Sure, there’s something to be said for opening one’s mind to new cultural experiences—for trying new things and broadening one’s horizons—but in my opinion, there’s a little bit more to be said for sifting through the excess.
You know what I’m talking about. You go to this exhibit or that demonstration because it promises innovation, social importance, and provocation of thought, only to find some gimmicky nonsense—a peanut-butter-and-jelly sculpture, or a nude interpretive dance involving small dogs and chocolate cake—revolutionary only to the person pretentious enough to conceive of it, and his few adoring fans. You go in hopes that it will somehow make you more cultured or enlightened, but for which you afterward feel confused, gypped, and a little bit soiled.
Knowing how I enjoy the classical stylings of Chopin and Tchaikovsky, my music-major friend tricked me into attending just such an event: what he called a “contemporary classical music concert.” I had never heard of contemporary classical music, but it was apparently a genre known to music connoisseurs worldwide, though hidden from the general public by its own web of lies. I was skeptical of its legitimacy from the very beginning. The concert was free, for one, and was being held at the end of a dark hallway in Goodspeed Hall, where a group of attendees had gathered, awaiting a masterpiece. A woman wearing an evening gown, dangly earrings, and a cashmere pashmina turned to her husband and remarked on the quality of the program. I, however, was rather more entertained by the program notes, in which the composer himself spoke about how the last piece of the concert gave voice to countless victims of violence across the world. Skeptical or not, I was intrigued as we took our seats in the main hall.
Before I go any further, let me just ask: Do you know that sound a violin makes when a child rakes the bow across its strings for the very first time? That “reeeeeeek” sound? Yeah, well, that was the entire first piece. A single violinist, giving what I initially believed was a very bad performance: “Reeeeeeek! Re-ah-uh-oh-eeeek!” There weren’t even notes, really—just that noise at varying pitches.
“What’s happening?” I thought, wiping the blood from my ears. Was it supposed to sound like this? And if so, why? I didn’t know much about music, but I knew crap when I heard it, which this most definitely was. But when I looked at those around me, I saw that most were contented—no, enchanted! Tears filled eyes and fell down heavily rouged cheeks. And when the violinist finished and took a bow, applause erupted around me.
It’s true, some people enjoy this rare form of torture; like leather whips and suspended harnesses, a bout of “highbrow” culture now and again can break the monotony of the everyday and can really spice things up. After all, it’s not every day that one gets to see a performer do all he can to suck at playing his instrument. (Nor is it every day that one gets to hear a soprano screaming at the top of her lungs—in English, Russian, and Hebrew—that she is a daughter with no face, that rivers hold her tears, and, somewhat inexplicably, “Murder to rape!” especially in the context of one man’s noble contribution to the fight against domestic violence.)
And yet, for some strange reason, I don’t see it as particularly noble or innovative or thought-provoking; I see it as wrong. That was my initial, disappointed reaction, and so my opinion remains to this day, a number of concerts later. Everything is wrong in contemporary classical music—as is much of what we have come to accept as artistic expression in general—because being so wrong has never been done before. Every piece is an attempt at artistic revolution, but, for those of us who are a little more difficult to impress, who don’t experience nirvana in Fulton Recital Hall or the top floor of Cobb, it all seems like a mess. It’s all a little much.
Therein lies the value of sifting through the excess. If you, like me, have a low threshold for stupid, avoid it like the plague. Take notice of the trigger words—revolutionary, thought-provoking, one-of-a-kind—which often take the place of actual descriptions and synopses so as to beguile naive students like us who want to broaden our minds and cultural horizons. With so many options available on any given night, this culture thing can be a dangerous game, and as in any game, there are losers. Make your moves wisely.
Luke Dumas is a first-year in the College.
A comment:
I have to disagree with Dumas’s opinion.
Art does not necessarily have to be pleasant in order to be "good". Rather, its importance lies in its meaning. The meaning behind abstract and experimental art is harder to grasp – you have to work to find it, but it’s (usually) there. For instance, take the song mentioned in the article. I have never heard it, but from the description I can guess it comes from Jewish tradition. The phrase "murder to rape" – which Dumas finds inexplicable – actually refers to passages in the Oral Torah which argue that a woman should "rather be slain than allow her violation." By today’s standards, of course, this passage is misogynistic. So – it’s not meaningless. It’s about feminism in Judaism.
Of course there will be "good" art and "bad" art.
But be careful in judgment! Just because something isn’t easily understood doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth our consideration.
Your friendly neighborhood illustrator,
Nicole
Was the "top floor of cobb" comment a reference to the Renaissance Society? If it was, as I’m assuming it was, you should do your research. The Renaissance Society is one of the oldest and most respected museums of contemporary art. Magritte, Picasso, Chagall, Van Der Rohe, and Matisse are but a few names the museum has exhibited. Hamza Walker, the current curator, is one of the most highly regarded curators in the country. The site-specific installations are widely lauded by connoisseurs of fine art. It is a major part of the future and present of art and not some "fad" that is meant to hook you in by your naivete. Furthermore, your jab at contemporary classical seems a little misguided. One concert and your convinced nothing good can come of it? Try a little harder next time. You just might find something good.
I too disagree and, to be blunt, find much of Dumas’s opinion to be rather poorly informed both about the extent of music he classifies as terrible and the classical music scene in Chicago.
Contemporary classical music admittedly is written in a way that alienates most people with its deviation from the traditionally "pleasant" sound we’re used to hearing in our music. Much of it is poorly composed by people who only loosely understand the music as "messing around with sound." Even more of it is poorly performed by musicians who don’t enjoy the music, either because they don’t understand it or because they simply dislike the style.
Disliking the music is perfectly legitimate. Art is as much its meaning as its aesthetics, and "art" is not art if it cannot be criticized. (Trivial, but Tchaikovsky, and for that matter, pretty much every composer ushering in a new era of what is now considered "high art", also had works that were criticized for being huge messes.) However, the aesthetics of well-written, well-performed contemporary music are not wholly unpleasant, but rather composed with such a focus on the academic legitimacy of the work that untrained, unexposed listeners are unlikely to enjoy it. It’s highly theoretical, to the point that some composers even suggest that the music should not be available to the general public, but rather reserved for the few academics who understand it enough to appreciate it.
That being said, there’s quite a wide variety of contemporary classical music, and it’s absurd to condemn the entire genre for most listeners after only a few concerts. Works like George Crumb’s Vox Balaenae (which, incidentally, is playing at the next New Music Ensemble concert on March 1st in Fulton Hall) are still highly valued in the academic community and use unconventional sounds and pitches, but are still accessible to most listeners as a rather peaceful, aesthetically pleasing representation of a whale, using sounds created by traditional classical instruments. It’s not an aesthetic that everyone will adore, but I would certainly be surprised to hear it described as "rare form of torture."
Also, this remark:
"I was skeptical of its legitimacy from the very beginning. The concert was free, for one and was being held at the end of a dark hallway in Goodspeed Hall, where a group of attendees had gathered, awaiting a masterpiece."
The suggestion that the cost of a performance reflects the likely quality overlooks the remarkable amount of free concerts, good from even the "traditional classical" perspective, presented in the city of Chicago. The University itself sponsors a number of performances by world-class musicians, making them available to students for free or very cheap, and in the same venues as concerts like those for the New Music Ensemble are often played. Not to mention the Grant Park Orchestra performances starting in early summer, which are probably better than a lot of concerts you have to pay for (and mostly feature "traditional" classical music). Chicago makes a point of creating opportunities for free, good music, so the cost of the concert really indicates nothing about the quality of the performance.
Contemporary: In the present time.
Classical Music: Stemming from a Western European musical tradition.
Yes, occasionally there are some composers out there who run around cooking up garbage. Sometimes no listener in the kingdom has the guts to call out the emperor for having no clothes. Yet, sometimes it actually is brilliant.
Much like Opera in it’s day, tons of composers were writing. We have the enduring masterworks of Puccini, Bizet, and Mozart, because time has to sift through what is "good" and what is "not good". Everyone takes something different away from art. Maybe all the "violin raking" that Dumas heard would be a whole different story if he were a classically trained Violinist. Sometimes anything that’s atonal is dismissed because the listener doesn’t know any better. Check out contemporary classical composers like Mackey, Kernis, MacMillan, and Rouse. MacMillan and Rouse especially might give you "bad sounds", but there is no doubt that great art is going on. It’s just different.
The score to Star Wars is contemporary classical music. It’s just sugar coated and plays by well established "rules" for crowd pleasing. You can pick and choose what suits you, but you can’t dismiss all of it.
Cheers,
Brad
You know what makes me mad? Pretentious jerks who think they’re music critics and write idiotic op ed pieces.
Now, I myself can only stand contemporary classical in small doses. But Dumas admits he doesn’t know anything about the genre, nor had he even heard of it, and bases his entire opinion of it on ONE concert. And on top of that, he PUBLISHES it for everyone who actually knows about music outside of a little box to see and be annoyed at.
Who gave this kid a typewriter?
This is probably the dumbest article the maroon has ever printed, and that is truly saying a lot.
Beloved readers,
Before the gloves come off, I would just like to say that I welcome your dissent, and hope to see more of it in the future–the name-calling in particular. I mean, the articulate discourses on the merit of contemporary classical are fine, but the pretentious-jerk-with-a-typewriter stuff–well, that just made my day.
So, first things first. The statement I was making was not “contemporary classical sucks–stay away at all costs”; the genre was merely an example I used to draw attention to silly, pretentious–and, in my opinion, funny–art in general.
I know, I know, contemporary classical is neither silly nor pretentious; I’m just too ignorant and uneducated to understand how truly brilliant it is. Well…that’s kind of my point. If your best defense of a piece of art is that it should be withheld from the general public because it’s too highbrow and intellectual for them to “get,” then don’t you think there’s something wrong with it? Don’t you think that such overt alienation of the general public is, in fact, just the teensiest bit pretentious? Yes, I know there is contemporary classical music out there more accessible than the examples I give, but the point of my examples is not to demonstrate how much I think the genre sucks, but rather how silly I find this idea of exclusive, high-class, intellectual art as a whole. (Though let me just say, I know George Crumb’s “Vox Belaenae,” and if that’s the most accessible stuff you got, you might as well quit now; his score calls for the pianist to use a chisel on the strings and for all the performers to wear Phantom-of-the-Opera-like half-masks throughout. Now that’s just stupid.)
I’m also quite aware that contemporary classical music took the brunt of my abuse, and so I understand why you music-lovers are so put off by the column. Let me assure you, however, that while I did single out this genre, I did not intend to dissuade prospective listeners from ever giving it a chance, nor did I set out to make a sweeping generalization about the genre as a whole. Yeah, I know what I said. I called it a rare form of torture and said that everything is wrong in contemporary classical music. But please remember, I’m writing a humor column here. When you have 600-800 words, you need to be a little heavy-handed to get your point across. If that heavy-handedness translated as an unconditional dismissal of the entire genre, I apologize; it was a weakness in my writing. I myself have attended numerous concerts of this sort, though I find them god awful, and will continue to do so. (I am not quite as uninformed as you all seem to think.) Plus, by so fervidly opposing what was obviously a very tongue-in-cheek article, you do not exactly disprove my point that pretentious modern art, including contemporary classical music, is sometimes taken a little too seriously.
If you’d like to hear more of my opinions concerning contemporary classical music–or would just like another opportunity to call me names–I will be appearing on a WHPK 88.5 radio show on Wednesday afternoon, February 18th, sometime between 2:20 and 3:00. It seems they too had a small problem with the column, and have invited me on to throw down.
Sincerely,
Luke Dumas
Maroon Viewpoints Staff Writer
This was a humor column? See, no one knows that except for you. It came off as a stupid column. Your admission that you "like the classical stylings of Chopin and Tchaikovsky" basically proves everyone’s point. These are pretty much the two most accessible classical music composers. Of course you like them. If you listen to Prokofiev, will you like it? Perhaps, but probably not. Will you appreciate it? No way (I will, in case that wasn’t clear). Your "point" is that you don’t understand something, therefore it’s bad. Am I getting this right? Did you like calculus before you understood it? Did you like sushi the first time you tried it?
Your argument is unbelievably immature and you should probably just give up. Try taking an art class (or anything besides hum, gen chem, and core bio) and then maybe consider publishing your opinion.
Finally, I don’t think you have to worry about contemporary artists presenting their work with you in mind as their audience.
"Luke Dumas is a first-year in the College."
Clearly your $52,000 in tuition this year hasn’t started to yield intellectual benefits yet. Maybe next year!
I agree entirely with the article. As a classical musician of 15 years, i am appalled with the lack of quality in modern music.