# Just finished reading Taruskin's 'Oxford History of Western Music' and...



## chee_zee (Aug 16, 2010)

I'm less than pleased with the current state of things in the Western art music world. Apparently, there are currently 3 main factions:


the modernists that aren't quite dead yet that are in their 50s+ (born about 1930-1960)
The people riding the waves of new tech and what it can bring about
the elitists catering to the hypocritical spiritual needs of the Bobos for massive profits ($300,000+ commissions for operas and symphonies catered to the Bourgesie Bohemians that are about, essentially, nothing)

Can we please move on to pluralism, where a composer could choose to be neo-this or that (neoclassical, neobaroque, neoromantic, and in a few years when the modernist masters of died out, neomodernists, which will probably be named something else other than modern since it would be such an old faction at that point)? or even switch it up from work to work and be neobaroque one day and neoromantic the other. Am I the only one who doesn't give a flying you know what about any of the 3 factions? The only one I can see assimilating into the long term scheme would be the new tech people, provided it's not some overly crazy thing like total serialism that comes out on top in that specific faction.

catering to the hypocritical feel-good needs of elitist rich jerks (not all rich people are jerks, but the ethnocentric elitist ones sure are) is obviously always gonna be around, and has since the days of patronage in the classical period, in some form or another. the BoBos are just the latest in line, something tells me none are as creative-license-giving as the Esterhazy's were to Haydn, however.

Modernism (which, again, will eventually be called something else once it's no longer 'modern'/current) will, once it's original masters have died out, be assimilated into the 'neo' world that I want to happen where composers are free to take up any tradition/era/style they want, rather than catering to rich jerks or tinkering with toys making nonmusic (though most modernist stuff is nonmusic imo, I'm just talking in terms of neo-{insert era here} world of composing.

So yeah, I don't like the state of things, of the 3 one has always been around since the classical era, in some form or another (catering to elite class), one is about to die out along with it's originators and then to be assimilated into the neo-this or that era way of thinking (modernism), and one is somewhat promising once a few decent styles and devices can be construed that allow something beyond random noise to be composed/improvised/both (the new tech aficionados). I would rather see neo{insert era here} traditionalism alongside a few promising new tech styles.

Any thoughts TC?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

chee_zee said:


> Am I the only one who doesn't give a flying you know what about any of the 3 factions?


Nope. Neither do I. Although the champions of this genre might disagree with you.



chee_zee said:


> ... catering to the hypocritical feel-good needs of elitist rich jerks (not all rich people are jerks, but the ethnocentric elitist ones sure are) is obviously always gonna be around, and has since the days of patronage in the classical period, in some form or another. the BoBos are just the latest in line, something tells me none are as creative-license-giving as the Esterhazy's were to Haydn, however.


If the quote in blue font is true, then that's a terrible shame. It's hard enough to come up with good music, let alone music that also has cater the "BoBos". Maybe that's why modern music is in such a distant mess. Such a pity.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think we're already at the stage of pluralism. There isn't really one style that dominates. You still have the elites, but as you say, they've always been connected to classical in some way throughout the ages (whether it's been the church, aristocracy or monied upper class). I don't think that we have to get too hung up about these class-based analyses of the classical music industry, I'd rather just get out there and go to concerts of classical music & enjoy the music...


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Richard Taruskin is in some ways an anti-modernist author. Read someone else for an alternative perspective.

Edit: Just because his book has "Oxford" in the name doesn't mean it's impartial.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

The only thing I really care is GOOD MUSIC. In the end, it doesn't matter a flying fig what labels are attached to it or what 'school'\ it derives from; if it's good music that's all that matters, surely.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Webernite said:


> Richard Taruskin is in some ways an anti-modernist author. Read someone else for an alternative perspective.
> 
> Edit: Just because his book has "Oxford" in the name doesn't mean it's impartial.


Exactly.

Do some more listening and some more reading, then you might have a better idea of the situation.


----------



## Rangstrom (Sep 24, 2010)

What does Bourgesie Bohemian mean? Is that a defined term in the book or one of your creation?

While I hate to fall in the "I know what I like camp", there is still interesting classic music being composed (the recent Naxos Jack Gallagher release is quite a find) and tons of great elite-commissioned music from the past. I never saw the need to classify music into neat packages, but I understand that some enjoy doing so.

I wonder if classical music lovers will ever become nostalgic for serialism.


----------



## pingu (Jan 19, 2013)

chee_zee said:


> Can we please move on to pluralism, where a composer could choose to be neo-this or that (neoclassical, neobaroque, neoromantic,


As Sid James said, we're already there. For some time now (Stravinsky started it) composers have been cherry-picking stylistically from music history.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

chee_zee said:


> I'm less than pleased with the current state of things in the Western art music world. Apparently, there are currently 3 main factions:
> 
> 
> the modernists that aren't quite dead yet that are in their 50s+ (born about 1930-1960)
> ...


So.. besides this, what did you think of the read? Did you make through all five volumes? I've just started myself - though as you will understand, it may take a while till I'm finished. However, so far he is definitely more readable than Grout et.al IMO.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Rangstrom said:


> What does Bourgesie Bohemian mean? Is that a defined term in the book or one of your creation?


David Brooks' term, aka "Bobos."

http://www.amazon.com/Bobos-Paradise-Upper-Class-There/dp/0684853787

"...today's upper class -- those who have wed the bourgeois world of capitalist enterprise to the hippie values of the bohemian counterculture."


----------

