Postmodernism in Relation to Original Music - Essay Example

Postmodernism in relation to original music and how Present-day music is affected by copyright laws Name Subject Instructor Name Introduction Tracing the evolution of music from its modest beginnings during the Paleolithic flutes that dominated the prehistoric era, past the opera halls that mushroomed in Europe and into the avant-garde compositions during the post-modernist era, it becomes apparent that artists have made significant efforts to use music in its most pure forms to convey human emotions (Jamie 2015). Music has a capacity to cross cultural and historical barriers and is universally tolerable and appreciated. However, the protection of music under intellectual property law may continue to affect the original composers and the production of the music today. With its basis in protecting artistic expression, the intellectual property law is viewed by Scott (2002) to have tried to protect all kinds of musical works. However, the kind of protection granted to musical works is presently hindered by the evolution of music, as the current protections were intended for traditional music and have taken little consideration of the new trends of composition (Jamie 2015). Therefore, this essay argues that since copyright laws are principally designed to grant protection to musical works in traditional forms of music and musical composition, it has left gaps in scenarios where composers of more postmodernist works run the risk of not enjoying the protection in the same level as their traditional or modernist counterparts, who were the original composers. This paper explores the meaning of Postmodernism in relation to music in addition to the manner in which original music was created compared to music that was derived or influenced. Additionally, it examines how the copyright laws affect present-day music and the production of music today. Meaning of Postmodernism in relation to other compositions Postmodernism was an extensive period that spanned more than four decades, 1950-1990 (Scott 2002). It is concerned with literature, art, architecture, as well as represents a large set of cultural trends instead of one particular artistic movement. Therefore, postmodern music refers to the type of music that dominated the postmodern era, or which assumes philosophies or adheres to aesthetical leanings of the postmodern era. According to Jamie (2015), the postmodernist movement was largely a response to modernism. Still, postmodern music does not chiefly identify itself as contrasting the modernist music. Postmodernism, as Walters (2004) describes it, refers to an ‘anti-serialist reaction that emerged during the 1970s when composers begun to seek less austere techniques. Jonathan Kramer (1996) describes postmodernism as a rather an imprecise musical concept that neither reacts against nor continues the concepts of modernist and past music concepts. However, postmodernist music is not original, as it mostly recycles older music styles. Kramer (1996) defends this argument by asserting that Postmodernist music deliberately endeavours to reach out using materials and procedures that listeners relish, such as singable melodies, tonality, consonant, diatonicism, metric regularity, and foot-tapping rhythms. All these concepts are derived from earlier music. Kramer (1996) outlined several characteristics that define postmodern music. According to Kramer (1996), although post-modernism is an intricate concept that may not be defined rigorously, it largely characterises post-modern music that has the following characteristics: First, the music does not merely refuse modernism or even continue of it. Rather, it portrays aspects of modernism and postmodernism. The music is also largely ironic. Next, the music also defies the boundaries between 'low brow' and 'highbrow' styles. The music also disdains the significance of structural unity. The music also fails to differentiate between populist and elitist values. Lastly, the music does not totalise forms, which means allowing the whole piece to be cast, serial or total within a define formal style. It also brings many meanings, even as the meaning is located in listeners instead of its composers or performance. A comparison between the modernist and postmodernist music is anchored on the extent of uniqueness or originality. Unlike the Postmodern era whose music was far from being original, the music of the Modern Era was fairly original. Walter (2004) argues that because of the desire for continual innovation, many Modern composers developed intricate compositional methods to create unique compositions and, therefore, used methods for generating sounds on instruments that were different from the traditional playing techniques. An example of their uniqueness is explored by Born (1995) when she identifies six key features of modernism, which differ from the postmodernist features outlined above. These include reacting against the previous aesthetics of classicism and romanticism, giving precedence to concern and fascination using new media, as well as the use of science and technology. Third is the aspect of ‘theoreticism.’ Next includes the interventionist objectives, fluctuation between being rational and irrational, or objective and subjective, and lastly uncertain attitude towards popular culture (Born 1995). At this stage, it is clear that postmodernism music does not define a rather distinctive musical style. Instead, it defines music of the modern era. Conversely, postmodernist music shares certain features a modernist musical composition, which Jamie (2015) considers as neither a reaction against nor continuation of the modernism but recycling of the modernist music. For instance, in the case of Australia, Walters (2004) argues that Post-modernist music of the 1980s and 1990s used outdated musical language. Walters (2004) and Kramer (1996) appear to agree that postmodernist music appears to mark a return to romantic and classical musical language, of the Romantic Period and Classical Period respectively. In the United States, Postmodernism started to have an influence on music during the 1980s after it had become apparent that there was a change in paradigm in thought in relation to what was required to provide answers to the theoretical standoff in certain ideas. Among the ideas included, the phenomenon that the mass audience failed to consume reflexively the cultural products hence showing the music industry was being discredited. However, according to Scott (2002), implicit acceptance of the idea of postmodernism may explain why certain legendary artists are given more importance than others. However, Jamie (2015) argues that people give more importance to the modernist music than post-modernistic music, as the former is more original. For instance, Horatio Parker (1863-1919) of the modernist music would be given much value than Charlie Parker of the postmodernist music. This, according to Scott (2002), explains why legendary artists like Charlie Parker, who was a jazz saxophonist, failed to show up for the New Oxford History of Music in 1980. In highlighting the difference between modernist and postmodernist music, it could further be reasoned that the class between the aesthetics of the two music periods was largely at variance between the desire by the modernist to pursue a continually evolving musical language and the desire by the postmodernist composers to assume simpler and more traditional sounds and musical structures (Scott 2002). The ambition of the modernist composers for continual progress influenced modernist composers to create more complex and intricate music using non-traditional instrumental techniques. In the same way, the postmodernist composers are inclined to recycle traditional playing techniques, as well as the playability of their compositions (Scott 2002). In the case of Australia, Walter (2004) argues that reiteration or recycling of the past musical language during the 1960s, as the aesthetics of the European avant-garde and modernism dominated the contemporary art music. Tunley (1978 as cited in Walter 2004) observed that during the 1960s, the contemporary music witnessed the emergence of a repertoire that originated from many composers who aimed to give completely new character to the Australian music, yet by deriving elements of the modernist music. Walters (2004) adds that the Australian young composers, such as those in the Australian institutions, automatically towed the modernist line, lest the music beam less influential. During the 1970s and into the 1980s, more composers abandoned the modernist concepts in favour of elements of the Romantic and Classical Period to ensure a greater degree of communication with the listeners. Examples include Ross Edwards, Richard Meale, and Carl Vine, who shifted from modernist music. They returned to the tonal musical language with minimal rhythmic complexity or application of extended instrumental techniques like percussive effects and timbres (Stanhope 1994). In making a further comparison between the postmodernist music and modernistic music, Jamie (2015) suggests that the music in the postmodernist era is largely identifiable by technological advancement, which is integrated in the production of music. An additional important comparison is that during the postmodernist era, there are few original works composed and performed by artists, as they largely copied the already existing works. Scott (2002) also contends that the Postmodernist artists acquired much of their inspiration from the original works composed by the modernist musicians. While the music of the Romantic Period (1820 - 1900) was original, the post-modernist music was not, as it borrowed certain features of the Romantic Period. For instance, Postmodernist music like neoromanticism has composers like David Del Tredici who incorporate the elements of music of the Romantic period into the postmodernist music of the 20th century. Some of the elements are placing emphasis on tonal centres, expressive performance, melodic writing, and tonality. While the music of the Classical Period (1750 – 1820) was original, the Post-modernist music was not, as it borrowed certain features of the Classical Period. The Classical period compositions placed emphasis on simple, tuneful, simple harmony, strict formal structure singable melodies, contrasting dynamics and major and minor modes. It was light in texture, and formal. The Postmodernist music like neoclassicism borrows some elements of 17th and 18th century Classical music. For instance, the elements of polyphonic writing, like that employed by J.S. Bach, were employed in addition to a reuse of some construction styles like toccata, suite, opera, and madrigal. Examples of postmodernist musicians who incorporated elements of the Classical Period include Paul Hindemith, Sergei Prokofiev, and Igor Stravinsky. Present-day music is affected by copyright laws Because copyright laws are principally designed to grant protection to musical works in music and musical composition with original formats, it leaves gaps in the protection of the present day works, which seem to borrow some elements of the modernist music. Present-day music, therefore, runs at the risk of not enjoying the protection in the same level as their traditional or modernist counterparts, who were the original composers. One reason for this is since the present-day works do not to meet the narrow definition of “musical work” set out by the copyright laws. The copyright law makes it easy to protect traditional musical compositions than the present day compositions. As regards the evolution of the classical music during the post-modernist era, Scott (2002) argues that the growth of experimental music, in addition to other techniques that seemed to accommodate the traditional aspects of classical music, illustrate that postmodernist works were not original music works. Rather, the post-modernist classical music was largely derived from the modernist music, and was, therefore, not original. Jamie (2015) explained that such a tendency contravened the notion of “original musical work.” Indeed, before the post-modernist era, most composers, starting with the Classical era of Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, confirmed compliance with a structural format in their works, which ultimately offered clarity to their audience. Later, when the Classical era was in its heydays, the composers of the Romantic era like Frederic Chopin, Robert Schumann, Giuseppe Verdi, and Hector Berlioz, started exploring the ways in which they could balance music’s expressive qualities with the structural aspects of music using varied techniques. During early 20th Century, some composers started shifting in divergent directions. The notable characteristic of music during this time was the tendency to start breaking away with traditional concepts of tonality, which had until then characterised classical music. Such a shift from the traditional concepts of tonality and harmony starkly contrasted to the concept of harmony, which had also characterised the Romantic era. For instance, Arnold Schoenberg developed a twelve-tone system known as dodecaphony, which used the twelve chromatic scale noted, in comparison to the traditional seven-tone system that classical composers had to use. The copyright law implicitly discourages the tendency to experiment with less universally acceptable musical techniques. In a different scenario, several composers of the present-day era have moved away from using traditional Western concepts of music, where the copyright law could be based, and instead started experimenting with less universally acceptable musical techniques. For instance, Igor Stravinsky in his works “Rite of Spring” changed the manner in which later composers considered rhythm through the regular meter changes, as well as the sudden accents. This was particularly so during the era of postmodernism. Indeed, Jamie (2015) explains that starting in the early 1940s and into the end of the twentieth century, the composers went further to shift further as they experimented with the deficiency of melody, or in some circumstances silence, in their music. For instance, Karlheinz Stockhausen ventured into the world of electronic music and invented two forms of musical composition: aleatory in serial composition, which permits the artist to select short phrases from a predefined list that he plays randomly. The second included spatialization, a technique that takes advantage of the capacity of the audience to locate sound. The copyright law implicitly discourages the tendencies of present-day composers to fuse different traditional musical genres. Unlike in the modernist era, the composers of the postmodernist era also experimented with the use of diverse methods and technologies to generate sounds, including the use of electronic music or instruments in non-traditional matters that could generate sounds. At the close of the twentieth century, the composers appeared as ready to continue the trend of pushing the limits of acceptable music with the view of departing from the traditional elements of music defined in the copyright law. For instance, some composers like Julian Andersen, and John Zorn, made a fusion of classical music with different musical genres in their works to generate new sounds. (Jamie 2015). The copyright law has made it difficult for present day composers to get permission to borrow elements of copyrighted works for the production. An emerging trend in twenty-first century classical music is polystylism. The technique mixes elements of diverse music genres and methods of composition into a single unified work. In polystylism, the composers are likely to derive elements of divergent musical genres, including melodies from a rock and roll song yet be released into the public domain, before incorporating them into an original polystylist composition. Because the composer is likely to use a melody he derives from work yet to be released into the public domain, it is not possible to register the work, despite it fulfilling the other aspects of a work of music (Jamie 2015). Despite the facts that the composer may copyright the composition as a derivative work, on condition that he received permission to use some parts of the pre-existing work. However, getting the permission may be a tricky process, especially with the original composer who is not keen to license his composition. Consequently, what may result is a decline in the number of composers who make use of polystylism to fuse pre-existing melodies into the new compositions. The copyright law prevents the production of ambivalent or dichotomous works. The twenty-first century artists have started experimenting with serialism, which refers to a compositional technique, which requires the creation of music based on a sequence of values instead of harmony or melody. In the United States, for instance, Serialism is likely to run into conflict with the Copyright Office registration practices, particularly when the composer utilises a sequence of tones on the scale in the composition’s “melody.” The Copyright Office may view the work to have failed being an ideal expression dichotomy, which is critical for a copyright law. Consequently, the Copyright Office may compare the sequence of values with facts. Ultimately, in countries like the United States, the composition would not be to be copyrighted as stipulated by Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act. The copyright law enables composers to leave certain elements of their composition up to chance, leading to greater innovativeness in their production. A likely field of contemporary classical music that is potentially in breach of the Copyright law in the present-day, particularly in the United States, is in the description of music the emerging trend of aleatoric music. In this new compositional style, the composer leaves certain elements of the composition up to chance (Jamie 2015). Alternatively, a basic feature of the work of the composer is left to chance. As regards this type of music, the US Copyright Office’s intention to define a musical work is due to the fact that certain works are left to chance because the works may fail to be appropriately set in a concrete meaning of expression once it has not been recorded. Since one of the intrinsic qualities of aleatoric music is that two performances can never be similar at the same, the same as improvisational jazz music, a composition, which is categorised under aleatoric, as well as that makes use of silence technique may be copyrightable, as it does not fit within the description of the musical composition that US Copyright Office uses. In the same way as the emergence of more modern musical techniques like improvisation, the aleatoric music places emphasis on the ability of the copyright law to protect the musical compositions of the present era. Conclusion Since copyright laws are principally designed to grant protection to musical works in traditional forms of music and musical composition, it has left gaps in scenarios where composers of more postmodernist works run the risk of not enjoying the protection in the same level as their traditional or modernist counterparts, who were the original composers. One reason for this is that the present-day works do not meet the narrow definition of “musical work.” The music in the postmodernist era is largely identifiable by technological advancement, which is integrated in the production of music. Unlike the modernist works and earlier works, the postmodernist works are not original, as they largely recycle elements of the already existing modernist works. This makes it difficult to copyright the postmodernist works. The copyright law enables the present-day composers to leave certain elements of their composition up to chance, leading to greater innovativeness in their production. It also prevents the production of ambivalent or dichotomous works. Further, it has made it difficult for present day composers to get permission to borrow elements of copyrighted works for the production. The copyright law also implicitly discourages the tendencies of present-day composers to fuse different traditional musical genres. It also discourages the tendency to experiment with less universally acceptable musical techniques. References Born, G 1995, Rationalizing Culture, University of California Press, California, pp40-45. Jamie, Y 2015, “Now is That What I Call Music?: Post-modern Classical Music and Copyright Law,” Marq. Intellectual Property L. Rev, vol 19 no 2, pp269-288 Kramer, J 1996, "Postmodern Concepts of Musical Time," Indiana Theory Review, vol 17 no 2, pp,21-62 Scott, D 2002, Postmodernism and Music, viewed 24 Feb 2016, Skinner, G 2011, Toward a General History of Australian Musical Composition, viewed 23 Feb 2016, Stanhope, P 1994, The Music of Ross Edwards: Aspects of Ritual, viewed 23 Feb 2016, Tunley, D 1978, Australian Composition in the Twentieth Century: A Background,’ in Australian Composition in the Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press, Melbourne Walters, M 2004, Crossing the Modernist-Postmodernist Divide: Performance Challenges in Late Twentieth Century Australian Flute Music: A portfolio of recorded performances and exegesis, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide Read More