I read the column posted today on the main page dealing with, among other things, "academic music". Interested in seeing how the Clemson University Director of Bands (a nationally known arranger himself), I e-mailed him that portion of the column, and asked his thoughts regarding Card's review. Below is the response I received earlier today:
quote:If this had been written 20 years ago, it would be valid. His sense of "academic music" bears no resemblance to what is currently being taught in major music schools. All you have to do is google some of the composer faculty at say, Michigan, Texas, Indiana, or Eastman, and listen to their stuff. Atonality has been rejected. NO ONE that I know of is teaching atonality as anything other than an exercise like counterpoint or Bach (i.e. write 8 bars in the style of Bach, or write an atonal piece). It's not for public consumption. Look at the Pulitzer Prize winning composers in music over the last 40 years and you will see a gradual shift beginning in 1980 away from atonality.
Therefore, I would say that Orson Scott Card is WAY off base.
I was wondering if Card or anyone close to him wished to respond to this kind of counter-criticism--after all, it's possible that the composer Card reviewed was very much indeed using this style of music.
[ January 26, 2006, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Joshua Newberry ]
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
When I was in my academic music carrier in 1987-89 atonal was a big thing.
I don't think OSC is off base at all. But there is more to it than just the atonal issues. No matter what style of music you write, no matter what new sound or expression you try to create, you will always be compared to the composers that came before.
How can you compete with that? You can't.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:When I was in my academic music carrier in 1987-89 atonal was a big thing.
You mean around 20 years ago?
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:When I was in my academic music carrier in 1987-89 atonal was a big thing.
You mean around 20 years ago?
It doesn't really matter all that much does it? But the fact that millions of people who were taught that way are now in their mid to late 30's means there is going to be a lot of atonal music still out there irritating the masses into musical ambivalence.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
When I was a student 5 years ago, I was given a "soft" threat that I wasn't writing music that was challenging enough by writing tonal music. So I don't think OSC is way off here. Atonality is still being taught quite strongly.