A composer's place in society

Let me preface the topic with this:

I personally don't believe that there is a right wrong answer to any of these question, just curious as to what you, my colleagues, feel on this topic.

The role of the composer in society has changed considerably since Mozart's and Haydn's time. From conversations I have had with various composers through out my compositional career one might get the impression that it has gone either for the better or the has gotten worse since the 1700s. With the rise in independent thinking among the art community at the turn of the 20th century, we left the common practice period behind. And with the rise experimentalist composers also left the idea of pleasing the masses behind. Thus the role of the composer changed from some kind of entertainer or servant ordered to make music for various events to almost an independent artist of some kind. Composers still, however, find ourselves in a patronage like system whether it be working on film scores, popular music, ect. And from what I have gathered from these conversations there are very mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, there is much opposition to writing music that appeases a mass public, regardless of the manner the music was composed be it film or concert. The audience should not be a factor in the compositional process.

And on the other hand there is much opposition to music that isn't public friendly be it opposition to atonal music to complete denunciation of experimental music to be considered music. They feel that music is for the enjoyment of an audience and if you fail at that then you have failed as a composer.

So I ask you directly....

As a composer what do you feel your role in society is? What do you think any composer's in general role in society is, if there is one?

Discuss composer place in society:

Here are a few optional questions that I would like you to think about while you post to this topic;

Who do we write our music for?

Is it selfish to write for ourselves in a musical language all our own?

Is it wrong to write in a musical style that isnt accessible to the general public or the common man?

As composers, are we the suppliers of new music to the world much like a chef is to food, entertainers of the public, or artist for ourselves and who ever might fancy us, and why?

Here is an interesting lecture on this topic with a different spin that might help you understand kind of the direction I trying to lean the topic to:

The Role of the Composer in Contemporary society

This is a really bizarre question, but I'll bite.

I don't think I have a role in society as a composer, and I certainly don't think that composers have a generalized role within a society. I suppose you can say "we're the ones who write the music", but that seems like a pretty tautological assertion and I don't see any value in making it.

Who do we write our music for?

As coldy as possible, I for one write my music for myself, and when people pay me for it I write it for them. But I don't really consider writing "for" anyone in particular. It's technically the case, but the intentionality is not really something I consciously dwell on. I write music.

Is it selfish to write for ourselves in a musical language all our own?

By definition, yes. Obviously if we're writing for ourselves, we're being selfish.

Is it wrong to write in a musical style that isnt accessible to the general public or the common man?

Wrong? Depends who you ask. Do I think it's wrong? No, nor do I think it's worth dwelling on. I think composers need to write what they're compelled to write, what they're passionate about, what moves them and makes them want to continue working. If the approval of others is that catalyst, then I suppose it would be counter-productive to write in a style that doesn't reflect the desires of their intended audience. But would it be wrong? No. Frankly I think composers should get over themselves and their self-esteem issues a bit and just focus on the writing of the music. Let the critics sort out all the categorizing and criticizing and right/wrong crap. That's why we have critics.

As composers, are we the suppliers of new music to the world much like a chef is to food, entertainers of the public, or artist for ourselves and who ever might fancy us, and why?

Um, duh? Not all composers will write music that pushes boundaries or incites a paradigm shift in the artform, but by definition people writing new music...means they're supplying the world with new music. This seems like another tautological question.

I probably lack the wisdom to understand the relevance or applicability of these questions, but you have my answers now, so it's a start! :)

A composer can have numerous roles in society. He or she may be a teacher, an entertainer, or a designer of computer software, for example. My concern is more for myself than for society at large. I write music for myself because I like to create, organize, and solve puzzles, and I've never encountered a more rewarding medium to work with than sound. I write music that I want to hear. The assumption is that if I enjoy my music there will be others who do so as well. I do want my work to positively affect others (not necessarily society at large) and I think if people are interested in playing my compositions then that's a good start.

I don't think that selfish is a great word to describe wanting to write in your own style. Everything we do can be called selfish, and I don't think it's a dirty word. We have to write in our own style, building on the styles of others, in order to further the art of music. I also clearly don't think it's wrong to write in a style that may be called inaccessible. The fact is that monetary needs may drive an "avant-garde" composer to write in a pre-defined style that lends itself to mass consumption, but that doesn't mean his or her own voice won't shine through.

in relation to the question if we have to write music that is accessible : what drove charlie parker and orenate coleman to write that music, to invent that style of jazz? they were bored of the speed, the rythem was too slow, the scales were too boring, there was no challenge. fusion was created after the jazz bored the western world, and also didn't appeal to mainstream audiences. but still those styles of play are part of our culture even in contemporary music, not the essence of hard-bop or free form jazz, but the touches.

those people including miles, coltrane, and other innovators which are too many to name, had their own scene of music which had its audience and still is, although small.

none of them considered himself an innovator, or leading a revolution, charlie parker was definitely too stoned to think of such terms, so to answer it-the power of your musical language is within each composer, and every one, everyone, seeks an audience, there is no thrill in mirror looking. those people did what they did because that was their way of life, and also a way to make a buck, when your black and poor in those days-but they made something good out of it.

you must do to explore yourself and the world, if you'll come up with a new revolution in music, so be it-its a very tough life for the avant-garde musician, and if you live your bread by it, you might be in the hall of fame.

Uh. Composing is hardly a "position" thing in any society these days. Sure maybe within music there's some kind of position, if barely, but to the baker or bus driver who gives a scraggy if you're a composer or not?

I mean the only people that would be interested would be people who listen to the kind of music you make, and really you can't know who that description fits exactly across society.

The only possible exception would be being a film/game whatever composer where you have a status by proxy (film's popular/game's popular and so then are you, etc.) But even then I guess it wouldn't register as more than entertainment in that case for most people.

I think the question is giving a little too much importance to composers, haha. Besides, it's rare to find a composer who is ONLY a composer these days, most have actual day jobs (me!) and do tons of other things, which might as well overshadow whatever impact the person's composing has at all.

Who do we write our music for?

Is it selfish to write for ourselves in a musical language all our own?

Is it wrong to write in a musical style that isn't accessible to the general public or the common man?

As composers, are we the suppliers of new music to the world much like a chef is to food, entertainers of the public, or artist for ourselves and who ever might fancy us, and why?

1. We write it for everyone. Including ourselves.

2. No, I don't think so at all.

3. Well... I would kinda feel badly if nobody ever got to hear my piece. I'm not sure about that one.

4. I think that people that like music just like music, and they are the biggest supporters. People who spend all day on you-tube looking at rarely played pieces for a once in a lifetime experience. Not the ones who look at videos of dogs barking around.

Heckel

I think as composers very rarely just compose in their lifestyle surely this would mean every composers' place in society is individual to the composer some will teach as well as compose some use their music for healing others will just write a banging tune

Composers really have no "role" to fulfill in Western Society, if that's what you're trying to get at. I mean, no bank is going to lend $1Mil to a composer to write music. No government is going to come up with a grant for composers to investigate, explore, and discover new sounds. In a monetary society, composers are ironically considered to be some of the highest educated people while less than 10% earn enough income from composition to fully supply their basic financial needs.

Composers are worthless to Western society in terms of monetary value. We don't build nations, turn stocks into fortunes, or make weapons.

Then again, we don't contribute to the deprivation and scarcity that Western culture and world economies have on developing nations, putting them into debt to perpetuate a global monetary system. We don't perform parlor tricks with paper or operate a printing press like the Federal Reserve that largely creates money out of thin air, value out of nothing. And we don't, as composers, kill millions of people with weapons we supply to other governments to wage war on civilian uprisings.

So, while the monetary system more or less ignores us, it's better that we're not a part of the greed and corruption inherent in Western culture. I sleep better at night knowing I'm not a "part" of Western society. I sleep better knowing that someone else's suffering was out of my hands and there was nothing I could do to change it. I sleep better at night with music in my mind.

No government is going to come up with a grant for composers to investigate, explore, and discover new sounds.

Wrong.

Wrong.

lol, yep in amsterdam, france and i think in other countries musician have funds, doesn't mean they don't work-they have to produce and show progress in thier career, but still its better than being a starved musician talking to yourself and thinking where to get the next month's rent.

What if a composer doesn't care about society at all? :P

Just in reply to one of the questions:

Is it wrong to write in a musical style that isnt accessible to the general public or the common man?

For now leaving aside the obvious fact that there really is no unified "general public" with one specific musical taste, it is true of course that there are certain kinds of music that are much more popular than others. The point however is: This is also music that already exists and is (or has been) being written in large quantities. It's perfectly fine if many people like Lady Gaga, the Beatles, John Williams or Beethoven - but why should that mean that everyone should produce more music that sounds exactly like that, when so much already exists for the enjoyment of the people who prefer exactly this music?

It would, in fact, be far more "social" to write music that differs as much as possible from other existing music, which may not immediately have a broad audience, but may fill a certain "demand"/need of some people (even if it's only five!) that previously was not satisfied - and those who still prefer the Beatles are free to continue listening to the Beatles.

Of course I know perfectly well that this is all a gross simplification. Of course "sounding accessible to the broad public" doesn't mean you have to sound -exactly- like Lady Gaga, and of course "writing music that differs as much as possible from other existing music" is a much too primitive formula to really measure any "social relevance". But my core point is merely that writing different, and in some way "unique" music probably contributes a lot more to the general diversity and richness of the "world's music repertoire" than merely imitating what's already successful. And even if that means your particular pieces aren't listened to by tons of people, it -does- create a larger range of different music people can choose from and makes it ultimately easier for anyone to find some music that truly speaks to them.

So, even from a purely social perspective, I'm rather skeptical about trying to force yourself (or others) to write music that's "accessible to as many people as possible". That's, bluntly put, as if a tailor only made shirts in the most common size.

lol, yep in amsterdam, france and i think in other countries musician have funds, doesn't mean they don't work-they have to produce and show progress in thier career, but still its better than being a starved musician talking to yourself and thinking where to get the next month's rent.

And besides individual grants (which indeed are one of the major sources of income for many composers), let's not forget state-funded institutes with mandates exactly like: "to investigate, explore, and discover new sounds", i.e. research departments in universities or even larger institutes like the IRCAM. Many composers earn their living by working at exactly those places.

RE: AntiA's "No government is going to come up with a grant for composers to investigate, explore, and discover new sounds." to which I replied "Wrong".

lol, yep in amsterdam, france and i think in other countries musician have funds, doesn't mean they don't work-they have to produce and show progress in thier career, but still its better than being a starved musician talking to yourself and thinking where to get the next month's rent.

For sure.... European governments (Scandanavia especially, apparently) are highly supportive of the arts. Canada as well - we have numerous government funded granting agencies on various levels.

Well, then for us starved American artists, what is the amount of these grants?

What does the future hold for their survival considering that many European nations are either not far off from Greece's fiscal crisis due to its financing formula for its social programs or will be approaching it in a few decades (US falls in that category due to its reluctance to come to a consensus on how to fund Social Security and Medicare in a few decades).

Scandinavian countries are looking the strongest and may avoid such a fate.

The role of music in the larger society today (and in the past) is primarily propaganda. Think about it, it says much for a nation's supposed abundance and wise management of its resources if it has extra resources to explore news sounds and invest in composition - even if there are types of music which subsist without much help from the government. Plus such research may contribute areas outside music. Personally, I hope it leads to how destructive long term noise pollution can be.

Ok, there is some possibilities for music and health - studies are showing that listening to music has beneficial effects. But still in its infancy.

Well, then for us starved American artists, what is the amount of these grants?

Depending on the program, discipline, project requirments and the cultureal impact: Grants range from $1,000 to $2.6 million.

See:

FACTOR Approvals 2009 (music)

Canada Council For The Arts (searchable by year/discipline/grant program)

Grants for music - creation, recording, commissions etc. tend to cap out around $25,000 ...

I got $2,000.

RE: AntiA's "No government is going to come up with a grant for composers to investigate, explore, and discover new sounds." to which I replied "Wrong".

Right, well it's fine that they do. Let me revise my statement.

No government that adopts the view of Western Culture (i.e. global economics, dependence on a monetary system, etc.) concerns itself or has any real motivation to fund the exploration of sound. If such funding happens to occur, it is not due to the direction of government. It can be directly traced back to someone in government acting against the interest of the economic/monetary system. Why against? Because the exploration of sound doesn't produce profit, which is all Western Culture seems driven to pursue.

There. Clarified.

So all governments are against this, but somehow, in all those countries there are some odd individuals who are against said general interests of "Western Culture" and always seem to manage to overpower all opposition in their own government because they personally like art so much? Awesome coincidence!

Isn't it much more likely that "the view of Western Culture" isn't quite as clear-cut as you make it out to be?

Considering that I'm not aware of a single fully capitalistic country in the world, I doubt that monetary profit is the only value in Western politics. Social ideas, amongst others, have almost always played a significant role as well. The cold-war idea of capitalist vs. communist countries never actually conformed to the practical reality (on both sides) - and today even less so.

And all in all, a government is still a collection of individual humans with individual human preferences and desires. Fundamental ideologies are therefore naturally limited, if the government is somewhat free.

No government exists for the purpose of funding art, Gardner. In no way am I saying, "All Governments are against Art." That government funds may go to art is a product of the individuals operating the government, which is an institution, not a collection of individual humans with their own desires. An institution, unlike the more general collective idea you seem to believe, performs functions that create order in society. It is not in the fiscal interests of the institution, as an entity, to fund art. Socially, it's quite a bit different. But it's still dependent on the worldview under which the society and its government officials operate. A global economy only further perpetuates the problems we already see here in America with getting funding for composing music, and ignoring that is just downright naive.

I think a composer's place in society can't be defined because society itself isn't fixed so finding a universal place in society for a composer excepting composing is impossible to find

I don't think that the notion itself ("composer") has the only definition today. Too many guys call themselves so, though in fact what they are doing can hardly be called composing in its classical understanding. Thus, the role of a 'composer' in the modern society gets a multicolor character :)

IMHO