Category: Articles

Finding the Center of American Music

Frank J. Oteri, Editor and Publisher
Frank J. Oteri
Photo by Melissa Richard

Ever since I started working at the American Music Center, people who are not involved with music, as well as people from other countries, sometimes ask me to name the most important American composer. Of course, it is a question that is impossible to answer, as well it should be.

Despite our relatively short history as a nation, the United States boasts an artistic landscape that is arguable the most culturally diverse in the world. And since, for the most part, we are a nation of immigrants (and archeologists and anthropologists also attest that native Americans originally migrated here from elsewhere), anyone in the world is potentially an American. Charles Wuorinen has pointed out that Igor Stravinsky and Arnold Schoenberg are two of the greatest American composers. We don’t normally think of them as Americans, but both died in California after becoming naturalized citizens of the U.S.A.

In addition to our cultural diversity, we are have extremely different perspectives based on our geographical location in this large nation as well as in the kind of community in which we live (city, suburb, rural area, etc.) This is one of the most crucial of the many historical lessons of the recent virtually stalemated American Presidential Election.

John Duffy once remarked that there are 10,000 active composers in the United States. As a composer, I find that statistic humbling. As a listener and someone who gets asked his opinions about music from time to time, I find it even more humbling.

That said, given the recent events in our history, it seemed like the perfect time to reflect on what being a composer in America today is all about. I talked with John Adams, who is unarguably one of the most prominent composers of our time, about what it means to be a successful composer in America today. I asked Bradley Bambarger to conduct an investigative HyperHistory of what the most programmed American music is in our orchestras, opera houses, chamber music halls, and among our school bands, as well as on radio and recordings. I asked Martin Bresnick, Marilyn Shrude, P.Q. Phan and David Gompper, four composers who are also prominent composition teachers in schools across the country, to comment on what is the dominant musical style of today and what will be the dominant musical style of tomorrow.

The answer to that question reveals itself month after month, this month is no exception, in the ongoing variety of recordings and news events that show up on our radar here. To truly level the scale, we present you a databank of over 2000 American composers, not quite Duffy’s 10,000 but we’ll keep looking for them. If there’s any we’ve missed, let us know who they are. And, after contemplating all this, we’d love to know your thoughts as well.

In the meanwhile, happy new year and new millennium, which now that we’re in the year 2001, we can all agree on!

What is the dominant musical style of today and what will be the dominant musical style of tomorrow?

Martin BresnickMartin Bresnick
“…I am quite happy to let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend, since what I fear most is any concentration of power and influence that might inhibit free and autonomous musical activity…”
David GompperDavid Gompper
“When you ask about the dominant musical style of today, I think it depends upon whom you ask…”
P.Q. PhanP.Q. Phan
“…there is a great deal of evidence to reinforce the fact that “accessible music” is most often performed in paid venues….”
Marilyn ShrudeMarilyn Shrude
“Today’s concert music seems to be a blending of the many modes of expression we find around us-the term often used is ‘eclectic’…”

What is the dominant musical style of today and what will be the dominant musical style of tomorrow? David Gompper

David Gompper
David Gompper

When you ask about the dominant musical style of today, I think it depends upon whom you ask. My music students might name the latest pop group, probably a mixture of rap and rave but never the corporate-owned boy-bands. If I narrowed the question and steered it toward contemporary art music, they might answer neo-romantic. My generation (the 40-somethings) would add eclecticism, although I see a smoothing, a more subtle approach to this post-moderism collage style (like comparing stereo records from the 60s to those produced now).

In terms of future styles, this is what I yearn from young composers-exploration of timbre driven by the melodic; consideration of silence advanced by rhythm; balancing music intended for the mind and heart, yet approved only by a well-honed ear.

What is the dominant musical style of today and what will be the dominant musical style of tomorrow? Marilyn Shrude

P.Q. Phan
Marilyn Shrude

Today’s concert music seems to be a blending of the many modes of expression we find around us-the term often used is “eclectic.” Because we have ready access to new works, we are able to digest them quickly and assimilate elements into our own compositions (both consciously and unconsciously).

I don’t think there will ever be a “dominant” style again; thankfully, we have more respect for free expression than ever before. The down side, of course, is that quality may suffer, because we can do things too fast and lack essential reflective time.

Whatever Happened To Supermarket Music?



Joseph Lanza

Whatever happened to supermarket music? There was a time – not very long ago – when one could stroll through the aisles of an A&P or a Safeway while violins, pianos, guitars, harps and trumpets played soft instrumental versions of old standards and current hits. These ceiling serenades offered the musical equivalent to a parallel world, a temporary reprieve from the ordinary fare that people tend to enjoy at home or in their cars.

Unfortunately, most supermarkets and other venues have replaced the ghostly orchestras with an original artists goulash — usually apportioned at a higher volume, in a haphazard sequence, and with little to no regard for the logic of the landscape. Shopping at an A&P in Hoboken, New Jersey, I was amazed to hear Bobby Vinton‘s unabashedly sentimental “Take Good Care Of My Baby” immediately followed by the gritty hard rock of “Dirty Water” by The Standells. A restaurant like Denny’s, which caters to a very heterogeneous clientele ranging from ages 8 to 80, is now likely to emit oldies by Stevie Wonder and The Eagles, a regimen that threatens to alienate both seniors and youngsters not hep to baby-boomer nostalgia.

This “foreground music” trend could very well be more about economics than changing musical aesthetics. Since the mid-1980s, Muzak™, once the giant of background tunes, has increasingly distanced itself from its elevator music history. The company once hired full orchestras to reinterpret favorite songs, but with mounting musicians’ union levies, the process has proven too expensive. As a result, Muzak and other background music providers have opted for private record label agreements, enticing clients with foreground choices that supposedly reinforce a chosen business image and consequently have a more aggressive environmental impact.

This a la carte approach, which Muzak publicists like to refer to as “audio architecture,” may not be quite what Erik Satie had in mind when he set the groundwork for Muzak in 1920 with his intentionally nondescript “Furniture Music.” He threw a notorious fit when he played it for gallery patrons who responded with undivided attention. He jumped into the throng and pleaded with them to continue carousing and NOT listen! Echoing Satie’s concerns, the Muzak Corporation once summarized the effect its product was supposed to have on its target public by touting the slogan: “Music to be heard but not listened to.” This was probably a terrible miscalculation since it validated the assumption that such background music is somehow inferior. It also fed into the misguided notion that there are “tasteful” alternatives to the standard supermarket brand.

Anti-Muzak naysayers used to complain about background music being too “manipulative,” but with foreground music, the manipulation seems much more insidious. Walking into a Rite Aid and pelted by variations on hip-hop, I feel subjected not only to the whims of the store manager but also to a clutching fashion apparatus that never lets go. Whereas the older “elevator music” functioned as sonic air-conditioning, the newfangled alternative can be likened to designer scents pushed through a ventilation system. Unlike Starbucks, which sells CDs of the same “smooth jazz” it pumps through overhead speakers, supermarkets never showcased the anonymous Muzak ensembles that orchestrated the journey from the corridors of consumption to the cashier. The tunes were there just to aid a buying mood and not sell themselves.

This effort to add “prestige” and “personality” to the shopping routine proves that elevator music’s detractors do not object to the idea of manipulating people through music – just so long as it is their kind of music and not what they might uncharitably designate as “schmaltz“. Brian Eno, among the more prominent of these “alternative” soundscapers, has been quick to claim that his “ambient” approach is a vast improvement over the old Muzak. Still, there is that hilarious anecdote from the early eighties about patrons at the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport who got so creeped-out over Eno’s Music For Airports that the regular background music had to be restored.

While doing research for my book Elevator Music, I was inspired by the wise words of a (now former) Muzak programmer. According to him: “When musicians are left to themselves to make art for the sake of art, not considering public taste, demographics or psychology, they will put together something that won’t please everyone… My task is to amalgamate tastes. Imagine trying to please 80 or 90 million different viewpoints of the way things should be.”

There is something civically – even aesthetically – right about generic music complementing generic environments. This is among few examples when a one-size-fits-all policy makes sense. When entering a public sphere like a supermarket or a mall, shoppers are entitled to an aural escape, a sound mark to delineate the safe shopping environment from the more cacophonous and unwieldy world outside. If air-conditioning is therapeutic air for soot-infested cities, then supermarket music is therapeutic music for a world of conflicting musical attitudes and noises.

By complementing an original version of a song, the supermarket version provides an audio depth of field, an appropriately vague contour for the transient surroundings. The originals are too specific, carry too much baggage, and make for a much more flattened audio perspective. One could argue that the current use of original artist songs in supermarkets has the same distracting and demystifying effect that the compilation soundtrack has on many of the newer movies. What better way to ruin a story than to slobber a bunch of pop tracks over a film’s narrative and closing credits! And all to justify a CD release that can be called a “soundtrack” in only the loosest sense.

Oddly enough, the only respite from this chronic waking life is in the recent spate of retro commercials that resurrect supermarket music as a popular mythology. There is the mild cha-cha that plays w
hile shoppers browse for “Pork: The Other White Meat,” or the sweet elevator strains soon drowned out when two slackers engage in a Doritos crunching contest. And all those naysayers who once complained about supermarkets full of “syrupy” strings can only declare a Pyrrhic victory. They must now contend with a soundscape that is much louder and much more cloying. When the elevator music gets turned off, the hype really begins.

Sensing Music: Hearing, Listening, and Not-So-Deep Listening

Frank J. Oteri
Frank J. Oteri
Photo by Melissa Richard

Despite the fact that we have five distinct senses, human society relies mostly on visual stimuli. So much so that the only art form to develop from one of the other senses is music, and even the development of music in industrialized and later technologically-developed societies has been the result of sight-based phenomena: music notation, conductors, etc. Even our language betrays a visual bias when we talk about music, e.g. “I saw a great concert last night.” For that matter, everything else: “I’ll see you next week” also implies “I’ll hear you next week.”

Part of the reason for the dominance of sight is that until the 20th century, it was only possible to archive and preserve the visual aspects of objects. We have paintings, sculptures, and manuscripts dating back centuries but we really don’t have any contemporaneous music, just some visual directions explaining what that music should be. For this reason, we will never really know the exact performance practice of music before the 20th century despite the tireless efforts of musicologists. The ability to record and store sound, developed at the dawn of the 20th century, has forever tipped the scales a little bit toward aural expression. And the recent development of the digital transmission of aural files over the Internet at the dawn of the 21st century will probably tip the scales a little bit more…

But listening is still a woefully underdeveloped sense compared to sight. (Taste, smell and touch, of course, lag even further behind among human beings but that’s another whole discussion.) And the extent to which someone’s listening abilities are developed has a great impact on the music he or she chooses and enjoys. Someone with more developed listening skills might favor music of longer durations or music with a more complicated structural design, perhaps music with a wider melodic and/or harmonic palette. Someone with less developed listening skills might never be fully listening to music. This is not a value judgment, because everyone (except, sadly, people who are hearing impaired) has a great capacity to listen.

For the December 2000 issue of NewMusicBox, we have chosen to examine listening from a variety of perspectives. I spoke with Pauline Oliveros, who has spent her entire career integrating the realms of composing, performing and listening. She explained the differences between hearing and listening, and described her theory of Deep Listening, which allows for background sonic stimuli to become part of a more inclusive foreground. It has been six years since the publication of Joseph Lanza’s book, Elevator Music: A Surreal History of Muzak™, Easy-Listening, and Other Moodsong, a volume which forever changed the way I think about music. To counterbalance Deep Listening, I asked Lanza to write about not-so-deep listening. Lanza decries the disappearance of Muzak™ from supermarkets and questions the distinctions of background and foreground listening. Since nowadays there are so many different avenues by which listeners might first encounter new music, we asked Miguel del Aguila, Benjamin Lees, Augusta Read Thomas, and George Walker to suggest the ideal way for audiences to listen to their music. We ask you to comment on your own listening habits. Do you listen to live music or recorded music more frequently? How much music do you listen to on a regular basis? What other activities are you engaged in while you’re listening?

What is the best possible way for someone to be introduced to your music?

Miguel Del Aguila
“The best way to introduce my music to listeners is ideally in a concert hall, well rehearsed, well performed and to a discriminating audience..”
Benjamin Lees
“…I suppose the best way of becoming acquainted is to have a score at hand while following the recorded piece…”
Augusta Read Thomas
“The best possible way for someone to be introduced to any music is to follow a work from start to finish…”
George Walker
“…The concert hall experience is one that I heartily support because of its unique ambience…”

What is the best possible way for someone to be introduced to your music? Miguel Del Aguila

The best way to introduce my music to listeners is ideally in a concert hall, well rehearsed, well performed and to a discriminating audience. Of course this ideal situation seldom happens nowadays when orchestras have budgets (and egomaniac conductors) allowing almost no rehearsal time for a new work. They consider it more necessary to use the little rehearsal time their budget allows in “little” known works like Beethoven’s 5th Symphony or Tchaikowsky’s Pathetic…

Because of this situation I actually prefer that my music is introduced in a good recording and heard by listeners who are ready to concentrate and dedicate their full attention to what they are about to hear. This medium also assures that I will get a consistently good performance every time the CD is played…

Sometimes, performers do composers the honor of using one of their works as an encore. This is probably the best way to have my works heard because the audience has heard a full concert program and is now predisposed to hear the best music and the best performance. However performers always forget to write the performance of these works on the performance log and composers don’t get paid royalties for these performances which are often numerous. I wish performers (and audiences) wouldn’t put composers on pedestals; instead I wish that they would be better informed and sensitive to the daily needs of composers, which includes being paid!

What is the best possible way for someone to be introduced to your music? Benjamin Lees

In centuries past, the ONLY way one could become familiar with a composer’s music was to hear it at a live concert. Today, of course, we not only have live concerts but recordings, radio (to an extent), scores, the internet and heaven knows what else. The key question, of course, is which approach is best for one to become acquainted with a composer’s work.

Initially I prefer the recording, for in that way a listener may hear a piece an infinite number of times, whereas a live concert provides but one hearing.

I suppose the best way of becoming acquainted is to have a score at hand while following the recorded piece, or trying to play the piece from the score at the piano — assuming one has been extremely well trained. Otherwise, I opt for the recording.

What is the best possible way for someone to be introduced to your music? Augusta Read Thomas

This answer is applying to all music, NOT mine in particular! The best possible way for someone to be introduced to any music is to follow a work from start to finish. Reflect, keep an open heart, be generous, open you ears to all surprises, sing along when possible, dance along if possible, feel the impulses, be creative, be honest, be PASSIONATE, and have fun!

Learn about the imagination and the nature of the musical ideas in a discussion with the composer and performers, read the score if applicable but certainly not mandatory (especially in the case of improvisation), attend all rehearsals, hear the premiere performance live and up close, speak to all the musicians, hear a recording of the premiere performance, survey and understand the revisions made by the composer or musicians, hear the revised and final version score in live rehearsal and performance.

Note in the sounds what is musical, vivid, visionary, creative, sympathetic, personal, daring, and sensitive and enjoy those things, among others.

Great music is pure joy and very hard to create.