Novelty

A few days ago, my music theory teacher, Mr. LaFleur, kindly gave me a copy of an article by composer Webster Young. The title of the article is "Can There Be Great Composers Anymore?" If you can ever get your hands on it, I highly recommend it. It is in the Spring 2008 edition of The Intercollegiate Review. The author's conclusion is very interesting. He states that the reason there has been no recent composer to compare to Mozart, Beethoven, or even Copland or Shostakovich is not necessarily because of less artistry in composing, but because of warped expectations from music critics. He argues that critics today are concerned only with novelty and innovation instead of a good aesthetic. Because of this, modern composers feel the need to innovate, instead of merely creating beautiful music. It is almost as if beautiful music is "old-fashioned."
All of this got me thinking about the topic of novelty. How desirable is it to be original? Should novelty and originality be the primary goal of all music?
I will begin with some positive arguments. First of all, nobody likes a copycat. For one, it can be illegal in the case of plagiarism. Also, copying is very inartistic. One of the main components of art is creativity. Copying someone else's work is often illegal, certainly unprofessional, and definitely inartistic.
Second, there is a certain sense of excitement and discovery in something you have never experienced before. Novelty provides mental stimulation in that one is forced to think about the piece and evaluate it. You cannot retreat to the comfort of the familiar. In this way, new music and new techniques can be more mentally rewarding.
These are two benefits of novelty and originality. I am sure there are probably other benefits as well, but for now I will stick to those. In and of itself, I don't think there are problems with novelty. However, I think there are some dangers involved that come to light when too much emphasis is put on it. They are the following.
First, total commitment to novelty ignores the efforts of those who have gone before. The great tradition of Western classical music was not created overnight. Simple math had to be discovered before differential calculus. The Wright Brothers' Flyer had to be invented before the Boing 747. In the same way, the techniques of composition known as "common practice" were developed over centuries by composers from Palestrina to Bach to Mozart to Beethoven. They were musical geniuses. Why should we ignore their work and seek to start from square one in the name of "originality?" That would be like the physicist who chooses to ignore Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity, or the astronomer who chooses to ignore the Copernican theory. In the same way that modern science is based on the discoveries of Newton and those like him, modern classical music is based on the discoveries and innovations of Bach and Mozart and those like them. It is foolish to ignore them. The reason common practice music is "common" is because it fits the formula that appeals most to the human ear or, at least, to the Westernized ear.
A second reason why novelty can be dangerous is because it reflects a culture of individualism and selfishness. It say, "I will do what I want to do regardless of the consequences." Is it really that insulting to our ego to use the tried and tested methods of those who have gone before? Through historical examination, we can see that even those hailed in the past as "musical geniuses" were not necessarily all that original themselves in that they did not create entirely new styles of music single-handedly. Johann Sebastian Bach is a prime example. Arguably the best composer in history, he only used forms (such as the sonata, concerto grosso, and choral cantata) that had been developed by others. As a matter of fact, he is considered the pinnacle of the Baroque period of classical music, not because of his dashing innovation, but because of his skillful synthesis of all the musical techniques that had been developed by others before him. This is true musical greatness! We must lay aside our selfish tendencies that tell us to "go where no man has gone before!" Instead, we must show our wisdom by carefully selecting the best aspects of classical music and seeking to replicate them in our own music. Critics must learn to appreciate artistic sensibility and beauty above pure, raw innovation.
Up until this point, I have only tried to refute those who argue that innovation is the most important need in classical music today. However, there is another extreme: those who argue that classical music has "run its course" and has no more potential for innovation or freshness. I disagree with this position as much as with the previous one. Because good classical music is so intricate, it has unrivaled freshness and appeal. This contrasts greatly with the songs heard on hit radio stations, which receive airplay for an average of six months or so. The real classics go all the way back to the 60s (gasp!). This seems almost laughable when we consider the timeless works of Bach, who died in 1750, or Mozart, who died in 1791. That being said, however, there are to this day modern composers who are creating new music of similar appeal while still using traditional forms and styles. As a matter of fact, many modern composers are returning with great success to music that is very similar to Renaissance music, which was composed as early as the 14th century! Arvo Part, Eric Whitacre, and Morten Lauridsen are just a few of them. All three are still alive and composing music that is usually quite traditional in form (refuting those who argue that innovation is key) and yet fresh (refuting those who argue that classical music is near extinction). Contrast that with the works of men such John Cage and those like him, who would compose music that was often disorganized and that also relied heavily on chance (for example, 4' 33''). It is true that such compositions are original and innovative, but are they beautiful? Are they pleasant to the ear? Do they improve the listener? In many cases, I would have to say no.
In summary, I believe that we must treasure aesthetic beauty and artistry above innovation. The fact that something is new does not make it "art." Once again, however, I do not wish to discard novelty completely. I just think we must make sure that innovation conforms to traditional standards of beauty and artistry. I realize that this still leaves a lot of room for subjectivity, but we must at least consider this question. We must analyze the music we listen to and compose and make sure that it still retains some traditional form and artistry. We must not sacrifice beauty at the altar of the new.

Soli Deo Gloria