In 2008 I was doing some research on classical improvisation, mostly for the Improvisation Exercises for Musicians blog I was working on at the time. The blog sits largely idle now because a fellow improviser and French Horn player (an instrument I used to play) Jeffery Agrell beat me to it by publishing Improvisation Games for Classical Musicians, which has over 500 exercises and games for musicians to use during their jam sessions. When he contacted me about his plans about publishing his book, there might have been a slight feeling that I missed out on the boat in some ways, but I was mostly excited to hear that there were other people out there in the world that were interested in similar things as myself. I think that there are more and more classical musicians participating in the act of improvisation now, though it’s very rare to find people who’re interested in writing about what’s happening within these communities.
Oddly enough, the most “current” item I was able to find at the time was at the Wall Street Journal, which was the last place I would’ve expected to see a topic like classical improvisation covered in the mainstream press. The journal, which tended to have a reputation of being a relatively “conservative” publication, had put out one of the first thorough, up-to-date, and well-articulated article on the subject matter, at least up until that point. Other publications would occasionally acknowledge that the practice exists, but made only casual mentions of it since they were too busy covering it in styles outside of the classical music world. When Americans hear the word improvisation, they usually think about jazz, improv theater, a couple of “world” musics if they know any, or maybe that comedy show that Drew Carey briefly hosted on ABC. Classical music is usually the last thing on people’s minds when the term gets passed around, since the idea of spontaneous creation in itself seems antithetical to the lineage of “masterworks” that the medium often attempts to project.
The art of improvisation, long dormant in classical music, is undergoing a revival in concert halls, conservatories and recording studios. A handful of performers say they’re restoring a lost tradition that stretches back to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven — composer-performers and improvisers whose impromptu creations were almost as celebrated as their written masterpieces.
For many of us who have been part of this revival, any type of acknowledgement by a major publication had come as a big welcome. I found it odd, though, that this type of publicity would happen first at the WSJ, when many of the “progressive” publications were not paying much attention to the practice, if at all. Also interesting was the fact that the article was published right in the middle of the financial crisis (November of 08′) within the midst of the chaos and panic that many of its readers were no doubt going through at that time. In a sense, the unpredictable nature of improvised musics may have resonated strongly with what was happening around the finance world during those periods.
Lately I’ve been talking to a lot of people within the business world, trying to get a better idea of how to make our band stay afloat during these harsh economic times. Now that OK Music is trying to get into some serious fund-raising efforts, most of my research as of the late have been focusing on bridging the gaps between the business and art worlds. Thankfully, after some months of reading, writing, and asking around, the connections between them have now gotten much clearer. Practical matters aside, historical practice seems to indicate that the gaps are not as wide as they might seem on the surface.
Music and Money
On one hand, there still might be an existing perception that artists in general are forever in isolation from the effects of the modern economy (e.g. composing music in the woods, romanticized notions of an impoverished life, artists “transcending” the material, rockstars that party non-stop, etc.), but a closer look at their day-to-day activities usually tells of an approach much more practical than the images they’ve tended to project to the public. (The ones who’s lives and careers don’t fizzle out after a few short years, anyway.)
John Williams, whom many consider to be the most financially successful musician of all time.
Composers are often recognized for their involvement in concerts of special occasions or major media productions, but these events tend to only be a small part of their lives as a whole. Many earn a salary from educational institutions or churches while selling scores and/or recordings of their work for extra money. The acquisition of government and private grants, which can also play a significant role for some musicians, requires a lot of behind-the-scenes research and a very solid knowledge of their surrounding cultural climate in order for it to be seen as a reliable source of income. Even composers such as John Cage, who is often known as one of the “mavericks” of his time, had to play politics with Wall Street in order promote and sustain his career. Maybe the financial sector’s involvement was not always direct, but if you follow the money trail closely enough it becomes clear that outside interests have always been investing and funding events and grants relating to artworks and art projects of its time. And Cage had, despite his supposed disdain for institutionalized practices, also taught and lectured at universities in order to promote himself and his work.
Due to advances in technology, the avenues toward finding information may have changed drastically, but the ways in which artists are able to earn a living have not changed all that much since the very beginning. Money and art have always shared an intrinsic connection with one another, since the artistic capitals of the world also happen to be its financial centers as well. It’s somewhat unfortunate that the two worlds have separated from each other so drastically in recent years, because I’ve found that their cultures (at least within the States) are more similar than dissimilar than their purists tend to like to admit. Especially so since it’s entirely possible for the two things to work in favor of each other’s interests — many of the successful examples in history, in fact, tend to support this point of view.
Historical examples include Beethoven, where the rise of the merchant classes and the printing press allowed him to ween off his dependency on the nobility; Wagner, who was tasked with inspiring the masses into supporting the industrialized nation-state; Ives, whos career as an insurance entrepreneur gave him the freedom to compose the types of things that he wanted; Cage and many of the post-war modernists, who’s ideas of progress, change, and changing the way people think strongly resonated with the ideals of corporate culture of its time.
Mark O'Connor, Photo by Jim McGuire from the Wall Street Journal
The above composers are examples of musicians who were considered “progressives” of their respective periods. A case can be made that progressivism, at least in economic terms, tends to side with the idea of “new money” created from innovations in technology and social mediation. Conservativism, then, becomes “old money” — power that has been accumulated and accrued over time, often lasting over generations in a dynastic manner. As such, a closer look at the primary sources of income (patronage vs. business) of composers in relation to their compositional output tends to highlight an ideological type of leaning which allows historians to classify them as being a traditionalist or an entrepreneur. The modern equivalent of the patronage/business divide can be most obviously seen in the rift between academic and commercial composers, whom tend to have profound ideological disagreements regarding the purpose and function of music and art in society.
In theory, old money is supposed to carry the wisdom and responsibility that comes with its holding power, whereas new money should be representative of new ideas, change, and the means to escape the problems and burdens of the past. These interests have often seen things from opposite vantage points, and in many cases clashed with one another over various issues throughout history. The American political system, in many ways, was created in an attempt to balance the two interests through the act of rational discourse. The Founding Fathers felt this was a necessary thing to do in order to avoid the centuries of political strife that its European predecessors had to endure.
Nowadays, however, terms like “progressive” and “conservative” don’t mean as much anymore, especially in the United States where both Democrats and Republicans can be considered “classic liberals” who are pro free-trade, pro-free speech, pro-freedoms, etc. More confusingly, by its very definition innovation can only stay innovative for so long, until it is either institutionalized or replaced by something else. The new becomes the old, and its mannerisms then become the next generation’s code of conduct. In today’s cultural climate where innovations can often be put to use almost instantaneously, it becomes very difficult to make a distinction between what’s new and what’s old.
So is improvisation a contemporary or a traditionalist idea? The practice itself has been around since the beginning of time so it can’t be said to be entirely “new”, but in the context of today’s classical music climate, many of its participants are seen as being mavericks or revolutionaries within their own communities. Perhaps it’s the simultaneity of the old and the new that fascinates both its participants and audience alike — it satisfies a type of human desire to keep things grounded in custom, while at the same time providing the novelty of having an experience that seems new and exciting.
No related posts.
Pingback: Improvisation in Classical Music | OK Music