# What constitutes "avant-garde" classical music?



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Is it a matter of personal choice, or is there an established catalogue of work that we can accept as being, or having been "avant-garde"? And if part of the definition of the term implies being at the forefront of development, even beyond what is _currently _acceptable, does that rule out the possibility of works now historical being usefully described as "avant-garde"?


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

I think that in our current day and age, this term has a lot of problems. Avant-garde translates to looking forward, but there are so many aesthetic directions to choose from that trying to define a forward direction is very hard. If anything, perhaps some of the more “experimental” work that crosses genre boundaries and generally defies categories could be considered such. 
I once heard the composer Krzysztof Penderecki give a talk about his music, and someone asked him what he thought of the term “avant-grade.” His reply was: “there are so many options and directions now that this term is essentially meaningless.”


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Avant-garde was a style popular in the postwar era through the advent of minimalism. Boulez's_ Hammer Without A Master _(le Marteau sans maitre) from 1955 was considered avant-garde. Today it seems conservative. Thus the avant-garde movement, like most others, was incorproated into the norm and became bland.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

This is an interesting video on what's avant-garde. (Although the Beatles are not classical music). It explains the enormous influence of Stockhausen on the Beatles. I just want to highlight the "experimental sounds" explored by Stockhausen, which influenced the Beatles.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I would say something is avant-garde when it goes against the grain of what is established as "traditional" sounding music. This kind of music employs unorthodox techniques in order to get unusual sounding textures. It defies the idea of structure and tosses the whole notion of tonal relationships out-the-window. It can also be wildly violent and disruptive. These are just a few examples that are found within avant-garde music, but they're certainly not limited to these characteristics. Compare the music of Webern or Xenakis for example. Both were avant-garde during their time, but they couldn't sound more different from each other.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

No melody, no harmony, random sounds with no sense of direction: Avant-garde:











Melodic line and harmony and a sense of some sort of structure: Atonal but not avant-garde:











Now, not so long ago on TC people didn’t seem conflicted as to what music avant-garde referred to. There is a distinct difference between the first 2 works above and the last 2. The term avant-garde works for me for the first two. If someone can come up with a better word that is open to wide acceptance, great!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I see it as a historical term, about what goes against established norms and conventions. I think since the mid 20th century, a lot of what passed as avant-garde (or vanguard) has been absorbed into the mainstream, not only in classical but outside it. Perhaps there can be a distinction made between avant-garde and experimental music, the latter still challenging boundaries but fitting into conventional forms (e.g. concertos and symphonies incorporating certain techniques, even some film scores).

What used to be avant-garde has long become institutionalized. This applies to pieces that had major shock value back in their day, like Duchamp's urinal or Cage's 4'33." Perhaps a better term is cutting edge, but that can be applied to so many things now. It sounds like marketing spin using words like innovative and groundbreaking.

Classical music is so diverse now, with so many genres and subgenres. Its the same with other types of music. At most, avant-garde can be a subgenre. I think that any search for new terms demonstrates how schools and groupings in art (with their attendant manifestos and ideologies) more comfortably fit into modernism and don't readily apply to what has followed since.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> No melody, no harmony, random sounds with no sense of direction: Avant-garde:


What do you think of music written before the advent of functional harmony?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> No melody, no harmony, random sounds with no sense of direction: Avant-garde:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don’t think there’s anything avant garde about the Ferneyhough. There’s nothing aleatoric, there’s no improvisation, there’s no extended instrumental techniques as far as I noticed, there’s no sampling. It’s just a conventional piece of 1990s music - rather fun I think. The Stockhausen is experimental really - an early experiment about using electronics to synthesise voice.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

An example of avant garde music from about the same time as the Ferneyhough is Cage’s Four2






and Zorn’s Godard Spillane - here. No shortage of melody etc.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> No melody, no harmony, random sounds with no sense of direction: Avant-garde:


You're a hoot! However, you do stick to your guns although the shooting isn't accurate.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

An example of avant garde music from about the same period as the Stockhausen is Partch’s Sonata Dementia - again stuffed with hummable melody and foot tapping rhythms. Wonderful!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> You're a hoot! However, you do stick to your guns although the shooting isn't accurate.


How would you know? Most of your posting these days seems to be popping into a thread with personal critical one-liners and nothing else of substance.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> An example of avant garde music from about the same time as the Ferneyhough is Cage’s Four2
> 
> and Zorn’s Godard Spillane - here. No shortage of melody etc.


Well, given the above and, from the past, the comment that a melody can be 2 notes, as usual you have revised the meaning of ‘melody’. Also, you are dismissing my examples of what people regard as avant-garde and using your own as the real examples. On what basis?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Well, given the above and, from the past, the comment that a melody can be 2 notes, as usual you have revised the meaning of ‘melody’. Also, you are dismissing my examples of what people regard as avant-garde and using your own as the real examples. On what basis?


What do you think of the Beatles video I posted in #4? And what of this-




The Grudge (2004) Stairs Scene
Would sounds like these (which are very much part of our modern culture) have been possible without the pioneering work of the avant-gardists?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> This is an interesting video on what's avant-garde. (Although the Beatles are not classical music). It explains the enormous influence of Stockhausen on the Beatles. I just want to highlight the "experimental sounds" explored by Stockhausen, which influenced the Beatles.


I think the Beatles wrote a few songs that could be classified as avant-garde—within the confines of rock music. Apart from that, there isn't much at all that strikes the ear as 'avant' in their catalogue.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

larold said:


> Avant-garde was a style popular in the postwar era through the advent of minimalism.


The problem with the idea that "avant-garde" is a temporal term is that renders it paradoxical. The term was first used to refer to art in France in the early 19thC. But how can the art that was called "avant-garde" continue to be so 200 years later, unless it was so completely beyond the pale that even the (so-called) "anything goes degenerate" 21st C finds it unacceptable?

I like the introduction to a book referenced by Wiki in its entry about the a-g, but it won't let me copy and paste and it's too long to type out in full. It's *A Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes, b*y Richard Kostelanetz and can be found here:









A Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes


A Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes recognizes that change is a driving force in all the arts. It covers major trends in music, dance, theater, film, visual art, sculpture, and performance art--as well as architecture, science, and culture.



books.google.com





Kostelanetz counts innovation and initial unacceptability as key criteria. He acknowledges that the a-g is not a term that can only be applied to a specific historical period, but to the work of individuals from different historical periods and to today. So Erik Satie has an entry in the dictionary, but Fernyhough doesn't. Scriabin, Schoenberg and Tavener are there, but not Crumb or Lachenmann, Penderecki or Berg. (At least, I can't find them in the search index.)



hammeredklavier said:


> This is an interesting video on what's avant-garde. (Although the Beatles are not classical music). It explains the enormous influence of Stockhausen on the Beatles. I just want to highlight the "experimental sounds" explored by Stockhausen, which influenced the Beatles.


This thread is about CM. Your video might have something to say about the a-g, but let's stick to CM examples please.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Forster said:


> Kostelanetz counts innovation and initial unacceptability as key criteria. He acknowledges that the a-g is not a term that can only be applied to a specific historical period, but to the work of individuals from different historical periods and to today.


I struggle to think how it can be applied to today, because avant-garde is tied to the imperative of progress, of pushing back frontiers, which is central to modernism. The idea that a set of composers represent what's advanced in music began to fall away in the 1960's. Prior to that time, the likes of Boulez, Stockhausen and Berio where representatives of various strands of the avant-garde. After that, everything becomes so diverse as to make avant-garde meaningless. Where's the forefront amongst this diversity? Is there one? Even several?

Once the European avant-garde became institutionalised at Darmstadt for example, you get the sense that they've become establishment. Perhaps the likes of Cage and Partch are outside this, because they weren't so much working within the established institutions and methods of music (e.g. Cage didn't make much effort to advocate commercial recordings being made of his music). Ives and Satie might be their equivalents of an earlier generation.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^ I struggle too, but that's only because I am far too ignorant of current composers, not because there aren't any who might be regarded as a-g.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Sid James said:


> I struggle to think how it can be applied to today, because avant-garde is tied to the imperative of progress, of pushing back frontiers, which is central to modernism. The idea that a set of composers represent what's advanced in music began to fall away in the 1960's. Prior to that time, the likes of Boulez, Stockhausen and Berio where representatives of various strands of the avant-garde. After that, everything becomes so diverse as to make avant-garde meaningless. Where's the forefront amongst this diversity? Is there one? Even several?
> 
> Once the European avant-garde became institutionalised at Darmstadt for example, you get the sense that they've become establishment. Perhaps the likes of Cage and Partch are outside this, because they weren't so much working within the established institutions and methods of music (e.g. Cage didn't make much effort to advocate commercial recordings being made of his music). Ives and Satie might be their equivalents of an earlier generation.


Music seems to me to have been more diverse between 1945 and 1980 than after. I think there has been a stylistic contraction among composers.

The avant garde, or something very much like it, is very much with us I think: it is the music which does not fit into today's institutionally accepted boxes. Music which has a significant indeterminate element is a clear example, or so it seems to me - for example, music which is based on graphic and text scores, and music which has a significant improvised component.

By the way, I am convinced that this contraction is linked to the flourishing of neo-liberalism. Where you have no work in the way that Beethoven and Brahms had works, you have less to sell, and the music institutions -- entertainment venues, media, universities etc -- are not geared to make their profit from them. Diversity flourishes in a social democracy.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Forster said:


> ^ I struggle too, but that's only because I am far too ignorant of current composers, not because there aren't any who might be regarded as a-g.





Mandryka said:


> The avant garde, or something very much like it, is very much with us I think: it is the music which does not fit into today's institutionally accepted boxes.


I think that the avant-garde certainly left a legacy in terms of institutions, aesthetics and innovation.

One aspect to consider is whether the opposition of the avant-garde to traditional high culture has a similar meaning to what it had during modernism. Back in the 1950's, the idea of the avant-garde pushing against bourgeois limitations had some relevance, because what was regarded as mainstream was more homogenous and it didn't really include popular music.

There's certainly an institutional legacy, especially in Europe, in terms of new music ensembles, music festivals, research facilities (e.g. of electronic music), departments in universities and so on that are still part of the infrastructure which supports new music. I think that in the USA, those who could be considered avant-garde didn't go down the same sort of institutional route that the Europeans did, but I think in both cases you get their innovations and ideas impacting on other types of music, including pop and jazz.

In terms of directions which evolved out of avant-garde, words like alternative, fringe, underground, DIY might better describe them because they don't have the same sort of baggage.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> No melody, no harmony, random sounds with no sense of direction: Avant-garde:


If the author said that he wants to experiment sounds for horror movies, I'd admit that this is brilliant.
However, if he said that this thing must be put in the same basket where there is Mozart's music, I would have something to say.
It's evident to me that this kind of "music" is a total breakdown in respect to the purpose of classical music and that there isn't any evolution in the history of classical music that it's comparable to this one (the evolution from baroque to classical and from classical to romantic is a different thing).


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I prefer the term "new music." 

IMO some characteristics of the most interesting new music could include 

extended instrumental and vocal techniques
experimentation with rhythm, often increased use of percussion
incorporation of media and live electronics, sometimes exclusively
genre blending or blurring
avoidance of traditional forms
use of improvisation and indeterminacy


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Mandryka said:


> Music seems to me to have been more diverse between 1945 and 1980 than after. I think there has been a stylistic contraction among composers.
> 
> The avant garde, or something very much like it, is very much with us I think: it is the music which does not fit into today's institutionally accepted boxes. Music which has a significant indeterminate element is a clear example, or so it seems to me - for example, music which is based on graphic and text scores, and music which has a significant improvised component.
> 
> By the way, I am convinced that this contraction is linked to the flourishing of neo-liberalism. Where you have no work in the way that Beethoven and Brahms had works, you have less to sell, and the music institutions -- entertainment venues, media, universities etc -- are not geared to make their profit from them. Diversity flourishes in a social democracy.


Wasn't Beethoven a succesful entrepreneur?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> Would sounds like these (which are very much part of our modern culture) have been possible without the pioneering work of the avant-gardists?


Right, but read my post #22.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I prefer the term "new music."
> 
> IMO some characteristics of the most interesting new music could include
> 
> ...


Not a bad list of characteristics, but needs a different name than ‘new music’ since the word ‘new’ doesn’t apply to music with these characteristics from half a century ago and it also won’t apply decades from now. I think this kind of music (IMO unfortunately as classical music) will be around for quite awhile.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I think someone like Edgar Varèse remains avant-garde no matter what times we live in.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*What constitutes "avant-garde" classical music?*

An acquaintance of mine (this is _not_ my opinion) answers the question like this: "It's music I don't want to hear, won't like to hear, and even possibly _can not_ hear."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Sid James said:


> In terms of directions which evolved out of avant-garde, words like alternative, fringe, underground, DIY might better describe them because they don't have the same sort of baggage.


Yes there's a whole world of people composing and getting performances using very low tech means -- zoom and that sort of thing. I think there's some good stuff going on.



SanAntone said:


> I prefer the term "new music."
> 
> IMO some characteristics of the most interesting new music could include
> 
> ...


The thing is, this doesn’t make what I see as the most important distinction. Those who are composing “works” like Bach and Brahms did in the day - albeit using unusual rhythms and forms and instrumental techniques. And those who are really challenging that model of the relation between composer, musician and audience. The latter, which as far as I can see is made mainly (possibly only - though there’s also site specific pieces to think about - installations, polytopes etc.) of people who are creating indeterminate music, seem to me the real avant garde. I think Cage said something along these lines, so not for the first time I find myself agreeing with him.

Brian Ferneyhough, even early on, is no more an avant garde composer than Beethoven was in his time. Neither is Feldman, any more than Schubert was. They all had very traditional, establishment, conceptions of what their music is. The composer creates a set of instructions about the sounds which the musicians make, the musicians pay some money to see and follow the instructions, and the audience pays some money for the opportunity of sitting quietly to hear. Christian Wolff, on the other hand, in a piece like Stones, is a totally different sort of animal, one which the establishment is having a lot of trouble accommodating. He’s really avant garde!

(Mentioning Ferneyhough because I’ve been enjoying his sonatas for quartet!)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> ..Brian Ferneyhough, even early on, is no more an avant garde composer than Beethoven was in his time. Neither is Feldman, any more than Schubert was. *They all had very traditional, establishment, conceptions of what their music is.* The composer creates a set of instructions about the sounds which the musicians make, the musicians pay some money to see and follow the instructions, and the audience pays some money for the opportunity of sitting quietly to hear..


Even though Beethoven and Schubert wrote music that they wanted to be innovative, they also had to meet the demands of publishers and listeners. Ferneyhough and Feldman had no interest in those constraints. And I can just imagine the mind-boggling amount of money musicians pay to see and follow their instructions and audiences pay to hear. To frame their music as just in the same category as all other modern/contemporary music is extremely misleading and I wonder how many other classical music listeners would drink that kool-aide.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

DaveM said:


> To frame their music as just in the same category as all other modern/contemporary music


I don't think anyone has done that. Just that they were not particularly a-g.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Ferneyhough and Feldman had no interest in those constraints. And I can just imagine the mind-boggling amount of money musicians pay to see and follow their instructions and audiences pay to hear.


I don't think this is framed in an entirely fair way. Yes, you've said that the musical conventions were different in Mozart and Beethoven's time, which is true. However, do also keep in mind that the historical context of these composers is extremely different, and I think that's critical to keep in mind when thinking about why their music is different. 

Going from the second part of your quote here, it's really not fair to assume that just because you don't like something, means it's inherently misleading. You've also said this later on: 


DaveM said:


> To frame their music as just in the same category as all other modern/contemporary music is extremely misleading and I wonder how many other classical music listeners would drink that kool-aide.


I think a number of replies here have made it very clear that the concept of modern/classical music is an extremely broad umbrella term that contains a number of different types of music. There also seems to be some sort of implication here that you think there's something inherently misleading about this type of music in general (unless I'm misreading this, and I apologize in that case). Again, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't have aesthetic value for other people.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

How did a simple thread asking whether the term avant garde works any more end up as a thread where one or two people who hate music that goes beyond the safe confines of what they are able to whistle repeating the same stuff that they have afflicted us with for years? Ignorant, ill-informed and (most importantly) uninterested they remain totally obsessed with the same issues that have clearly been keeping them awake for years. And they rely on the same circular arguments, turning deaf ears to contrary views. You would think that if their tastes were so rewarding they wouldn't need to spend their time rubbishing other people's tastes. 

It is an interesting question whether the term avant garde still has meaning and what such a meaning might look like. For the sake of communication it would need to be a meaning or usage that is widely accepted.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> For the sake of communication it would need to be a meaning or usage that is widely accepted.


Even at the start, what Baudelaire meant by it was not what, for example, Manet meant by it. If you want I can expand on that . . .


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

composingmusic said:


> I don't think this is framed in an entirely fair way. Yes, you've said that the musical conventions were different in Mozart and Beethoven's time, which is true. However, do also keep in mind that the historical context of these composers is extremely different, and I think that's critical to keep in mind when thinking about why their music is different.


Well, of course the historical context of these composers is extremely different and that applies to any CM having been or being composed over the last hundred years to the present. The fact that the music that I am talking about (which I have distinguished from other atonal or modern/contemporary music) has thrown out any kind of rule book is the point, not the historical context. And btw, if anyone wants to keep pushing back against the latter, then they will have to explain why often the composers have to give written directions (beyond traditional notation) how to play the works.



> Going from the second part of your quote here, it's really not fair to assume that just because you don't like something, means it's inherently misleading.


That is a complete distortion of the second part of my quote. I am distinguishing a category of what is being called modern/contemporary classical music from other modern/contemporary music whether I like any of it or not. I’m capable of some objective thinking; maybe you aren’t given the distortion of that quote.



> I think a number of replies here have made it very clear that the concept of modern/classical music is an extremely broad umbrella term that contains a number of different types of music. *There also seems to be some sort of implication here that you think there's something inherently misleading about this type of music in general (unless I'm misreading this, and I apologize in that case).*


The statement I made was: _To frame their music as just in the same category as all other modern/contemporary music is extremely misleading. _I was responding to the poster’s comment. Where did I say or imply that there is ‘something inherently misleading about the music in general’?



> Again, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't have aesthetic value for other people.


As I’ve said before, this may be wonderful music for some people in a category where there is no melody, harmony or structure -and I am calling it avant-garde as many others do- but IMO it is not classical music and that, categorically, does not include a lot of modern/contemporary CM of the last 100 years. Finally, if you’re going to respond to my opinions with a repeated ‘_just because you don’t like something’_, then don’t bother responding because I am responding appropriately to the OP.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

As is often the case here, the OP has discovered that the OP title question doesn't quite match the questions in the Opening Post. Such discoveries only happen after a number of contributors have not quite answered exactly what the OP thought he was asking.

I blame the OP for that, obviously.

So, one thing at a time. Can music that is, say, over 50 years old still be called "avant-garde"? What about music that is 100 years old? In other words, is it possible that compositions that were declared to be...and generally agreed to be...a-g in the past can continue to be a-g in any present sense? Or do all such compositions lose their "a-g-ness"?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Even at the start, what Baudelaire meant by it was not what, for example, Manet meant by it. If you want I can expand on that . . .


I guess what interests me in that question is when and how a term acquires a new meaning in informal discourse. I think you see quite a lot of that with social media - a word is used in a new way and this catches on. So the question might be how the term avant garde is used informally these days.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I guess what interests me in that question is when and how a term acquires a new meaning in informal discourse. I think you see quite a lot of that with social media - a word is used in a new way and this catches on. So the question might be how the term avant garde is used informally these days.


You may find these useful









Manet, une révolution symbolique : Cours au Collège de France (1998-2000) suivis d'un manuscrit inachevé: Amazon.co.uk: Bourdieu, Pierre: 9782757863145: Books


Buy Manet, une révolution symbolique : Cours au Collège de France (1998-2000) suivis d'un manuscrit inachevé by Bourdieu, Pierre (ISBN: 9782757863145) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.



www.amazon.co.uk













Les Cinq Paradoxes de la modernité: Amazon.co.uk: Compagnon, Antoine: 9782020114622: Books


Buy Les Cinq Paradoxes de la modernité by Compagnon, Antoine (ISBN: 9782020114622) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.



www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Forster said:


> As is often the case here, the OP has discovered that the OP title question doesn't quite match the questions in the Opening Post. Such discoveries only happen after a number of contributors have not quite answered exactly what the OP thought he was asking.
> 
> I blame the OP for that, obviously.
> 
> So, one thing at a time. Can music that is, say, over 50 years old still be called "avant-garde"? What about music that is 100 years old? In other words, is it possible that compositions that were declared to be...and generally agreed to be...a-g in the past can continue to be a-g in any present sense? Or do all such compositions lose their "a-g-ness"?


 How about Schubert symphony 9 because of its unfeasible length?

By the way, Joyce argued that an early literary example was the Tunc page from The Book of Kells.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> You may find these useful
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, M. I don't think my French would be up to those.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Mandryka said:


> Yes there's a whole world of people composing and getting performances using very low tech means -- zoom and that sort of thing. I think there's some good stuff going on.


I think that the internet does provide opportunities, but it also challenges the notion of what is fringe or alternative. Often, you had these sorts of music and arts scenes develop in low rent parts of cities, and inevitably this would lead to the places becoming desirable and trendy. So, the fringe was pushed out, and the music became more and more mainstream. This could be said of many places, which bought about directions like jazz, punk and techno. I guess its an open question as to what happens now that you don't necessarily have to physically be at the place where this sort of thing is happening.



SanAntone said:


> I prefer the term "new music."
> 
> IMO some characteristics of the most interesting new music could include
> 
> ...





Mandryka said:


> The thing is, this doesn’t make what I see as the most important distinction. Those who are composing “works” like Bach and Brahms did in the day - albeit using unusual rhythms and forms and instrumental techniques. And those who are really challenging that model of the relation between composer, musician and audience. The latter, which as far as I can see is made mainly (possibly only - though there’s also site specific pieces to think about - installations, polytopes etc.) of people who are creating indeterminate music, seem to me the real avant garde. I think Cage said something along these lines, so not for the first time I find myself agreeing with him.
> 
> Brian Ferneyhough, even early on, is no more an avant garde composer than Beethoven was in his time. Neither is Feldman, any more than Schubert was. They all had very traditional, establishment, conceptions of what their music is. The composer creates a set of instructions about the sounds which the musicians make, the musicians pay some money to see and follow the instructions, and the audience pays some money for the opportunity of sitting quietly to hear. Christian Wolff, on the other hand, in a piece like Stones, is a totally different sort of animal, one which the establishment is having a lot of trouble accommodating. He’s really avant garde!
> 
> (Mentioning Ferneyhough because I’ve been enjoying his sonatas for quartet!)


I think there's definitely a tension between different aspects of avant-garde. I think that serialism, with its carrying on of music as an organic entity, became more readily institutionalised than aleatoric music. Developments in electronic music where quickly absorbed by media like radio and television, not to speak of rock and pop.

Avant-garde occupied a vague space. I think that part of its notoriety and allure was its opposition to mainstream values. The relationship between its various schools of thought could also be volatile. Nowadays, the situation is probably not so factional.

There are interesting interactions between the various strands of avant-garde with popular music. Bernard Gendron has done work looking at these sorts of relationships, which point to a sort of symbiosis between high, middle and lowbrow arts. I think its insteresting how he says that one of the drivers of change isn't the simple case of opposition between these, but a sort of blurring of the boundaries at the edges.









In Conversation with Bernard Gendron - New Music USA


An interview with the author of Between Montmartre and the Mudd Club: Popular Music and the Avant-Garde




newmusicusa.org


----------

