionately dislike this or that trend in music. Perhaps postmodernism permits them to value their own perceptions above those of the experts and opens the doors to their rage? But I am not sure we listen to music that differently now than they did in the past, although of course "art music" is far less central to our cultural environment than it was: it is totally OK now not to know any classical or "art" music but that is not true in the same way for the visual arts of literature. I'm not sure postmodernism comes into it although much of this even if it does dominate the ways we critically evaluate music.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Agamemnon --
Having read your post titled "Has postmodernism made us all into merely consumers of music instead of listeners?" and having not read any of the comments following, I will suggest this:
Art itself, in the broadest terms (painting, music, literature) has had different functions throughout history. In earliest days the arts did exist on a local (consumerist) level, to a minimum degree -- folks created art object, painted, sang, told stories -- but this remained minimal because of leisure time considerations. People simply did not have time for expansive arts appreciation and exploration; they had to survive, which was a tough thing -- no time for arts. The Arts sprang up in more formal contexts, especially those of a Religious nature or, to a lesser degree, a State nature.

Your namesake Agamemnon is the protagonist in a great play by Aeschylus, one of his seven surviving/extant works (of some several dozen written). It was composed for a State sponsored festival which has strong religious roots. It was to be taken seriously (a tragedy) and proposed observations about the human condition and man's relationship to his fellow man, to the gods, to his environment, to himself. It was philosophical, sociological, sacred, _and_ artistic. It served an important position in the society. The play was produced by a troupe of State paid professionals from the playwright to the actors/chorus and the scenic/production crew. At the same time common folk told similar stories in their homes in the evenings, sure, but the dramas as presented in the Theatre of Dionysius was a special event. The Art of it was unmistaken.

One thing our modern world allows for is that we as consumers have greater leisure time and greater access to "arts", and the downside is that the arts themselves have lost a degree of the importance once evident in works such as the _Agamemnon_. Instead of gathering as a community at the grand theatre once a year for the Festival, we gather as lone individuals or a few family members in front of the television to witness the latest reiterations of what passes nowadays for "theatre." The majority of these programs are forgettable and serve as only momentary entertainment. Forget the philosophy, sociology, sacredness or, even, the artistic. As long as an advertiser will pay to produce the dribble, it will air. Notably, one never much sees an ancient Greek tragedy on the television venue.

We can equate this example to music. The art form was once importantly sacred (though it was practiced on a common level to some degree) but is today, because of the changes in our societies, almost strictly consumerist. The most forgettable notions will be heard as long as someone is willing to pay for it. Our attitudes have much to do with our consumption of art and "art".

Often when we talk of "music" today we are not talking about music at all. We are talking about hair and clothing styles, about dancing abilities, about outrageous behaviors. Could much of what passes as "modern popular music" survive if only _heard_ rather than _seen_ in videos or _talked about_ in publicity magazines? Balderdash! A few concerned and serious people still ply the musical trades attempting to reach out on a higher, musical level with their arts, but they are generally unheard by the populace. There are no Aeschylus's to celebrate today, at least among the mass consciousness. The times they are a changin'.

My explanation here is simplistic. This argument could support a book. But perhaps you get my point. At least, this is how I interpret the idea you propose.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SONNET CLV said:


> We can equate this example to music. The art form was once importantly sacred (though it was practiced on a common level to some degree) but is today, because of the changes in our societies, almost strictly consumerist. The most forgettable notions will be heard as long as someone is willing to pay for it. Our attitudes have much to do with our consumption of art and "art".


That's a bit cynical; music can still transcend its intended genres and intended uses, even though it is still "consumed." The Beatles are one example; at first they were merely a pop group, but managed, in many people's opinions, to transcend those limitations and create some beautiful music.

Classical music seems to be a refuge for those who are alienated by their own culture; but great art still exists, and Humanity is still consuming it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Agamemnon said:


> Maybe a more obvious example is Bach's Matthaus Passion. Of course an atheist can enjoy the work as well but does he fully gets the work as Bach intended it? Or doesn't it matter if you are christian or atheist while listening to Bach? And if it doesn't matter, is it because the atheist can understand the christian meaning as well (he simply rejects is as untrue) or because the christian also doesn't experience the truth of Bach's work anymore?


What is the intention of a religious work? If it's meant to cause some kind of religious epiphany, then I guess I'm not hearing it as intended. I love the music though. I don't think there is a right or wrong way to enjoy music. You shouldn't have to be an 18th century aristocrat to appreciate a Classical-era piece. If you think that someone's enjoyment or disliking of a piece of music can be right or wrong, I disagree. If you think that a contemporary listener cannot appreciate a piece of music from the past and is simply a consumer whimsically pretending to listen to music, I disagree with that also. I would certainly call myself a listener and not a consumer. Certainly there are some people who simply "consume", but it seems like there would be such people in every era, and it seems like you're claiming that all contemporary listeners are not actually listening to and hearing the music, which I don't think is true. I'm still not quite sure of your point though.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Agamemnon said:


> Maybe a more obvious example is Bach's Matthaus Passion. Of course an atheist can enjoy the work as well but does he fully gets the work as Bach intended it? Or doesn't it matter if you are christian or atheist while listening to Bach? And if it doesn't matter, is it because the atheist can understand the christian meaning as well (he simply rejects is as untrue) or because the christian also doesn't experience the truth of Bach's work anymore?


I think that is a precisely perfect comparison.

There's no way that any contemporary person, Christian or atheist or any of the other options, can feel the same way about religion that someone did back then. All of the secularizing phenomena that separate us from the mid-18th century - industrialization, the rise of germ theory and modern medicine, democratic politics, the discoveries of geological history and evolution and cosmic history, increased knowledge of our own religious traditions' histories and the discoveries of other religious traditions (Bach lived in a time before Europeans knew anything of Buddhism or Hinduism, let alone more obscure traditions like Shinto, and knew of traditions like Confucianism only through the writings of missionaries, and Europeans had not yet learned to respect the traditions of "uncivilized" peoples, so it was before the diversity of religious traditions had set its riddles to the religious mind) or even of the surprising diversity of the traditions of people close to us - all those developments have completely changed our intellectual and cultural world so much that we absolutely cannot feel what someone on the other side of them felt.

Bach himself lived through the very beginning of some of those changes. He was born into a world that still generally believed the universe spun around the earth, and died in one that had learned not to trust the Church on points like that. But he couldn't have imagined something like feeling confident expectation that both mother and child would survive childbirth.

Learning more and more about history can help us imagine what people felt in the past, but we'll never fully capture it in all its complexity and power. But this inability - the fact that we cannot help being of our time and place rather than of other times and places - doesn't render our experience of their arts invalid. Our feelings are exactly as valid, though different, as theirs.

in fact, we can hear Bach in a way no one back then could: repeatedly listening to his works performed by various world-class performers; we can analyze them the context of the past millennium of Western art music; with ease we can compare his works to those of composers of his time (we don't have to walk 400 kilometers on early 17th-century roads to hear Buxtehude); and we have incomparably more knowledge of the world's nonwestern traditions in which to set his music. I'm not actually willing to argue that all this makes our responses more valid than those of the people of his time, but I'd guess that argument would be more persuasive than its opposite.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Like others here I think the word "Postmodernism" is inappropriate here. (Although, unlike most of them I do think that term has pretty solid definitions even if there are multiple of them). It would be accurate to say that the economic/technological environment of Late Capitalism (which is synonymous with the Postmodern era, though it emphasizes different aspects of the world of this time) which includes the proliferation of digital music streaming, speakers for playing music, etc. makes it harder to focus on one piece of music and really "listen." Also just the fast-paced-ness of the contemporary world makes that more difficult.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Agamemnon said:


> ...
> 
> Has postmodernism made us all into merely consumers of music instead of listeners? Has the meaning of all music been lost since we only care if we like the music or not? Has music become a means to keep the people tame and in control instead of arousing them to revolution? Has music listening become merely escapism or 'a personal experience' because revolution is not an option anymore in the postmodern world? Does most postmodern music sound so tame and soothing - so focusing on a satisfying personal experience - because the listener has become socially isolated and politically powerless rendering him an egocentered consumer?


I think we are more egocentric, or individualistic, but this has been a long-term trend which predates postmodernism.

I accept science's definition of modernism (post #19), and in terms of music it reached its peak in the 1950's with the ideologies propounded by Boulez, Cage, and Babbitt. This was scorched earth modernism, basically wiping the slate clean. Many elements came into the mix of these men's ideas, chiefly scientific determinism, anarchism, and eastern philosophies. It amounted to a dogmatic prioritisation of progress over everything else.

The world had changed by the 1970's. I think a very important event was the Vietnam war. We had wars in the past, but none before had come directly via television into your living room. There where other reasons but its no coincidence that postmodernism emerges in theory during that decade, with Lyotard's distinction between the grand narratives of modernism and the metanarratives of postmodernism.

Basically diversity became okay, and ideas shifted away from preoccupations with progress. Granted, there were those who still thought that modernism was an unfinished project (eg. Habermas) but they were very much in the minority.

So that's all in theory, but what of practice? I think what it means to me as an individual listener is that I have access to music and can in effect curate my own collection how I want. This process had begun before postmodernism, during the early 20th century, with the increased proliferation of recordings. The nearest equivalent was the popularity of pianos and the uptake of sheet music in the 19th century. Pianos where like modern day stereo systems, and the many reductions of classical works and popular songs, were the closest equivalent of recordings. Ever since the 19th century and increasingly in the 20th century, consumption of music became an important part of modern life.

I think the distinction between today and a hundred or more years ago is mass consumption. I think it can be alienating. In the past, a family would stand around their piano, play, listen, sing, socialise. Today, unless we go to a pub or concert venue to hear live music, we are inevitably at home or somewhere in transit, on our ipods, ipads, computers with our headphones on, alone listening to music.

Sometimes I can sympathise with the anarchism of John Cage when he said we should smash all recordings, but of course that's ridiculous. I think a more practical approach is what David Byrne in his book "How Music Works," suggested is to try and simply get back to that now untapped creativity. Play, sing, compose, fool around on an instrument, preferably with other people in your local community. In other words, do whatever necessary to reconnect with music in the way our ancestors did, and don't care too much about greatness.

I read something interesting related to this in Lang Lang's autobiography. He said that the enormous popularity of classical music in his native China not only came about due to government initiatives but because people have retained there what was lost in the West. They still buy pianos, and other instruments, and invest money into getting their children taught to play. They go to concerts, they respect tradition, but often with a naivety which we in the West have lost. They clap between movements at concerts, some of them don't know and don't care if a composer is alive or dead.

I think the danger with postmodernism is that like any ideology - or more accurately set of them - has been co-opted by the spin doctors, marketers and beancounters of the music world. This doesn't always lead to good results, and we have seen the worst aspects of this with many formerly great orchestras of the USA being brought to the verge of bankruptcy, in some part due to the unscrupulous nature of certain middle men and the willingness of management to go along with their advice.

As a mere listener, I can't present any solutions or convoluted theories as to how the problems in music should be solved. I think overall we need to keep in mind the limitations of any ideology. That's the strongest lesson I think that can be taken from the grand narratives of the past and how they have been proven time and time again to lead us astray.


----------

