Ok here goes-My exposure to music since 1900 came usually came through studying music for my own instrument. I assume the same is true for many of you.. As we work through passages in order to technically master them, we force our selves to analyze a piece in depth: a process we might not normally undertake without the pressure of an upcoming lesson. For example, I have studied clarinet music by Debussy, Khachaturian, Martino, Milhaud, Muczynski, Osbourne, Persichetti, Poulenc, Rozsa, Stravinsky, Sutermeister, and other. However, my knowledge of specific pieces after 1950 outside of clarinet repertoire is inexcusably weak.
It is interesting to note how repertoire for the clarinet has changed in the past century. Jazz and ragtime and Dixieland in particular, have made heavy use of my instrument as has the Klezmer musical tradition. Some of our extended techniques incorporated in “classical” compositions originated in these genres. Composers for the clarinet have taken note and often used the instrument as a vehicle for uniting elements of popular and classical music. One of the most easily recognizable examples would be the opening clarinet line of Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue. Clarinet has evolved from a strictly classical instrument to become a voice in vernacular music.
It seems that trained musicians largely ignore 20th century vernacular music. The study of popular music, music for the masses, what ever you want to call it, is not included in the core of music education. Occasionally, vernacular music is glossed over in a survey of twentieth century music, but it is included at the instructor’s discretion and is not considered as necessary as other movements such as neo classical and aleatory music. I use vernacular music, for want of a more appropriate word, to describe the popular genres of the past century that include rock, pop, hip-hop, trip hop, country, electronic experimental, folk, neo-folk, blues, alternative, drone rock, shoegaze, as well as lesser known factions of indie music. Although most trained musicians immediately cite jazz as THE distinctly American contribution to music, I would argue that our 20th century vernacular music, let’s just call it rock, is one of our most innovative art forms and one of our most successful exports. It is a significant part of the American musical legacy. If we are going to analyze American innovation, popular music should be part of the discussion.
Why vernacular music is not treated as part of musical history is disconcerting. What bothers me is that there seems to be this split between art music and popular music; that somehow these genres are not viewed reactions to the same musical past. Yes, rock music is more heavily rooted in rhythm and blues than Rachmaninoff. But the world grew smaller in last century, and musicians no longer draw their influence strictly from the Western, Euro-centric music history that preceded them. Britten and Debussy incorporated indigenous music from the far east; do we know longer consider them part of the art music tradition? By separating art and popular music, we create a hierarchy between the two. They are not treated as entities within the same musical history: rock music is not considered part the pendulum swing between the Romantic and the classical. Since vernacular music is geared toward the everyman, the amateur, it is often viewed as less complex, less skillful, less innovative. However, I would argue that both vernacular and “classical” (again, I cant find the right terms!) music are only as different as we choose to make them.
I will be the first to say that a lot of popular music is garbarge. And by garbage I imply that it is usually poorly written and unadventurous. There are over seven million musicians and bands listed on Myspace alone, and you know at least two hundred of those artists are really acoustic guitar-wielding teenagers saying “I wrote this song for my girlfriend. I love you, Tina!” whose music is akin to bad renditions of Ryan Adams or Jack Johnson. I am not here to say that the skill involved in creating popular music and art music is somehow equal. (Aspiring bands do not train as chamber groups at conservatories over years and years before launching their careers.) Nor do I claim that all pop music is great art just as not all classical music is great art. I am merely saying that popular music is not irrelevant in terms of innovation.
I am really interested in studying how art music and popular music have interacted since 1950. In particular, I hope to study how artists like Charles Ives, Brian Eno, and Jonny Greenwood, chose to view vernacular music and art music with little bias and fused aspects of both genres in their work. I also would like to examine, maybe not necessarily in this class, how innovation is treated in the world of popular music in terms of critical acclaim, financial success, as well as posterity and future influence. Is it even possible to write musically groundbreaking work that is aimed an audience that usually has no music education and often a small musical palate? Can popular music be innovative in the same way as the classical tradition?