uncomfortable party conversations
rehearsal tonight, and a party today for the avenue 50 studio where i rehearse. they are celebrating their new nonprofit status, which is a big step for them. congratulations kathy! ave 50 is a great gallery that deals with outsider and underground art.
so whenever i am at a party and kathy introduces me around as her “composer friend” we always do that uncomfortable dance, of what do i call my music. this is usually how it breaks down:
kathy-here is my friend paul i was telling you about, he rehearses at the studio and writes some great music.
kathy friend-nice to meet you paul, what kind of music do you write? i would love to hear it.
paul- postmodern, minimalist, really in the style of philip glass and steve reich.
(which my stuff sounds nothing like, but it is related in the red-haired stepchild sort of way. but by dropping these names at least they know i am not finding my inner god through stockhausen or berio)
kathy friend-(blank stare, has no idea who philip glass and steve reich are) …. you mean experimental music?
paul-(at this time I am usually embarrassed, because now there is not much to do as we play marco polo with new music references)
this conversation brings up the point of the never-ending battle of terminology, defining yourself before they define you.
so in a zarlino sort of way, here is my roundup of dictionary of the latest music classification terminology/slang:
experimental
i cringe when i hear this term. the improviser community won this one, although i think it is phyrric. i picture a mixed ensemble playing a 45 minute improvised meditation on the architectural structure of the schindler house
postmodern
we have been going steady for a year or two. to me it means music that is not modernist, it also refers to music that might have minimalist tendencies but is a bigger club than just the minimalists. i think others have no idea what it means, and wonder if i am a metrosexual.
postclassic
a term by kyle gann that i am getting more comfortable with. a little simpler than postmodern, i think i might try it out. since most people still define “art” music as “classic” this might be easier. but is mis-refering classical music any better?
nonpop
i read this recently in the Kalvos and Damian’s New Music Bazaar radio show description. i like it.
non pop. not pop.
it doesn’t really describe a lot of the music being written by my friends or myself, but is still a pretty cool description, a good example of simple is better.
art music
not really a useful description, but i use it to describe the purpose of the music. i think most people don’t realize that there are other types music than popular music.
i usually explain that art music is music meant to be contemplated, and it is not immediately disposable and should have a shelf life more than a month.
this doesn’t mean that my music does not have entertainment qualities, but hopefully there is a little more “there, there”.
some art music has pop qualities and some pop music has art qualities, and some just does suck.
i think it is just as important on how people define you as you define yourself. i will take it a sign that this music is gaining ground when i see the terminology firm to only one or two classifications.
LikePopularity: unranked [?]
Related posts: