Composer/USA
Series IV, Vol. 5, No. 2
Winter 1998-1999
Point of View
Al Benner
“The middle ground,
when it is ultimately defined, will be a synthesis
of the old and the
still evolving new.”
“. . . the performers . . . should be one of our first priorities.”
“Now that 2000 is only a year away, I wonder
if on that date we will automatically switch
and call anything we write 21st-century compositions?”
Bipartisanship and Other Miscellaneous Thoughts
In this present era of the “call for bipartisanship” where that means that the other side is being partisan because it doesn’t agree with “my position,” and definitions hinge on how we define verbs, perhaps we can do a better job of decreasing the chasm between our two polar factions of composers. On the one hand, there is a call from some, who seem to have a disdain for academia, to write in the mildly tonal style of the past because they feel that is what the audience wants. On the other hand, we have the academic snobbery of some who think that it is immaterial whether the audience does or does not grasp their music. Neither side seems to be aware that, for most of us, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Writing music that only “copies” the tonality of the past creates no new thought and ignores the fact that throughout history music has never gone backward in its language. But to ignore the role of the audience in shaping the substance and direction of music is similarly extreme. This has only caused more alienation from the general populous and, I feel, is not the direction the general fraternity of composers wants.
The middle ground, when it is ultimately defined, will be a synthesis of the old and the still evolving new. One of our functions as composers is to contribute constructively to writing that definition. We need to work together to create opportunities for each other, to critique each other, to praise each other when we find an exceptional work, and to concede other points of view. Instead of thinking that if we shout louder or complain longer than the next person, our own point of view and our music becomes better, we should learn that if for the majority of time we listen to one another, maybe, just maybe, our point of view will be heard and ultimately, our music will be better.
************
In our compositions, many of us ignore what we very much need--the performers. Instead of trying to work with them, we ridicule them when they can’t play our bizarrely written pieces. They should be one of our first priorities. Unless they want to play our music, an audience will never get the opportunity to hear it. And here’s the beauty of this relationship--if the audience likes or appreciates what they hear, then the performers will have even more incentive to play it!
Maybe some of us don’t care if an audience ever hears our music, or, after it gets that premiere performance, are satisfied if it just sits on a shelf. That certainly isn’t my attitude. I want repeat performances. I want performers who want to play my music. I also want my music to take on a “life” of its own where it gets played even if I am not aware of the performances. And ultimately, I want people to play or listen to my music because they like the music, not that they know me personally or were asked by a partisan--not that I would object if that were the case.
************
Now that 2000 is only a year away, I wonder if on that date we will automatically switch and call anything we write 21st-century compositions? How far along in our career--or age--is the break-off point in becoming part of the 21st-century period of composers, or for some of us, will we still be labeled as 20th-century period composers? Maybe over the next decade or two some musicologist will break-up the massive classification of 20th-century music into several distinct periods--then maybe for some of us we will “know” where we belong! Any suggestions?