# composers and musical elitism



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

One of the recurring tropes that comes up in the many debates here over "modern music," however defined, is that modern music is elitist. Rather than writing with a broad audience consciously in mind, it goes, these modern composers turn their back on the audience and write for themselves.

Richard Taruskin, in his Oxford History, describes this as an opposition between an "audience-centered" and a "composer-centered" model, and comes down firmly in favor of the former.

Kyle Gann makes a similar point in this essay in which he compares composition to persuasive writing: http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2013/05/what-writing-has-taught-me-about-composing.html

The idea is that the difficult modern composer is elitist while the consciously populist composer is generous and democratically minded.

But it seems to me this is backwards.

The audience-focused, "populist" composer in effect says: "I will dazzle and mystify you, the simple listener, with my bag of tricks. You will have the experience I have designed for you. I know what buttons to push and how you will respond. I know what you want before you do."

The inward-focused, "difficult" composer, on the other hand, says: "I created this because I find it beautiful, moving, interesting, profound. I invite you to listen to it, and hope you find it so, too."

Which of these is more elitist, and which is more democratic? Isn't it the "difficult" composer who addresses the listener as an equal?

Now I should stress that I'm actually not coming down on either side! For one thing, I think most composers partake of both. I also think some of the greatest music ever has been basically audience-focused: Bach's cantatas, for example, or much of Mozart.

But I really think it's time to retire the "difficult music is elitist" trope.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> The audience-focused, "populist" composer in effect says: "I will dazzle and mystify you, the simple listener, with my bag of tricks. You will have the experience I have designed for you. I know what buttons to push and how you will respond. I know what you want before you do."
> 
> The inward-focused, "difficult" composer, on the other hand, says: "I created this because I find it beautiful, moving, interesting, profound. I invite you to listen to it, and hope you find it so, too."
> 
> ...


I don't mind the final statement; often, attending concerts, I overhear attendees voice their opposition to a premiere or post-20th Century work as strange, abnormal, pressuring, or, honestly, "uncomfortable."

But that is point, right? Nothing wrong with the reaction.

To your main point: I see little distinction between your "populist" and "difficult" composers. In fact, if I had to define myself, I may even switch your definitions, thus highlighting my point -- that there are no types of composers.

Some people wrote music. Some people liked A. Others liked B. It took awhile for _a lot_ of people to like C.

All were unique and thought, probably, _"I invite you to listen to [my music], and hope you find it so, too."_

As far as democratic goes -- at least in music and composers and sound -- let us represent it. Go!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> The audience-focused, "populist" composer in effect says: "I will dazzle and mystify you, the simple listener, with my bag of tricks. You will have the experience I have designed for you. I know what buttons to push and how you will respond. I know what you want before you do."
> 
> The inward-focused, "difficult" composer, on the other hand, says: "I created this because I find it beautiful, moving, interesting, profound. I invite you to listen to it, and hope you find it so, too."


Ah, the cynical, manipulative composer of "traditional" music versus the honest, sharing composer of the avant garde. I see you have this all sorted out! No need for comment from this quarter, certainly. :lol:


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Avey said:


> To your main point: I see little distinction between your "populist" and "difficult" composers. In fact, if I had to define myself, I may even switch your definitions, thus highlighting my point -- that there are no types of composers.


Yes, I agree - that was actually part of my point. It's mainly critics (like Taruskin) who like to make that distinction. Taruskin really falls flat on his face because his number one example of an audience-friendly composer is Steve Reich, who, if you read anything he's ever said or wrote, was _not at all_ aiming for popular appeal. Now it turned out his music was pretty popular, and that's great.

Ken, I would be interested in a response from your quarter to what I wrote, though it appears you ignored much of my post and responded to one of your own invention instead.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

How do you know what the audience-centered composer is saying "in effect"? Have you asked him?

What Kyle Gann says in his essay doesn't sound anything like what you have audience-centered composers implicitly saying, or perhaps privately thinking. What he is saying, as I read him, is: 1.) that an audience's ability to comprehend and engage with music is something valuable; and 2.) that there are elements of musical composition which have been proven to accomplish this while not compromising the artistic quality of the music - which in fact are some of the very elements widely recognized to have artistic value as well as audience appeal - and that it is not self-betrayal for a composer to understand and make use of these.

There is a reason why the composers of past eras whose work has continued to appeal to listeners tend to be those whose work is also most highly regarded by musicians, critics, and scholars (_tend,_ in that no simplistic equation of quality with popularity is here intended or implied). That reason is precisely embodied in Gann's second contention above: the qualities in music which are generally recognized as lending it artistic excellence are also generally qualities which appeal to listeners. A Mozart or a Mahler knows how to construct a symphonic movement so that our attention is arrested and held, and so that we go home satisfied, but those principles of construction are also largely what make their symphonies great works of art - and these two things are, fundamentally, not separate things.

Anyone is free to dispute this and deny the general artistic experience of humankind (not least of artists themselves) over the centuries. But Gann suggests that it's a matter worth a composer's attention. I agree.

As far as "elitism" is concerned, I don't think that either agreement or disagreement with this viewpoint defines anyone as an "elitist." Of course that is a seven-letter word which we are all supposed to loathe and disavow more hastily than any four-letter word. Americans particularly are constitutionally opposed (it must be in the Constitution somewhere) to any suggestion that anyone's opinions or achievements are actually more to be valued or esteemed than anyone else's. I have nothing to say about this national neurosis, except that it provides a very nice rationalization for writing music that no one wants to hear in the assurance that the ultimate judgment of history on a composer's worth is just another elitist prejudice.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

The fact that this topic exists irks me almost as much as knowing that there are people against teaching science. The fact that some goverments in history can and did supress artistic freedom because of the party's unproven ideals drains away my faith in humanity. No wonder humans are often porytrayed as the biggest ******** in the galaxy.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> Ken, I would be interested in a response from your quarter to what I wrote, though it appears you ignored much of my post and responded to one of your own invention instead.


I thought I had responded rather exactly to what you wrote (thus the quote). Perhaps I was mistaken.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Ah, the cynical, manipulative composer of "traditional" music versus the honest, sharing composer of the avant garde. I see you have this all sorted out! No need for comment from this quarter, certainly. :lol:


Because "populist" = "traditional" and "difficult" = "avant garde"? This seems like an awfully broad brush to paint with, not that the OP doesn't do the same, but criticising a mistake and then making it oneself doesn't exactly stand one in good stead.


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> The fact that this topic exists irks me almost as much as knowing that there are people against teaching science. The fact that some goverments in history can and did supress artistic freedom because of the party's unproven ideals drains away my faith in humanity. No wonder humans are often porytrayed as the biggest ******** in the galaxy.


Richannes Wrahms,

Mefeels that horribly misguided politics leads people to become horribly misguided and feeble-minded. As for elitism in music, well, it is in the eye of the beholder imnsho...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> The audience-focused, "populist" composer in effect says: "I will dazzle and mystify you, the simple listener, with my bag of tricks. You will have the experience I have designed for you. I know what buttons to push and how you will respond. I know what you want before you do."
> 
> The inward-focused, "difficult" composer, on the other hand, says: "I created this because I find it beautiful, moving, interesting, profound. I invite you to listen to it, and hope you find it so, too."
> 
> Which of these is more elitist, and which is more democratic? Isn't it the "difficult" composer who addresses the listener as an equal?


Perhaps neither is elitist or democratic. Perhaps both!

The caricature of the populist composer and his "bag of tricks" actually brings to mind Haydn and his "Surprise" symphony:



> I was interested in surprising the public with something new, and in making a brilliant debut, so that my student Pleyel, who was at that time engaged by an orchestra in London (in 1792) and whose concerts had opened a week before mine, should not outdo me. The first Allegro of my symphony had already met with countless Bravos, but the enthusiasm reached its highest peak at the Andante with the Drum Stroke. Encore! Encore! sounded in every throat, and Pleyel himself complimented me on my idea.


Haydn, the model of the cynically manipulative composer? But what could be more democratic than a joke shared between composer and audience?


----------



## PJaye (May 22, 2015)

Your 'populist composer' guy sounds like he has some issues. Someone should talk with him.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

The perception of elitism is, for me, quite easily explained.

Modern music employs principles and techniques which are radically different from what the general audience of art music has been used to.
Hence, they are difficult to understand but to a minor part of the audience - a part that significantly overlaps with the "most cultured" one. 
Hence, the perception of elitism.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> One of the recurring tropes that comes up in the many debates here over "modern music," however defined, is that modern music is elitist. Rather than writing with a broad audience consciously in mind, it goes, these modern composers turn their back on the audience and write for themselves.
> 
> Richard Taruskin, in his Oxford History, describes this as an opposition between an "audience-centered" and a "composer-centered" model, and comes down firmly in favor of the former.
> 
> ...


This is what I was talking about elsewhere; the difference between a socially-oriented approach, and an introspective approach. The "inner" approach is always seen as dangerous to the Western herd mentality. Much darkness and uncertainty lies within Man's psyche. Western religion and art is always aimed at the outer, social Man. The inner world of the East is verboten.

Messiaen can be seen as dangerous, because he is a mystic. He is concerned with expressing an inner vision. This is not institutional Catholicism, but an inner mystic form. Thus, Boulez and Stockhausen followed his aesthetic, after WWII had decimated Europe, and atomic annihilation loomed. They rejected the institutions of Western art, and went for an inner, more individual, Eastern approach.

This is the difference; in a highly-industrialized society, the introspective art of detached individuals is considered dangerous, since he is inner-directed and is counter-productive to the aims of larger social institutions and power structures.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

One of the most spirited defenses of "modern" music that I've read was in an interview of Charles Wuorinen, who described the difference between (modern) art music and popular music as one between art and entertainment: 

"Why is it bad to say, for example, that there is art on one hand and entertainment on the other? We all want both, we all use both, but the entertainment aspect is something that comes to us without our effort, while the artistic aspect requires us to put something into it as a nuclear fusion, and we get more out of it than we put in. What is so hard about that? What is so objectionable about that? And yet, it seems to ruffle feathers when you say this."


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> The fact that this topic exists irks me almost as much as knowing that there are people against teaching science. The fact that some goverments in history can and did supress artistic freedom because of the party's unproven ideals drains away my faith in humanity. No wonder humans are often porytrayed as the biggest ******** in the galaxy.


But we really are the biggest @$$hole$ . . . In fact, we're the only @$$hole$.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

As someone who has frequently been called elitist for as long as I can remember, and often because of my likes & dislikes in music, the arts and entertainment in general, (except, of course, from those who know and understand me the best!) I feel that I am singularly positioned to say what being an elitist really is all about  It has nothing at all to do with liking things because they are considered romantic or neo-romantic; modern or post-modern; avant-garde or reactionary etc. etc., it just means defining interests by what appeals, whether intellectually, emotionally or both. It also means not paying much attention to what is considered popular, or the new 'in' thing. Above all, it does not mean liking things because other elites like them, or vice-versa. It means being an individual and making personal, independent choices.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> This is what I was talking about elsewhere; the difference between a socially-oriented approach, and an introspective approach. The "inner" approach is always seen as dangerous to the Western herd mentality. Much darkness and uncertainty lies within Man's psyche. Western religion and art is always aimed at the outer, social Man. The inner world of the East is verboten.
> 
> This is the difference; in a highly-industrialized society, the introspective art of detached individuals is considered dangerous, since he is inner-directed and is counter-productive to the aims of larger social institutions and power structures.


Even if this is accurate (and I think it's oversimplified) there is no need for an artist to identify with either side of this dichotomy, and in general I would say that it's the artists who can relate a powerful inner vision to the wider experience of humanity in the world whose work is most profound and enduring. Inner-directedness easily leads to art which is self-absorbed and cryptic, outer-directedness to art which is hedonistic and ephemeral. I think Western art has plenty of both, and I would cite the abrupt leap from abstract expressionism into pop art in the mid-20th century as a perfect symbol of a culture which cannot find the integrated view of existence which produces art of depth and enduring significance.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Morimur said:


> But we really are the biggest @$$hole$ . . . In fact, we're the only @$$hole$.


...that we know of anyway.

I don't know though, Chimpanzees can be pretty big @$$hole$. I don't know if I would trust them with running our society either, even if they did have the intellectual capacity for it.

Now Bonobos on the other hand, they could be in charge of human society for a while and if they were smart enough, that might be beneficial. It might lead to a matriarchy problem though...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

violadude said:


> ...that we know of anyway.
> 
> I don't know though, Chimpanzees can be pretty big @$$hole$. I don't know if I would trust them with running our society either, even if they did have the intellectual capacity for it.
> 
> Now Bonobos on the other hand, they could be in charge of human society for a while and if they were smart enough, that might be beneficial. It might lead to a matriarchy problem though...


...and an epidemic of STDs.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> ...and an epidemic of STDs.


Hah! That too. But then again, if we spent more money on disease prevention research and less on invading every country on earth (which, I'm assuming, is what Bonobos might do in this hypothetical situation), STDS might become as threatening as the common cold.

"Dang, dude you look pretty bad"

"Nah, I just caught a minor case of AIDS. I picked up some antibiotics at Walgreens earlier this morning. It should clear up in a few weeks"

Man, that would be a cool world to live in.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

violadude said:


> Hah! That too. But then again, if we spent more money on disease prevention research and less on invading every country on earth (which, I'm assuming, is what Bonobos might do in this hypothetical situation), STDS might become as threatening as the common cold.
> 
> "Dang, dude you look pretty bad"
> 
> ...


Hm. The bonobonation of society.

Well, I guess it would do away with elitism.

You young people are so much cleverer than we were.


----------



## EDaddy (Nov 16, 2013)

Becca said:


> As someone who has frequently been called elitist for as long as I can remember, and often because of my likes & dislikes in music, the arts and entertainment in general, (except, of course, from those who know and understand me the best!) I feel that I am singularly positioned to say what being an elitist really is all about  It has nothing at all to do with liking things because they are considered romantic or neo-romantic; modern or post-modern; avant-garde or reactionary etc. etc., it just means defining interests by what appeals, whether intellectually, emotionally or both. It also means not paying much attention to what is considered popular, or the new 'in' thing. Above all, it does not mean liking things because other elites like them, or vice-versa. It means being an individual and making personal, independent choices.


Here here! :clap:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Becca said:


> As someone who has frequently been called elitist for as long as I can remember, and often because of my likes & dislikes in music, the arts and entertainment in general, (except, of course, from those who know and understand me the best!) I feel that I am singularly positioned to say what being an elitist really is all about  It has nothing at all to do with liking things because they are considered romantic or neo-romantic; modern or post-modern; avant-garde or reactionary etc. etc., it just means defining interests by what appeals, whether intellectually, emotionally or both. It also means not paying much attention to what is considered popular, or the new 'in' thing. Above all, it does not mean liking things because other elites like them, or vice-versa. It means being an individual and making personal, independent choices.


But isn't that simply _individualism_? It's not _elitism_ unless accompanied by some sort of feeling of innate superiority.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

violadude said:


> Hah! That too. But then again, if we spent more money on disease prevention research and less on invading every country on earth (which, I'm assuming, is what Bonobos might do in this hypothetical situation), STDS might become as threatening as the common cold.
> 
> "Dang, dude you look pretty bad"
> 
> ...


F***ing bonobos, don't know the difference between a virus and a bacterium... :lol:


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Morimur said:


> But we really are the biggest @$$hole$ . . . In fact, we're the only @$$hole$.


Morimur,

And how do we know that? Praytell?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You young people are so much cleverer than we were.


No they're not. For every level-headed, mature youth out there, there are 10 sociopaths who think of nothing but themselves.



> "My program for educating youth is hard. Weakness must be hammered away. In my castles of the Teutonic Order a youth will grow up before which the world will tremble. I want a brutal, domineering, fearless, cruel youth. Youth must be all that. It must bear pain. There must be nothing weak and gentle about it. The free, splendid beast of prey must once again flash from its eyes...That is how I will eradicate thousands of years of human domestication...That is how I will create the New Order." - Adolf Hitler, 1933.


We've realized one of Hitler's dreams. He would be proud of today's youth.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Morimur said:


> For every level-headed, mature youth out there, there are 10 sociopaths who think of nothing but themselves.


Citation please.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> Citation please.


Quiet, you.
*********


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> Citation please.


Although I risk being annoying like a certain frequently-banned latin phraser...

_Si Monvmentvm Reqvires, Circvmspice_


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Morimur said:


> No they're not. For every level-headed, mature youth out there, there are 10 sociopaths who think of nothing but themselves.
> 
> We've realized one of Hitler's dreams. He would be proud of today's youth.


Dear Morimur,

By your statement I am supposed to believe that there are 10 sociopaths among TC users for every levelheaded TC user - Are you really sure that you wish to back up that statement? Do you understand what the consequences can be? Nah, I didn't think so...

BTW, I really dig your avatar - Der Panzer Kardinal who became Der Panzer Papst...


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Ilarion said:


> Dear Morimur,
> 
> By your statement I am supposed to believe that there are 10 sociopaths among TC users for every levelheaded TC user - Are you really sure that you wish to back up that statement? Do you understand what the consequences can be? Nah, I didn't think so...


Oh, I wasn't referring to TC. Everyone knows that all TC members are pillars of their respective communities. TC members are _the best_ people on Earth. True story, bro.


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Morimur said:


> Oh, I wasn't referring to TC. Everyone knows that all TC members are pillars of their respective communities. TC members are _the best_ people on Earth. True story, bro.


You da man, bro:tiphat:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

nathanb said:


> Although I risk being annoying like a certain frequently-banned latin phraser...
> 
> _Si Monvmentvm Reqvires, Circvmspice_


As sound an argument against today's young people as it is against today's music. :lol: :cheers:


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Well, I went out of town and this thread got away from me.

The most critical responses ignored two things I said: 1) that actual living composers combine both approaches, so the two composers I posited are really strawmen, and 2) that I'm not favoring one over the other.

I really want to stress that second point. Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_, for example, leans _very_ strongly in the "audience-centered" direction, and may be my favorite work of all time. I'm not sure where some of you got the idea I was attacking that model.

I did phrase it somewhat provocatively, though in fairness I felt I was almost paraphrasing Gann's essay, which I found repellent.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> Well, I went out of town and this thread got away from me.
> 
> The most critical responses ignored two things I said: 1) that actual living composers combine both approaches, so the two composers I posited are really strawmen, and 2) that I'm not favoring one over the other.
> 
> ...


Your depiction of the "populist" seemed very dismissive, and your depiction of the other one seemed very positive. That's where _I_ got the idea you were attacking the former. I didn't so much ignore your claim that you weren't on either side, as not believe it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The issue of elitism and populism is real, and although I disagree with Gann's idea I don't find it surprising. What I really don't agree with is mapping the elitism/populism dichotomy directly onto the innovative/traditional dichotomy. I suspect that should be a 2D map rather than a 1D map.

And I don't understand the distinctions between audience-centered and any other centerings. I understand distinguishing between various audiences, but that's as much sense as I can make of that.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> Your depiction of the "populist" seemed very dismissive, and your depiction of the other one seemed very positive. That's where _I_ got the idea you were attacking the former. I didn't so much ignore your claim that you weren't on either side, as not believe it.


I can't help that.

I think the "audience-centered" _ideal_ posited by Taruskin et al is pretty grotesque, to the extent that it's even coherent.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> One of the recurring tropes that comes up in the many debates here over "modern music," however defined, is that modern music is elitist. Rather than writing with a broad audience consciously in mind, it goes, these modern composers turn their back on the audience and write for themselves.
> 
> *Richard Taruskin, in his Oxford History, describes this as an opposition between an "audience-centered" and a "composer-centered" model, and comes down firmly in favor of the former.*
> 
> ...


I saw Richard Taruskin in person when he was giving a lecture down the street from my mom's house......he talked about the Rite of Spring and how performances of it have grown exceedingly crisp and polished compared to what was intended. He also mentioned Wagner's music as similarly having been intended to have a more inexact quality than it is sometimes performed with today. I have to say, I totally agree with him - I think music often moves to fast and is played too effortlessly. If you hear Wagner with the big, ocean-like sound where the strings aren't perfectly together in one of those huge runs or arpeggios, it's such a powerful sound compared to a cookie-cutter way that sometimes is preferred, presumably under the assumption that clarity and exactness is better all-around.

I feel like someone who is tempted to agree with him here too, that the 'audience-centered' composer has something over the 'composer-centered' composer, but I feel like simply supporting one method of operation over another is an over-simplification of how I feel.

It's usually assumed that the audience-centered composer is unexotic, relying on tried-and-true formulas that he or she knows will be inoffensive and speak on some level to listeners, and will closely resemble things they've already heard and betray its influences very clearly.

Actually, I think that for the best 'audience-centered' composer, the opposite is true. The best audience-centered composer knows that there is an overall hunger in the world they exist in for something that other art/ life as it is being lived is not giving them, and that the most profound way they can be alluring and commanding is by taking advantage of that lack.

So, they are likely to do something that in many ways is different than what has been done before, that breaks with tradition that has gone stale in some profound way. The fact is everything changes and that includes perception of beauty and greatness - but it isn't for the composer to decide the way in which it will change - that's something that is mysterious and can't be usually be accounted for, since it doesn't always take the contrived direction that social powers want it to. The best audience-centered composer will be impacted by the society's lack very acutely, but I think that this is not enough. There needs to be a connection to whatever deep, inherited perceptions that swirl in the depths of our species' psyche, because how deeply things resonate in this part of the mind is a huge portion of what determines the impact and pleasure a given idea will bring - otherwise you just have a sociologist and not an artist.

If what we're calling a 'composer-centered' composer has these qualities, and the 'audience-centered' composer does not, the former's music will speak in spite of the self-indulgence inherent to being a composers' composer, and the latter's won't affect anyone very deeply. If the reverse is true, which it most certainly can be, then the audience-centered composer has the edge.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

I think the problem is you're acting like audience centered music is an act of selflessness, and more inward music is an act of selfishness. I disagree. I think the former sounds like it is written for the sake of approval, aka playing it safe. That being said I don't think anybody really plays music just for themselves. Music is supposed to challenge the audience, and make them think in different and new ways. Not simply give them what they came to hear. If you look at oldies rock where bands were pioneering into new genres, they can't think "will the audience like this?" they just have to go with their intuition, and thats what made those bands so good. That isn't to say they were writing just for themselves, they wern't, they just had to rely on their own intuition instead of the audience. When a a genre is already established, it seems to be the norm to try to fit as much as possible into that genre rather than trusting your gut.


----------

