Is classical music, art music, cultivated music, music for the elite, music for the mature, music for the refined, dead? The answer is complicated and requires a great deal of extrapolation. While much has been written about the death of classical music, I am not ready to accept this position. Rather than gone and buried, classical music may just be tired. It is suffering from exposure, from illness, from exhaustion, and from a lack of progression. Classical music is ancient history, and ancient history is always valued for what it teaches. But classical music is also current and vibrant, permeating our lives in subtle and magical ways. We cannot let it die, but we do need to face the truth. Classical music no longer has the impact on culture that it once did.
A moment for terminology. The term classical actually refers to a time period with reference to a style. In music, time periods more or less determine a style of music. It makes for a clean and decidedly pure approach to music history. To stand up and say, "All the music written between these dates sounds like this..." is just pure joy and teaching bliss. I love the idea and students love having objective truth of time and expectations of the music. We in academia work to codify learning into centralized and yes often generalized statements that define eras, genres, style, attitudes, and production. The study of music history is the study of time and developments. Or is it? But I better rein myself in and focus on the subject of this essay before I find myself questioning the entire system of music history we have devised.
For much of the world, however, the term classical refers to a broad, sweeping style of music that is not usually considered music for the popular masses. This is music by the masters of composition, music that has withstood the test of time, music performed by choirs, orchestras, opera companies, and small ensembles. Music for the formal concert hall and music that is not always instantly accessible. Music we love with beautiful melodies, majestic power, large forces, lengthy performances, and music that requires a great deal of craft, of training, of talent.
But this kind of classical music is not as sought after in our modern world. The musical climate of our culture demands a more popular, entertainment fare than previously demanded. Yes classical music can still be found in concert halls, on recordings, on the radio, and in academia. But the decline in new recordings and in concert attendance is pronounced. Brahms Second Symphony with its stunning fourth movement and gripping opening theme in the first movement is still loved by millions. It is still a great experience to perform and to hear in a concert hall for those who attend concerts.
But they can almost receive a similar experience listening to a recording. A performer may work all his life to be able to play a Brahms symphony, but if there is a limited audience, he may not have the opportunity to use his skill to play something very few go to hear. The work is loved, respected, admired. The musicianship and skill to play it respected and admired, but the market demand is very small. Sadly there are plenty willing and able but the audience is in decline, declining rapidly for live concert experiences.
This means that classical music is not dead but it is tired. It is valued but mainly through recordings and past experiences. Does it have a future? The future may seem bleak in many respects and any kind of progression of the love of classical music appears dismal at least to an extent. Classical music exists because of its greatness, because of its timelessness, because of its complexity, its depth and beauty, its ability to seem new even after years of performances. Yet maybe classical music has too long relied on these qualities of depth to keep it alive. Maybe that sense of timelessness is beginning to disappear. Let's consider for a moment, a great work of art. Can we actually grow weary of the Mona Lisa? In a way yes. We return to it again and again but knowing it will not change. Furthermore, we have little desire to visit the Louvre to gaze upon the magnificent work. A print or copy is fine. While seeing the original hanging on the wall would be ideal, we really do not feel a need to go to too much trouble, and have no desire to spend the money to get us to the locale.
Society still likes classical music but does not want to go to too much trouble to hear it. Turn on a recording, watch a video, sing a melody. These events are substituting for the actual performance. Of course a live performance is preferred but apparently not so much as to create a real audience that supports classical music. Most people enjoy classical music, but when given a choice of what to attend, most choose popular music over classical. Classical music is here to stay and remains an important part of our culture, a culture that values it through recordings.
So if this is true, and the signs are apparent, what does a college or university do about the teaching of classical music? Do we continue to teach it in the old way, knowing that very few of our students will have an opportunity to experience it after graduation? Is the meaning behind the music great enough to sustain a love and appreciation for classical music forever? Is it a myth that knowledge and training in the classics provide foundational support for all music? If we begin moving away from the classics, are we in effect lowering our standards and appealing to a low common denominator of music making? If we in academia embrace an eclectic curriculum that includes popular music, are we teaching a kind of music that is immature and simple?
Would a literature professor, a man with a doctorate who has specialized and published in the field of classic literature decide to start teaching comic books? Would that be an acceptable study for a college student? A literature professor chooses the classics as the basis for literature study with the idea that knowing and understanding the finest in the field allows students to understand all kinds of literature available. Further, a professor hopes that the truths found in the classics--after all, they have stood the test of time--are beneficial for all people in their lives.
Yet somehow these arguments are beginning to be weak. The information age allows knowledge to be at the fingertips. Wisdom may be lacking, discernment may be missing, but knowledge is obvious and easy. Also there is an unusual problem of paradox: do we give them what we think they need or give them what they want? Historically this problem was easy, give them what they need. Yet now the rules have changed. If we give them what we think they need, there is a serious risk of not finding employment. Our responsibility is to provide them with the skills needed for success as musicians but also to help them come to a strong philosophical position as to music's role in the world. But what if our own philosophical position is antiquated? Scary thought. In contrast, to teach them what they want is to abdicate the curriculum to students who are not ready for that degree of responsibility.
One answer is for college teachers to continue to stay current in the field of music by reading, learning, traveling, studying, and yes practicing. All of these and more form the musician.
No comments:
Post a Comment