For this blog post, I am going to play devil’s advocate. As I’ve read about and listened to the music of the composer’s we’ve covered so far I have been plagued by a burning question: is this really innovation? On the surface, the answer would seem to be an obvious “yes.” Putting coins in a piano, inventing instruments, mish-mashing American folk tunes, and piling towers of dissonance…how could it not be innovative?
The OED defines an innovator as:
A. One who innovates; an introducer of novelties or new methods; a revolutionist.
B. A changer or alterer of (a thing) by innovation.
Focusing solely on part 2 of A, “an introducer of novelties or new methods,” I’ll concede that most of our subjects qualify. But definition A goes on to add, “a revolutionist.” What revolution did Ives cause, other than a posthumous rush to throw his compositions onto concert programs? Partch attempted to revolutionize tuning. Did his revolution take? No; the western twelve-tone system is as dominant as ever.
Indeed, it is the “revolutionist” definition along with part B, “a changer or alterer of (a thing)…” that are most useful to us. The OED further defines “(a thing)” in its “innovation” definition as “what is established.” So an innovator must alter and change what is established.
What was “established” in America the early twentieth century? In short, the European, romantic style of art music. The principal mediums for musical expression were the symphonic orchestra, opera, and ballet. Today the American musical scene is dominated by “popular music”, experienced principally through recordings, both audio and video. The western twelve-tone system remains dominant, and one would be hard pressed to find much dissonance on most iPods.
One must ask, then, how we got from point A (then) to point B (now). Did Carl Ruggles’ small, dissonant output help establish the 3 ½ minute song? Is Cowell’s prepared piano heard in piano bars?
These men were mind-bendingly creative, and their experiments with music are fascinating. They deserve their places in the pantheon of experimentalists. Many were also musical philosophers; Cage’s classic attack on what we think of as music, “4’33”” is a great example. (This idea of composer-philosophers deserves its own blogpost) Ultimately, however, innovation requires more than new ideas. These ideas must change something and affect something. This point is illustrated by one of our “innovators” who actually innovated.
Edgard Varese’s writing for percussion revolutionized its use in orchestral writing, both within and without the art music world. Compare Tchaikovsky’s use of percussion to that of composer’s post-Varese. Beyond the conservative use of cymbals, bass drum, triangle, and timpani, there is not much. Take a listen to a John Williams soundtrack, and you’ll hear Varese’s reach into both the high art and popular realm. He created something new that revolutionized part of the established order.
OK, that’s a super-duper overly simplified reading of the history, but this idea has been with me throughout all of my exploring. It’s one to keep in mind, I think. Consider this: Who is more innovative, Henry Cowell, or the people that invented and disseminated Rock ‘n Roll?
Let the hate mail (er, posts) come in. Nothin’ like a good intellectual exercise!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's a good point, but I believe that this gets back into the terminology of the title of this class instead of what this class is about...
ReplyDeleteAs we've seen, Innovator has a specific definition, but in the long run, aren't we discussing "Interesting Americans" and even less specifically "People who did something interesting?" I don't think that everything should be an innovation, some things are just expansions of pre-existing ideas.
The best example of this that jumps off the top of my head (probably because I've been so engulfed in Cage's music for the past week) is the "prepared piano." This was/is thought to be an innovation of the piano, but the piano use to have a "Janissary Pedal" in the Baroque Period that basically slammed a metal rod against the low strings of the piano while simultaneously striking a small metal bell creating the sound of a Janissary percussion section. Therefore, maybe Cage did or didn't know about the Janissary Pedal of the old days, but does it matter...
To me personally, I'm glad he did what he did, and I think it's definitely at least an expansion of a great idea, and that is why I believe it should be a part of this class experience that we are all growing from together.
You both have excellent points. Matt, I have to say I have been on the same brainwave as you this past week. Familiarizing myself with the innovations in Band music in the USA post WW2, I realized
ReplyDelete"The more things change, the more they stay the same"
Brad touched on the idea of 'expanding an idea' which is exactly the impression I get from many of the innovators we have studied. They may have introduced new musical forms, more complex sonorities, and experimental instruments, but essentially, it is all an expansion of a pre-existing idea.
Great post, Matt! I wish your schedule allowed you to be in the class itself, rather than looking in from the outside.
ReplyDeleteThe issues that you raise reflect just the type of thinking I wanted to generate in this class. There are no pat answers to such open-ended questions, but I want people to be able to argue the points and in the process becoming more familiar with the issues, with the specific composers and styles, etc.
It sounds to me that you are talking about what might be called innovation vs. Innovation (that is, little "i" and big "I"). In Csikszentmihalyi
s important book called "Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention" he makes the distinction between litte and big "c" creativity. We are all creative because we have minds and we think in our odd or conventional ways. Perhaps we "innovate" when we take a different route into school in the morning, but it doesn't change much at all. But if I invented a new instrument, say the saxophone or electric guitar, then I really have Innovated!
Czikszentmihalyi (pronouced "chick-sent-me-high" BTW) defines this big c Creativity as follows: "a process by which a symbolic domain in the culture is changed (p. 8)...creativity results form the interaction of a system composed of three elements: a culture that contains symbolic rules, a person who brings novelty into the symbolic domain, and a field of experts who recognize and validate the innovation (p. 6)."
He pays as much attention to the domain and to the field as he does to the individual creative process because the first two aspects are essential to the creative process.
"To say that the theory of relativity was created by Einstein is like saying that it is the spark that is responsible for the fire. The spark is necessary, but without air and tinder, there would be no flame." p. 7
Does this help?
Like Matt and Nicola, I've been thinking along similar lines this term. I've been trying to think through the issue cogently so that I could actually write about it, especially as it regard my presentation composer, Eric Whitacre.
ReplyDeleteDr. Brunner's point of differenciating between innovation and Innovation is a good one that may cast what I say in a somewhat redundant light, but here goes.
For many of the composers we've been talking about, they seem to be "renovators" rather than "innovators." Really, is there anything else that is entirely new left to be done. Until I hear such a thing, I will strongly doubt its existence. Like the "aesthetic pendulum" Dr. Brunner mentioned in class one day, each generation of era reacts to the one before it.
The impressionists borrowed a great deal from older elements like the ecclesiastical modes, pentatonic pitch collections (prominent in folk music all over the world). These were not their own innovations, but rather re-imaginings. Modes used in combination with all that contemporary harmonic language had to offer recasts the old elements in fresh ways.
I would contrast that notion, what I'm calling "renovation," with the following: "innovation." I would consider atonal and dodecaphonic music innovative. True, they still used 12 pitches per octave. However, this development relatively unprecedented (although I can name a few from the late 16th century—if you're interested, look for "Tonality and Atonality in Sixteenth Century Music" by Edward Lowinsky). It necessitated the use of equal temperament, whose dominance over western tuning systems had been on the fence for some time prior.
Recent and current trends seem to indicate something of a return to a pitch hierarchy within music, whether that be truly tonal or pantonic or centric.
In light of one of our readings at the beginning of term, Ives and Varèse are perhaps the most pivotal innovators we have covered thus far. And according to that reading (I believe it was that one), and innovator is one whose advancements change the way things are done afterward. Are experimentalists really innovating if their experiments don't take? What I mean is, experimental music, while interesting, does not seem to have made it into any sort of musical mainstream. The composers prominent in the experimental movement are certainly worthy of study and exposure by any musician, but I do not see how that makes them innovators.