The Crisis in Western Classical Music

Julkaistu 29.11.2023 klo 14:08

The Crisis in Western Classical Music and Why a Forgotten 19th Century Style might Help Us Out of It

Our Globalized Musical Mono-culture

Have you noticed how orchestras, conductors, and soloists often sound eerily similar? While technical brilliance have reached historically unimaginable heights, a trend towards homogeneity is come to dominate. The rigorous musical training of the last century, with its emphasis on technical perfection and faithful adherence to a composer’s ”intentions,” has undoubtedly raised technical standards to breathtaking heights. Yet, this pursuit of objectivity and flawless execution has stifled individuality and creative expression, leading to a homogenious musical sound-culture that transcends geographic boundaries.

This homogenous landscape wasn’t always the norm. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the classical music world was a vibrant tapestry of diverse voices and styles. The Romantic movement had redefined the musician’s role, elevating them from humble servant to celebrated artist. Individuality and creative genius were prized above all else.

At the forefront of this revolution stood Richard Wagner, a figure of immense talent and equally immense ego. His radical compositions and ideas forever altered the course of music history. Together with Franz Liszt and Franz Brendel, he founded the New German School, championing ”Zukunftsmusik” (Music of the Future).

Wagner’s vision was to push the boundaries of musical expression, merging music and drama into a ”Gesamtkunstwerk” (Total Artwork). This ambitious endeavor sparked a fierce debate known as the ”War of the Romantics,” a clash of opinions and styles that ultimately enriched the musical landscape. The sheer diversity of personalities and musical approaches that flourished during this era remains unmatched to this day.

Today, despite a greater number of voices participating in classical music than ever before, a disheartening uniformity prevails. This crisis stems from a confluence of forces:

1. Globalization: In our interconnected world, musical trends and ideas spread rapidly, often leading to a homogenization of styles and a loss of regional or cultural distinctiveness.
2. The Culture Industry: the music world has been transformed into a music industry, which is driven by commercial interests. This industry prioritizes popular and easily marketable musical products, leaving little room for experimentation or unconventional voices.
3. The Lingering Shadow of Modernism: The emphasis on objectivity, technical perfection, and adherence to the composer’s intentions, hallmarks of 20th Century Modernist ideology, stifles creativity and discourages individual expression.

Let’s delve deeper into each of these factors to understand their impact on the current state of classical music.

1. Globalization

1. Globalization’s Double-Edged Sword

Globalization has transformed the classical music landscape. With increased travel and relatively open borders (an era that may be ending), music conservatories now boast a diverse student body, leading to greater representation in orchestras and educational institutions. This opening of doors for musicians of diverse backgrounds is undoubtedly positive. However, it has come at a cost.

Orchestras around the world now sound remarkably similar, sacrificing their unique national styles, or ”Klangkultur,” for a generic, technically polished sound. The focus has shifted from how they play to how well they play, as defined by a narrow set of objective standards.

Ironically, even the Historical Instruments movement, while offering a refreshing contrast in tone color, often falls into the same trap of prioritizing 20th-century performance ideals. Great thinkers like the late Richard Taruskin and Bruce Haynes have explored this issue in depth.

The Apex of Perfection?

I believe we have reached the pinnacle of modernist perfection. Further technical improvements are likely to be negligible and potentially even detrimental. While some musicians may push the boundaries of speed or volume, these achievements often come at the expense of deeper musical understanding and emotional connection.

Virtuosity, while impressive, is ultimately empty without genuine artistry. It may dazzle the senses, but it cannot touch the soul. We must not confuse excitement and technical prowess with true emotional depth and the experience of the sublime. If we continue down this path, we risk irrelevance and alienation from our audiences.

2. The Kulturindustrie: Art as Commodity

Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s groundbreaking work, ”Dialectic of Enlightenment,” exposed a troubling trend: the transformation of Western art into a commodity. Adorno and Horkheimer’s concept of the Kulturindustrie (culture industry) captures this phenomenon perfectly. It describes a system where art is produced and disseminated not for its intrinsic value, but for the sake of profit. Institutions like conservatories become factories churning out musicians who function as cogs in a machine, while business structures prioritize mass consumption over artistic merit. Individuality and innovation are suppressed in favor of standardization and streamlined production.

The culture industry’s fatal flaw is its underestimation of the audience. Music thrives on the emotional connection it forges between the artist/performer and the listener. When performances are overly objective and generic, they tend to be devoid of genuine feeling, thereby failing to resonate with audiences on a personal level. It becomes a hollow imitation, a mere product lacking the soul that breathes life into true art.

The Internet’s Double-Edged Sword

The internet has democratized access to art, but it has also created an ”oppressive weight of history,” as cultural theorist Simon Reynolds puts it. Every artist now faces the daunting task of creating something new in the shadow of all that has come before. This echoes Johannes Brahms’ struggle in 1875, composing his first symphony under the looming presence of Beethoven.

This saturation of historical influence makes it increasingly difficult to forge a unique artistic identity and a bond with audiences. Further complicating matters, all major art forms have been codified into standardized curricula taught globally, leading to a flattening of creative expression.

Stranglehold of Standardization: Auditions and Competitions

Consider orchestral auditions: most orchestras seek the same standard repertoire, prioritizing technical proficiency and a sound that blends seamlessly with the ensemble. This emphasis on conformity stifles originality and rewards those who color strictly within the lines of ”industry standards.”

Competitions further exacerbate this problem, turning music into a sport where adherence to established norms is rewarded over artistic risk-taking. The judging process itself is inherently subjective, and the selection criteria often favor established interpretations and safe choices over unconventional approaches or groundbreaking ideas. This stifles creative development and discourages young artists from pushing boundaries or exploring uncharted territories. The result is a generation of technically proficient musicians who can flawlessly execute existing repertoire, but who lack the individuality and emotional connection necessary to truly captivate audiences.

If we want to foster innovation and create something truly new, we must break free from these restrictive molds. Merely refining or slightly improving existing standards will never lead to the radical shifts we need. As innovation expert Paul Rulkens aptly states, ”The majority is always wrong when it comes to high performance.”

3. Modernism as the Conservative Counter-Revolution: the Rise of Musical Orthodoxy

In the realm of aesthetics, as in history, the victors often dictate the narrative. Ironically, it was the conservative faction of the Romantic era who ultimately triumphed in the ”War of the Romantics” by rebranding themselves as the vanguard of Modernism.

In the wake of the devastation of World War I, anti-German sentiment and a yearning for escapism fueled the rise of the ”New Objectivity” movement, a precursor to Modernism. Suddenly, 19th-century conservate ideals with its restraint, objectivity, and ”non-invasive” performance practices were in vogue again. These ideals aligned seamlessly with Modernism’s rejection of overt emotionalism and emphasis on intellectual rigor.

Artists like Jascha Heifetz, Arthur Schnabel and Arturo Toscanini embodied this shift, prioritizing technical polish and precision over unrestrained emotional expression. The once-revered Wagnerian style, with its emphasis on subjective interpretation and grand emotional gestures, was largely sidelined in the Interwar Era, although it survived in isolated pockets, championed by figures like Wilhelm Furtwängler, Willem Mengelberg, and Leopold Stokowski.

The iconic Leonard Bernstein stands as a notable exception to this trend. His charismatic and emotionally charged interpretations challenged the prevailing orthodoxy, injecting a much-needed dose of passion and individuality into the sterile landscape of Modernist performance.

The Score as Master, the Performer as Servant: The Stifling Grip of Modernist Werktreue

The conservative triumph that ushered in Modernism led to a radical reinterpretation of the Romantic concept of ”Werktreue” (faithfulness to the work). Where Romantics generally embraced a faithfulness to the spirit of the music, Modernism demanded strict adherence to the text. For Romantic composers, the score was never meant to be a straitjacket, but rather a springboard for individual expression, rich with unwritten and un-notatable performance traditions that invited a personal touch. Meanwhile, Modernism sought to create a new orthodoxy, in which musicians were to be mere vessels for the composer’s supposedly singular and definitive ”intentions” based on the text. Performer’s creative impulses and individuality were dismissed as extraneous, even heretical.

This ideological shift fostered a culture of conformity, favoring easily digestible interpretations that eschewed strong emotional expression. However, this facade of objectivity often masked a power struggle. Composers, eager to exert greater control over their works, sought to rein in the expressive freedom of performers. This new orthodoxy served as a convenient tool to suppress individuality and enforce a homogenous performance style. This approach was championed by Modernist composers like Igor Stravinsky, who famously demanded that their music be played ”exactly as written.”

Thus in pre-Modern music, Modernism’s reinterpretation of ”Werktreue” (faithfulness to the work) transmogrified the musical score from a flexible guidepost for interpretation into an unyielding dogma, an unassailable holy scripture demanding literal adherence. It did however succeed in its goal of manufacturing consent in an era enamoured with democratic ideals.

The suppression of individual artistic expression gradually drained the lifeblood from performances, extinguishing the spark of inspiration and emotional resonance that once ignited them. The music itself, though meticulously preserved, became a hollow shell, a museum artifact devoid of the spontaneity and genuine emotion. Technical virtuosity, while thrilling, became the deathmask that gave lifeless performances an uncanny “life-like” pallor.

From Living Art to Frozen Artifact: The Reification of Music

The elevation of the score to an almost sacred status has had far-reaching consequences. Musical performances, once ephemeral and transcendent experiences, have been reduced to mere sonic renderings of written notes. Recordings, once a means of documenting performances, have become fetishized as definitive representations of musical works. Critics and audiophiles engage in endless debates over the ”best” or ”quintessential” recording, as if musical experiences can be frozen in time and ranked like athletes.

This objectification of music, its ”reification” as cultural theorist Simon Reynolds calls it, has had a chilling effect on artistic evolution. Instead of embracing change and growth, art has become trapped in a cycle of endless imitation and nostalgia. This phenomenon of ”retromania” has created a cultural landscape dominated by reboots, sequels, and revivals, leaving little room for genuine innovation.

So where does that leave us?

Wagner’s Legacy: A Beacon of Hope?

The relentless focus on the past, fueled by the digital age’s ”retromania,” has stifled artistic development and alienated audiences. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this trend, as virtual performances replaced the visceral experience of live music, leaving many feeling disconnected and uninspired.

But perhaps the seeds of a solution lie in an unlikely place: the revolutionary ideas of Richard Wagner. Taking his inspiration from titans like Beethoven and Liszt, Wagner synthesized the artistic freedoms of keyboard virtuosi with the rhetorical gestures, declamation, and legato cantabile of the bel canto style to create compelling psycho-musical narratives that transcended the mind and aimed for the heart.

Could Wagner’s radical vision, once a source of controversy and division, now hold the key to revitalizing classical music? In my next entry, I will delve deeper into this question, exploring Wagner’s legacy and its potential to ignite a much-needed renaissance in the world of classical music.

Eugene Tzigane
Chief Conductor and Artistic Director, Kuopio Symphony Orchestra