In the arts, this philosophy is expressed as “There is no accepted canon of Great Texts which must be honored, revered, and respected.”
A few years ago, I was internet friends with a post modernist composer. He revered the great composers and thought of himself as working within the classical tradition, but he also insisted that Bach and Katy Perry had equal merit.
I never got him to see the contradiction in this statement. More fundamentally, if everything is equal, why bother composing at all? Post modernism always involves a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty.
I would have to sit down with your composer friend and probe his thought for a while to be certain, but my guess is that we would heartily disagree with each other's views of the merits of a postmodernist compositional philosophy. Far from causing the act of composing to lose in value, I see postmodernism as allowing composers to look anywhere for inspiration. Rather than restricting themselves to the classical tradition, composers would indeed be able to crib from Katy Perry or anyone else that strikes their fancy.
Of course, this has been happening for as long as European composers have been putting their musical thoughts down on paper; they have been borrowing from popular tunes with regularity throughout the centuries. perhaps "postmodernism" is the wrong word for that kind of attitude towards sampling, but I don't know of any better way to describe the idea that the works of composers who have gone before are not sacrosanct but are simply the raw material for new appropriations.
I just don't see how looking anywhere for inspiration is the slightest bit revolutionary. Like you said, it's been happening for centuries. If this is all post modernism has to offer, it's a pretty sad movement!
In the arts, this philosophy is expressed as “There is no accepted canon of Great Texts which must be honored, revered, and respected.”
A few years ago, I was internet friends with a post modernist composer. He revered the great composers and thought of himself as working within the classical tradition, but he also insisted that Bach and Katy Perry had equal merit.
I never got him to see the contradiction in this statement. More fundamentally, if everything is equal, why bother composing at all? Post modernism always involves a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty.
I would have to sit down with your composer friend and probe his thought for a while to be certain, but my guess is that we would heartily disagree with each other's views of the merits of a postmodernist compositional philosophy. Far from causing the act of composing to lose in value, I see postmodernism as allowing composers to look anywhere for inspiration. Rather than restricting themselves to the classical tradition, composers would indeed be able to crib from Katy Perry or anyone else that strikes their fancy.
Of course, this has been happening for as long as European composers have been putting their musical thoughts down on paper; they have been borrowing from popular tunes with regularity throughout the centuries. perhaps "postmodernism" is the wrong word for that kind of attitude towards sampling, but I don't know of any better way to describe the idea that the works of composers who have gone before are not sacrosanct but are simply the raw material for new appropriations.
I just don't see how looking anywhere for inspiration is the slightest bit revolutionary. Like you said, it's been happening for centuries. If this is all post modernism has to offer, it's a pretty sad movement!
I feel like we should talk more. No idea how I missed your writing. You get it.
Wow, thanks! My email is w_collen@hotmail.com and I'm also on Discord @williamcollen. TTYL!
I was initially just impressed you knew the original Futurists wrote opera, but then I read your blog and realized you knew even more than that.
Melt Banana was hipster trash though. Try Luigi Russolo.
Will hit you up.