![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.ludwig-van.com\/main\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2022\/09\/Where-music-innovation-comes-from.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Innovation is much sought after in music \u2013 by musicians, often, by the federal government, increasingly. But could the pursuit of the slightly nebulous-sounding \u201cinnovation\u201d be driving music in the wrong direction?<\/p>\n
The history of Western classical music focuses on the originality of music. It singles out the great masters \u2013 Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy, Schoenberg, Webern, Stravinsky, Messiaen and Cage \u2013 as exceptional. It unfolds a rich narrative that points to the innovative nature of the masterworks.<\/p>\n
Innovation is understood as breaking new ground; it gives music new styles and genres, and ushers in the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods. The 20th century gives birth to new tonal and rhythmic languages.<\/p>\n
Schoenberg (1874-1951) suspended the tonal system with his 12-note music (serialism<\/a>), and Stravinsky (1882-1971) challenged the tyranny<\/a> of the bar line, \u201cby introducing irregular accents, syncopation and frequent changes of meter\u201d.<\/p>\n rested in exploring the full potential of sound and noise, and 20th-century classical music is characterised by dynamic invention and innovation.<\/p>\n Two major streams are apparent in the 20th century: serialism (12-note music) followed by, and overlapping with, reactionary minimalism<\/a> (with its repetitive rhythmic patterns and return to the simplicity of tonality).<\/p>\n Minimalism (re)ushers in the major triad (a three-note chord) and revels in its simplicity as a counterfoil to serialism\u2019s complexity. Minimalism invents new ways to energise music. Repetitive rhythmic patterns are put to work on small motivic (fragments of melody) structures.<\/p>\n The ethos of postmodernism (which rejects the idea of a singular history of music in favour of its diversity and multiple perspectives) then gives birth to a melting pot of styles, genres and sub-genres.<\/p>\n The pluralism of postmodernism makes music dizzy with labels \u2013 post-minimalism, post-serialism, post-style, new spirituality, etc. \u2013 and blurs boundaries between highbrow and lowbrow music.<\/p>\n But, how much of the music composed in the 21st century would we really call innovative?<\/p>\n Composers and new music groups make innovation their raison d\u2019\u00eatre. Their marketing paraphernalia is replete with language suggesting excellence and innovation. The publicity material of the well-known Sydney-based Ensemble Offspring informs us<\/a> the ensemble is \u201cdedicated to the performance of innovative new music\u201d and \u201cpursues an agenda of directly shaping the music of our future\u201d.<\/p>\n New York\u2019s Bang on a Can<\/a> similarly advertises itself as \u201cdedicated to innovative music, wherever it is found,\u201d while building \u201ca world in which powerful new musical ideas flow freely across all genres and borders\u201d.<\/p>\n These groups may indeed be performing the most innovative composers. But what is also emerging is a much more heightened gravitational pull of music to money. This has meant that for composers to survive they\u2019ve become much more fiercely competitive.<\/p>\n They woo contemporary performing ensembles, hoping for commissions. And they spend excessive amounts of time filling out funding applications and writing up reports at the conclusion of projects, no doubt explaining they were successful in the innovative stakes.<\/p>\n Funding bodies, such as the Australia Council, emphasize the importance<\/a> of creativity as an:<\/p>\n increasingly strategic value to nations such as Australia in making the transition to innovation and knowledge-based economies.<\/p>\n The pursuit of innovation by the federal government puts pressure on the arts community to deliver it. Yet, it takes time, as the history of music shows us, for innovation to be delivered to music. It is impossible for composers to maintain a steady output of truly innovative work. Innovation cannot be manufactured.<\/p>\nTwo streams<\/strong><\/h3>\n
High stakes<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Two kinds of composers<\/strong><\/h3>\n