<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.2//EN"
                         "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd"
[
<!ENTITY % HTMLsymbol PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Symbols//EN//HTML"
                             "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/HTMLsymbol.ent">
]>

<article>
  <title>On the Future of Music</title>

  <articleinfo>
    <author>
      <firstname>Simon</firstname>
      <surname>South</surname>

      <email>ssouth@slowcomputing.org</email>
    </author>

    <pubdate>2000-4-4</pubdate>

    <copyright>
      <year>2000</year>
      <year>2003</year>
      <holder>Simon South</holder>
    </copyright>

    <legalnotice>
      Verbatim copying and distribution of this material is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
    </legalnotice>

    <abstract>
      Written for Dr. Laura Gray as part of a university course in twentieth-century music history.
    </abstract>
  </articleinfo>

  <para>As young musicians readying to enter our field at the very
beginning of the twenty-first century, the question of where music is
headed in the new millenium (and beyond) is one that affects us
personally and deeply.  After all, the answer will determine, to a
large degree, our role in the period of music history encompassing our
lifespan.</para>

  <para>How unfortunate, then, that the past hundred years of music
history seems to yield few clues as to the nature of its continuation.
This essay will discuss briefly the class readings on this
topic.</para>

  <para>As a strong believer in the value of electronic and
computer-generated music, I feel it is only proper that I begin by
objecting to the points raised by George Rochberg in his speech of
1971.  Rochberg argues strongly against the overlapping of art with
science, denouncing such works as <quote>devoid of human
content</quote> and <quote>morally void.</quote></para>

  <para>Rochberg's reasoning seems fundamentally flawed, however: he
appears to be arguing both that science is all-pervasive in our
society, and that art cannot (and must not) reflect upon science. This
makes no sense, if we accept the definition of art as a reflection of
our own human experience.  In a society heavily focussed on science
and technology; on machinery, and computers, and procedure; it is not
only natural and permissible but <emphasis>inevitable</emphasis> that
art forms reflecting these qualities will emerge.  And indeed they
have: minimalist artwork, serialist music, <emphasis>musique
concr&egrave;te</emphasis>, and electronic music all in some way
reflect the highly-deterministic nature of late-twentieth-century
human society, and in that regard they are <emphasis>all</emphasis>
part of a <quote>humanistic tradition.</quote></para>

  <para>I suspect that Rochberg would also have reservations about the
advancements in recording technology which have evolved, even those
only of the thirty years since his speech was written.  An ongoing
trend is the shifting of control of musical performances from the
artists to the audience, beginning with the introduction of the
phonograph record and continuing up to the newest developments in
consumer audio (most notably the widespread adoption of MPEG
Layer-III, or <quote>MP3</quote>, compression).  The public now has
unprecedented power in controlling when, where and <emphasis>to what
music</emphasis> they listen.  This is a trend not likely to be
reversed.  It presents to musicians a double-edged sword: with this
power people are every bit as capable of choosing what music they
<emphasis>won't</emphasis> listen to as what music they will, which
threatens to increase even further the separation between popular and
<quote>serious</quote> (or experimental) music.  However, with the
ability to distribute high-quality recordings at virtually no cost, a
lot of opportunities have developed for lesser-known artists to be
heard.</para>

  <para>With everything I have learned in this course, I cannot help
but feel that there will be a return (at least partially) to tonality
and other <quote>classical</quote> ideals in the twenty-first century.
Composers of the current era seem to have taken great delight in
straying as far as possible from musical tradition&mdash;not always, I
suspect, with clear goals in mind&mdash;and have sometimes alienated
themselves a great deal from their listeners as a result.  In this
regard, I agree wholeheartedly with the opinions Jeremy Beck expresses
in his article, <citetitle pubwork="article">Anything Goes?
Composition at the Turn of the Century</citetitle>.  A great deal of
music has been written in the past century that, examined objectively,
shows little evidence of musical talent or understanding of music
theory.  I also have no doubt that the <quote>trends</quote> in music
society which Professor Beck mentions have caused important (but,
perhaps, tonal) works to be overlooked.  (I find this personally
distressing, as I have little interest in composing atonal music and
would obviously prefer to have any compositions of mine stand or fall
on their own merit.)</para>

  <para>I think it is possible that, in response to the unreserved and
unlimited approach to music of this century, the next generation of
composers will begin to lean back towards ideals of the Romantic
period, with tonality left stretched to a highly expressive form but
not altogether abandoned.</para>

  <para>On the subject of alienation from one's audience is Milton
Babbitt's article, <citetitle pubwork="article">The Composer as
Specialist</citetitle>, in which he discusses both the inevitability
and the need for composers to operate away from public scrutiny and
with the support of universities.  Babbitt makes a very convincing
argument; so much so that I find myself now forced to agree with him.
It <emphasis>is</emphasis> true that music has advanced quickly in the
past century, and that it has in some ways outstripped the ability of
the average listener to appreciate.  The improvements in recordable
media since the publication of this article and the towering recording
industry itself has, I would argue, greatly deepened the rift between
<quote>popular</quote> and <quote>serious</quote> musics.  If music is
to be advanced further, it will now almost need to occur in a secure,
academic environment like that promoted by Babbitt.</para>

  <para>And yet it is always unclear to me <emphasis>why</emphasis>
music needs to be <quote>pushed forward,</quote> particularly in the
radical directions some twentieth-century composers have chosen to
pursue.  I am not convinced that Babbitt knows why, either, for in
defending Webern's composition of <quote>experimental,</quote> atonal
compositions his most compelling argument is that a major record label
has recently decided to record Webern's entire output&mdash;as though
it were simply the <emphasis>recording</emphasis> of music that
justifies its creation, rather than anything intrinsic to the music
itself or its applicability to anything external.  Babbitt then at
least partially redeems himself by stating at the end of his article
that it is the <quote>evolution</quote> of music which guarantees its
preservation, but even this argument seems to be only superfically
valid.</para>

  <para>In the end, I am left with a very poor grasp on what music's
role in society is, beyond simply satisfying the need to fill silent
gaps of time.  It is not even clear to me why I myself am studying
music, except that years of experience has proven to me that I will
not be happy doing anything else.  I am still not sure what musical
role, if any, I will pursue once I have finished my education.
However, I am confident that as I continue to learn about and
experiment with music, I will start to develop answers to these
questions.  If nothing else, I certainly am excited to see in what
directions music will develop throughout my lifetime.</para>
</article>
