- Part of 'A topology of musical encounter' (summary) -
Carrying considerations about our new ‘melted’ cultural status in the back of my mind, during the summer of 2006 I took up the intention to investigate the true musical identity of my place of birth, Amsterdam. I put myself to work on questions concerning the collective musical values of our pluriform society. Is there a possible modern day ‘folk music’ that could encompass the togetherness of Amsterdam? I engaged in many conversations with musicians having the most various backgrounds, interest and musical practices, sharing the same space of the city. I analyzed their personal views trying to distract a pattern out of the pluriformity of sounds and thoughts about music. But how do you bring together a community that has no physical and cultural borders anymore? Where do you start? To find the right perspective in such a research has faced me a complex and to be honest continuing challenge.
The term ‘folk music’ needs a revision in respect to the reality we are dealing with here. Although the term folk music is in itself a large generalization, we can agree there is a folk music, a music belonging to a cultural collective, as opposed to an artistic music being in the first place an individual expression of the artist. Folk music comes close to popular music culture regarding the involvement of the listeners, while the artistic music appeals to every listener as an individual, without any intention to bring them together as a group. I remember this was a main conflict I had with my former professor Walter Zimmermann, while studying composition at the University of Arts in Berlin. He rejected my musical views and was convinced of the wrong direction I took by using elements in my composition that had a sort of ’popular music’ quality. He declared not looking down on this popular music, but treated an artistic music and a popular music as two strictly separated worlds with unagreeable intentions towards the listener. The one has the intention to unite the listeners, the other has the intention to free every listener as an individual. I do share with him the importance in awareness of this public intention. This is the key-question for my musical cause: are we dealing with the collective or with the individual?
The answer is both, and both at the very same time. These characteristic of the personal sphere have become ones primary dimensions to connect him to a certain collective around a shared subject…..?, and to other collectives on another basis. How old-fashioned is this notion of ‘freeing the individual’! For the world-citizens in Amsterdam the freedom of the individual is already a completed reality. This is why every notion of contemporary music based on this post-war modernistic ideal - unfortunately not incidental but still a definite standard in conservatories all around Europe - are truly the past, and by no means applicable to our present experience. That makes contemporary art music into museum pieces for an expertise audience. Let aside musical qualities and intentions, this approach to music is a museum piece, and every composer should consider in which ‘cultural surrounding’ he positions himself, and accept the consequences of this decision to avoid unrealistic expectations around any interest for his music from outside. We are all ‘free’, and therewith all ‘alone’ in our artistic unicity. Our challenge now is to connect our artistic individualism to a new collectivity. Any true ‘art music’ of the near future will be a ‘folk music’ as well, combining the unique characteristics of individuals with a shared interest of a group.
The answer is both, and both at the very same time. These characteristic of the personal sphere have become ones primary dimensions to connect him to a certain collective around a shared subject…..?, and to other collectives on another basis. How old-fashioned is this notion of ‘freeing the individual’! For the world-citizens in Amsterdam the freedom of the individual is already a completed reality. This is why every notion of contemporary music based on this post-war modernistic ideal - unfortunately not incidental but still a definite standard in conservatories all around Europe - are truly the past, and by no means applicable to our present experience. That makes contemporary art music into museum pieces for an expertise audience. Let aside musical qualities and intentions, this approach to music is a museum piece, and every composer should consider in which ‘cultural surrounding’ he positions himself, and accept the consequences of this decision to avoid unrealistic expectations around any interest for his music from outside. We are all ‘free’, and therewith all ‘alone’ in our artistic unicity. Our challenge now is to connect our artistic individualism to a new collectivity. Any true ‘art music’ of the near future will be a ‘folk music’ as well, combining the unique characteristics of individuals with a shared interest of a group.
“The marriage of pop and art goes beyond communication. It is the unification of art and the perceiver. The audience is participant as a watching, listening, thinking and feeling human being. The artist is not author but host. He facilitates a situation in which the artistic experience can originate. The popartist is dependent on the world and plays with conventions, customs and traditions of subcultures and audiences. He doesn’t want to create a new language, but share existing stories in the most appropriate and intense way. As it happens, the world is already long finished.”
Merlijn Twaalfhoven – Oratie PopKunst
To continue reading choose your next page below..
No comments:
Post a Comment