The Dissonance of 20th-Century Music is Fading

Carol Reynolds aka "Professor Carol"

"Professor Carol"

Frequently, and justifiably, thoughtful people bemoan the way “classical music” left its audience behind in the 20th century. This post was, in fact, spurred by just such a comment on one of my previous posts.

This person and others with similar complaints are referring to the gulf between composer and listener caused by waves of abstract and dissonant music that dominated the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s. Away flew lyrical melody, engaging rhythm, and accessible harmony.

Form created by contrast and repetition—one of Western music’s treasures—became impossible for listeners to find, much less to enjoy. Add in the intoxicating new kid on the block: electronic music. Here the game revolved around technological possibilities starting with the new reel-to-reel tape recorders. Natural sounds were captured, then manipulated physically on the magnetic tape. (Jeffrey Plaide shows the process in this enlightening clip). The resulting compositions were “performed” by hitting the “on” button. Fascinating stuff, admittedly, but the human listener seemed all too often an afterthought, an object against which the electronic sounds could reverberate.

Of course, experiments in the 1950s simply blew the lid off of an already bubbling caldron. The modernism of Stravinsky, Strauss, and Schoenberg had disconcerted plenty of listeners in the 1910s and ’20s, grabbing them by the throat and shaking their ears out of their heads.

But, since the whole of Western culture was reeling under waves of technological revolution, political upheaval, and war, somehow it all fit. Then, in the 1930s and ’40s, artists showed a clear reaction to the chaos by nurturing a style we call Neoclassicism. Neoclassicism used plenty of modern harmonies and complex rhythms, but unleashed them more subtly, within the constraints of traditional musical forms—forms Bach or Haydn would have employed. It didn’t last.

The 1950s blew in: World War II was over and all hell broke loose. Jackson Pollock scattered blobs of paint across canvases on the floor. Merce Cunningham built dance sets from industrial materials scavenged from trash bins. And John Cage became a regular at the hardware store, buying bolts and screws to lace through his piano strings. Far too many composers, especially those ensconced in academic endowed chairs and institutes, chose to pontificate, rather than communicate. You might say they trusted their theories more than their audience’s ears. (For more on this topic, see New vs. Old Music Unending Battle in Classical Programming.)

The result is easy to analyze from our standpoint today. From Medieval Chant through the great symphonies of the 19th-century, Western music displayed clarity. No matter how innovative the melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic structures, listeners could follow them, if with a bit of effort. There was enough predictable material to give listeners an anchor. Without the anchor, listeners fled. Or at least went into hiding. But if it’s been awhile since you’ve listened to “new” music from the so-called classical world, you’re in for a surprise.

It’s baack. All of it. Aural clarity in the aspects of lyrical melody, agreeable harmony, engaging rhythm, and even perceptible form. (For starters, explore the music of my two favorite “Pauls”: LA composer Paul Cristo and Florida composer Paul Richards).The new music of today, to use the words of star-composer Sebastian Currier, “is meeting the listeners more than half-way.” And that’s the right tension between good composer and attentive listener. I’ll explore this tension, or musical interaction, between composer and listener in our next post.

Carol Reynolds, aka Professor Carol, a former music history professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, has launched a new company, Silver Age Music. Her latest product is a multimedia course: “Discovering Music: 300 Years of Interaction in Western Music, Art, History, & Culture.” Prof. Carol now lives on a ranch, raises goats, and writes and lectures on classical music (to humans).

2 comments

1 guitarslinger
Posted 01/25/10 at 7:59 pm

So was Jeffrey bemoaning moderm music or supporting it? He was making some pretty cool sounds so I’m confused. Nothing wrong with moving out of the stuffy regimented music of old IMO. Nothing wrong with staying in it either. I like it all. Also nothing wrong with turning music on it’s ear. Who’s to say what does or does not constitue what music is or isn’t? Isn’t it good that we have so much more freedom to experiment? And who knows what the old masters would do with music if dropped in todays world. I think Mozart and Beethoven would be rock gods -

2 Stephen Wise
Posted 04/16/10 at 11:30 am

Composers who we consider to be great today were not so in their lifetimes. Why? They flouted convention and pushed the envelope. Mozart ended his short life a pauper while Solieri had a long and comfortable life. Who’s greater today? Solieri also knew how to play the game. Mozart did not. Then as now, great composers were “bad boys” who flouted convention and thumbed their noses at authority.

Leave a Comment

(to appear with comment)

(will not be displayed)

(if any)

*Required field