Trends versus fads?

[karelm]

What would you say are recent compositional/musical trends in the last quarter century or so?  Which of these do you think are fads instead of trends?  I'd define the difference between trend and fad in that a trend is adopted beyond the composers reach whereas a fad might cause a composer (or group of) to embrace and share a common approach even with some zeal but it is short lived and fizzles. 

[mbhaub]

I don't know which it is, but there is a strong tendency among modern composers to incorporate unusual percussion instruments and effects and others pick up the idea. Such as: glass harmonica (or rubbed glasses) like in J Higdon's Blue Cathedral. Or musical saws, gongs dunked in water, cymbals scraped with wood (produces a weird, distinctly unpleasant sound), bows used on vibraphones, etc. Unfortunately for the composers, these demands make performances much more difficult and expensive and don't do much to promote their causes. THere are some composers (Gavin Bryars) who use these effects to extraordinary effect (The Sinking of the Titanic) but too often, the effect becomes the focal point and the music gets lost.

Then there is another trend I've noticed in choral music. Eric Whitacre's music is almost instantly recognizable, and now there are other composers emulating the style and voicing and it all starts sounding the same. Beautiful it is, but it would never be mistaken for anything written in 1970.

[Amphissa]

I had originally hoped that minimalist noodling would be just a fad, but it has taken root and infected far too much current music. It's New Age atmospherics meandering through constant repetitions of mundane riffs to the point of mind-numbing monotony. I have not yet figured out the appeal of some of these composers, who get performed quite a lot in the U.S. (like Adams), whose orchestral pieces are deadly dull. I'm afraid it has even progressed beyond a trend to become a style.

[allison]

I try to have an open mind but the apparently new trend of having someone scream as if they were being tortured in the middle of some of these new pieces is far beyond me, and even  if some of the other sonorities are pleasing, these gratuitous noises are enough for me to not ever look back.

[eschiss1]

I may be mistaken, but doesn't Richard Strauss do this? (I know Berg does in Lulu. And in each case it was point-ful and plot-pointed- but it definitely pushed any number of people away. I am no fan of having my ears assaulted, that said, by earquakes, rock or classical or otherwise, with or without voices (e.g. I make an exception for the chord near the end of the Adagio of Mahler 10 and the not so loud but emotionally piercing leap at the very end of its finale... erm... ok... getting back to...) so I like them limited in quantity... as does what's left - at age 42 - of my ears... )

[Jimfin]

I hope I am open to any kind of sound, melody or rhythm, bad language, nudity and all the rest if only it has a genuine artistic purpose. If it doesn't then it is pointless posturing. By the same token, even consonance and melodiousness are pointless if they are used for nothing, as in manufactured pop music. Fake smiles and synthetic melody are every bit as painful to listen to as dissonances, I think.

[karelm]

Something I've been thinking about lately is how hard it is to predict what fad might actually evolve into a trend and transcend time.  I wondered if the question "what of today's musical fashion will last and transcend our current age?" was asked back in 1900 or 1910, I'd assume the response would be mostly wrong.  For example, if we were asking this question in 1900, we would likely suppose the trend towards increasingly gigantic works would continue and that most orchestras fifty years from now (presuming this were asked in 1900) would consist of 200 players with concert halls that fit 10,000 audience members.   

If we asked this same question in 1910, we might believe the trend is against tonality since there were major proponents advocating its imminent demise; an increased awareness and incorporation of world music (Debussy's Javanese influences, etc.); constantly increasing rhythmic complexity (we might suppose future works might require four conductors), and perhaps an increasing economy of means ("eight horns is so 1890's"). 

I guess it is always difficult to predict how the things happening around us will play out in the future.  Back in the 1980's, it might have seemed plausible that electronic instruments would find their way into the orchestral roster since so much music would have been written to capitalize on these new electronic timbres.  But now, I'm starting to wonder if the electronics was just a passing fad (or perhaps it is just waiting for that knock out piece that makes everyone realize its capabilities ala Beethoven's pianoforte sonatas impact on future pianists).  One thing that seems evident is that composers increasingly look outside their borders for unique colors and combinations.   Perhaps even merging different era's (Schnittke's or Part's collages).  Perhaps the trend of our time is anything goes as long as it is sincere and competently done?

[eschiss1]

It's probably good to have a World's Fair attitude toward this, I agree.

[Delicious Manager]

Isn't a 'trend' and a 'fad' the same thing? They are both transient and victim to musical 'fashion'. This is why I always ignore all and any trends or fashions in ANYTHING because I am quite capable of making up my own mind.

It is true, of course, that composers and works go in and out of fashion. This rather proves my point, I think. A piece of music or composer doesn't get better or worse because their music is played any more or less. As interesting as the subject can be, it is a huge shame that any music has to go 'out of fashion'. Can't people just enjoy thing on their own merits?

[karelm]

Isn't a 'trend' and a 'fad' the same thing? They are both transient and victim to musical 'fashion'. This is why I always ignore all and any trends or fashions in ANYTHING because I am quite capable of making up my own mind.

I don't think a 'trend' and a 'fad' are the same thing.  I believe a fad has a burst of zealous followers but fizzles out for various reasons - it fails to live on.  But a 'trend' would have far reaching impact and would be incorporated into the greater body of music and assimilated into the collective repertoire, generally speaking. 

I think some examples of musical fads might be stylistic particulars of an age – like the Viennese style waltz around 100 years ago.  A trend might be more like the continued increase in extended harmonies.  For example – a few hundred years ago, most western music utilized mostly minor or major scales.  But through various influences, our ears expect some increasingly complex harmonies.  It seems a lot of very tonal music that is contemporary might make use of extended harmonies such as a dominant 7th, flat 9, 13th, tri-tones, etc.  I know this is subjective, but it seems that this increasing harmonic complexity is a long trend and probably not a passing phase.  It seems a tonal composer who is not concerned with recent "trends" in harmony ends up sounding as if they are ignoring a century or two worth of stylistic development and in doing so are "bucking the trend".  Perhaps another fad was how Faust took hold of the musical/intellectual imagination in such a sincere way from around 1810-1910.  Though there are recent examples of works using the Faust story, perhaps another fad is they offer a more cynical reaction to the themes.   

I agree that styles go in and out of fashion but there are some generally observable persistent directions.  I think you raise an interesting point when you say "it is a huge shame that any music has to go 'out of fashion'. Can't people just enjoy thing on their own merits?".  To me, context is very important.  For example Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique is revolutionary because of how different it is in conception from what was happening at that time.  I suppose I have a difficult time listening to music without wondering what was happening in the world during its creation.  How does one separate the Shostakovich War Symphonies from those events in his place in history?

[MikeW]

Back in the 1980's, it might have seemed plausible that electronic instruments would find their way into the orchestral roster since so much music would have been written to capitalize on these new electronic timbres.  But now, I'm starting to wonder if the electronics was just a passing fad (or perhaps it is just waiting for that knock out piece that makes everyone realize its capabilities ala Beethoven's pianoforte sonatas impact on future pianists).

There are plenty of knockout pieces from composers using electronic instruments, but they have generally not made their way to the concert platform. Rather they've gone the route of direct distribution via recordings or focusing on stage or film soundtracks. That leaves a lot of commercially unsuccessful 'academic' composers noodling away on on tape for accompaniment with didgeridoo and bird-song.

[thalbergmad]

Something I've been thinking about lately is how hard it is to predict what fad might actually evolve into a trend and transcend time. 

Almost impossible I would say.

I recently read an article on cycles dating from the 1890's. It stated with considerable confidence that pneumatic tyres would never catch on.

My own prediction is that the "new complexity" school is a fad, but who really knows??

Thal

[Sydney Grew]

I think the very worst recent craze is the assignment of silly names and titles to works of music. This trend has been getting worse and worse over the past forty years or so. Often one feels that the man or woman responsible has devoted less time to writing the music itself than to thinking up a meaningless and unpronounceable name for it!

I suppose the downward path all began with:

1) names in a foreign language: e.g. "Barcarolle"

And then came:

2) names in a VERY foreign language: e.g. "Turangalîla"

3) names in no known language: e.g. "coïgitum"

4) names consisting of words which convey no meaning: e.g. "I met Heine on the Rue Fürstenberg"

5) misplaced or absent capitals: e.g. "knospend-gespaltener"

6) letters that form no word at all: e.g. "HPSCHD"

7) names that include peculiar punctuation marks: e.g. ". . . explosante fixe . . ."

and of course various combinations of the above.

Isn't it fundamentally all pseudery and charlatanism? For me at least, such things are an instant "turn-off" - "no need to bother listening" is all they signify! So I would urge a return to traditional names that are descriptive in a meaningful way.

[eschiss1]

Can't agree with the first two in your list for even so much as a moment- indeed I'm shaking my head in wonderment as I read them- (really? if you're listening in an English concert-hall, it absolutely _must_ be called Boat-song, even if it was composed by, or in homage to, a French composer? My word.) but the rest begins to make sense...

[Delicious Manager]

I think the very worst recent craze is the assignment of silly names and titles to works of music. This trend has been getting worse and worse over the past forty years or so. Often one feels that the man or woman responsible has devoted less time to writing the music itself than to thinking up a meaningless and unpronounceable name for it!

I suppose the downward path all began with:

1) names in a foreign language: e.g. "Barcarolle"

And then came:

2) names in a VERY foreign language: e.g. "Turangalîla"

3) names in no known language: e.g. "coïgitum"

4) names consisting of words which convey no meaning: e.g. "I met Heine on the Rue Fürstenberg"

5) misplaced or absent capitals: e.g. "knospend-gespaltener"

6) letters that form no word at all: e.g. "HPSCHD"

7) names that include peculiar punctuation marks: e.g. ". . . explosante fixe . . ."

and of course various combinations of the above.

Isn't it fundamentally all pseudery and charlatanism? For me at least, such things are an instant "turn-off" - "no need to bother listening" is all they signify! So I would urge a return to traditional names that are descriptive in a meaningful way.

I have to take issue with much of this.

1. 'Barcarolle' is not a foreign word in many non-English-speaking countries (yes, they do exist!)
2. Is Sanskrit banned in your world? What's wrong with it? Do you know what it means or why Messiaen chose it?
3. I'll give you this one; this word doesn't exist. But I have no objection to it. It does me no harm.
4. Pithy? Surreal? Both? I have nothing against witty or colourful titles.
5. I'd agree to a large extent with this.
6. Silly title or not, the music of Lukas Foss is well worth investigating.
7. Something else I really don't mind. Perhaps one needs to 'lighten up' a little?

Perhaps some of these descriptions ARE meaningful for the composer and those who speak the appropriate language? To dismiss a piece of music because one doesn't like (or approve of) the title is folly. One can miss out on some truly remarkable works.