So here’s a question: is the composer outside of mainstream culture and “misunderstood” because of the failings of culture itself, or does the composer set out to separate herself from culture, either purposefully or inadvertently buying into the “misunderstood,” “starving artist” ethos?
Composers have to answer the same questions from non-musicians time and time again: What do you do? Do you plan to sell your compositions? Does anybody actually perform your music? What is your end goal? Do people pay for that? The tone ranges from genuine curiosity to bafflement and sometimes even hostility. Whatever the case, the underlying truth is clear: outside of the music world (and sometimes inside of it) few people understand what the composer does and how the composer contributes to society.
Every time somebody says to me, “Well what [on EARTH] do you plan to do with that degree?” I have to somehow muster up the ego and the confidence to defend what I am doing not just to the person asking the question, but also to myself. Such a response is not due to lack of resolve—I love composing. There is nothing in the world that makes me happier than working out a piece of music and, better yet, hearing it performed. However, I am not naïve enough to assume that the path is going to be easy or even possible—NOBODY has had to face the realities of the precariousness of my own career choices more than me! I want to stress that I do not feel that anyone is in the wrong for asking me questions about what I do. I’m glad they’re interested and sometimes it’s a relief to have a chance to explain. The problem is that the asking signifies that an understanding of what the composer does has not made it into cultural norms.
Sometimes I think it would be easier if I were a sculptress or a photographer. A sculpture is tangible, a photograph can be hung on a wall. Both can be part of a market system. Music, as something that is witnessed in time, is commercially intangible. People thus feel comfortable taking music for free (photocopying scores, downloading sound files, etc.). Although providing sound files for free is often considered an invaluable promotional tool, I’m not sure that we do music any great long-term service by offering our “product” for free in a capitalist society.
I once heard a music director complain about having to pay almost $400 for legitimate copies of a choral score for his choir. I know it may sound like a lot, but if you think about the composer’s time it might not seem like so much. He probably spent several weeks or months working on his piece. Even if we estimate at the low end and say that the composer worked on the piece for one month, $400 does not come anywhere near to reimbursing him for that time, craft, etc. When you add in the printing costs and the size of the choir, $400 doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Would you balk at spending $400 on an order of fifty prints of a painting?
Obviously it’s no coincidence that the composers who are the most “understood” by our culture are the composers who are making money: film composers, composers for television and ads (jingles), and top-forty pop artists. And so my defense of the composer is based on the following idea: in a market economy, such as we have in the United States, the classical or “art-music” composer IS an outsider, whether he/she seeks such a role or not.
The question then becomes…how do we, as economic and cultural outsiders, reengage ourselves with society, while writing the kind of music that we are inspired to write?
Posted by Natalie
Well, I like that you wrote "sculptress", first of all.
ReplyDeleteI want to get at your initial question. Is the composer really misunderstood? Why?
I think it has to do with process. The painter thinks of something to paint, and then sits and paints it. The writer imagines a character, a story, and then writes about it, one word after another. The composer... thinks of an idea?.. a melody?... a structure?... well he/she thinks of something(s), and then writes it. But average Joe and average Joe the musician have a tough time understanding the word "write" in a musical context. As you so astutely pointed out, music takes place over a defined period of time, with a start and a finish. Also, when you write music, that's not actually music, it's just code, pencil and paper. You are certainly imagining music, but no one else can hear it. When it gets performed, and those molecules of air are vibrating to their hearts' content, that's music.
What I'm trying to get at is the inexplicable nature of the compositional process. Composers (myself included) have a tough time describing it, even to each other. In conversation we tend to focus on "what we're going for" or "what needs to be changed" rather than how we went about making it. The compositional process is completely individual and constantly changing. Do you compose at the piano? Do the seeds of ideas come from your imaginings, or from piano doodlings? Or do you compose with your cello? Your voice? Even writing this, I realize that every piece of music I've written (and there aren't many) was composed in a different manner.
I think if someone asks you, the composer, what you do, the easiest way to bring them into your world (or vice-versa) is to describe the meaning of your music. Whereas the painter paints a picture and the writer writes a story, the composer makes something largely abstract (save music that is programmatic and has words). So describe the emotional meaning of your music. What does it mean to you? What part of your life do you think inspired it? What does it feel like to imagine it being performed?
These are the things I try to do when talking to someone about music I've written. Anyways, it's late and I'm intoxicated. Happy blogging.
-d
(who am I?)
D---Thank you so much for your very thoughtful response!
ReplyDeleteYou make an excellent point about musical scores being code, rather than music itself. It's this very fact that compounds the market question I mentioned in my post. When a choral director buys $400 worth of music scores, the scores do not give him the music, so to speak, but instead give him the means to create the music with his choir. When you buy a painting, it's already there and you don't have to then evoke it to make it tangible and real. This disparity is a real problem for composers not only in terms of being paid, but also in terms of conveying their process, as you have already stated.
I like your idea of talking about meaning and inspiration and how it feels to have it performed. I know that this kind of thing has worked well for me with non-musicians who are open-minded to the idea of the composer and can maybe connect what the composer does to things that are more marketable by thinking of the composer as an "ideas" person, as well as a musician.
I'm not sure what to do, however, about people who are perhaps more skeptical of the arts in general. Do we just write them off and not worry about trying to explain what we do, or do we try to make what we do make sense to them in a commercial way? While I think the compositional process does make it more difficult for composers to explain their art than it might be for a visual artist or a novelist, I think our market culture tends to be critical of the arts and humanities in general (this is going towards another topic...the idea of politics and music), which is something that I find socially frustrating.
How do we combat this? Do we combat it? Anyway, something to think about!
-Natalie
Many times program notes are illuminating, sometimes providing focus (something special to listen for) or history. If written well, with substance, they are much appreciated! Sally Irene
ReplyDeleteThanks---that's really good (and helpful) to hear! I often go back and forth over whether or not to include program notes for my pieces, but I do feel like they make a difference and I'm glad to hear that confirmed.
ReplyDelete-Natalie