StuRants

New Zealand, new music?

A couple of days back one of the great musicological debates of our time was held in my parents' dining room.

[Note that this post has been edited several times since it first went out, as I've pondered my position on it all. The content the comment pertains to has not changed.]

The catalyst for this mighty moot was a double CD of NZ classical music that came free with the latest edition of the New Zealand Geographic. As the Geographic has a circulation of 25,000, this compilation represents the biggest ever release of high brow music in NZ.

The first CD started well with Lilburn's 'Aotearoa Overture', the best piece of Vaughn Williams never written by Vaughn Williams. Then the 'difficult' stuff set in. By the time I was telling my father that we were listening to the cut up gruntings and scrapings of David Downes, he was moved to reply, "It sounds like he's suffering from Downes' Syndrome!".

To my father, the idea of not using tunes and harmonies in music seems ludicrous. "Why can't they write like Mozart?" he demanded to know, as Jack Body's sinuous gamelan-on-a-string-quartet piece (played by the Kronos Quartet, no less!) cranked into life. I explained to him that Mozart had already been done by Mozart, and that in any event Mozart was 200 years ago: Get with the programme, Daddy-o! But alas, Dad could not be persuaded to this way of thinking. Instead, he stopped the CD and played the 'Aotearoa Overture' again.

The debate was unsurprisingly inconclusive. Upon reflection I have misgivings about both sides of the argument. Personally I find the CDs by in large engaging, and I'm happy that my mother has given them to me. If the average punter put in a bit of effort, I think they could understand and appreciate what these composers are getting at. Seems unlikely, but it's possible.

As for my misgivings about the music itself, well they are formed from a series of propositions:

(1) NZ contemporary music has a very small audience
(2) NZ contemporary music is largely taxpayer funded via academic positions at tertiary institutions and through grants and commissions.
(3) NZ contemporary music has, overall, contributed little to New Zealand culture (how many households do you think would recognise the name 'Lilburn', or even the much more recent 'Farr'?).
(4) NZ contemporary musicians and composers have more in common with musicians and composers in other countries than with the broad culture of New Zealand (this is probably another way of saying 'they're all stuck in their ivory tower').
(5) NZ contemporary music can be accessible and enjoyable by the general populace without composers compromising their art.

My conclusions from these premises is that (2) isn't worth it because of (1) and (3) (and there's no sign that I've noticed that (1) has improved lately). Additionally, because of (1) and the possibility of (5), I conclude that NZ contemporary composers don't care really care about the taxpayer getting value, and aren't even interested in making their music genuinely accessible, because they're more interested in their international community (4).

These are my conclusions, but obviously every one of those points is contentious, especially point (3). The truth of these statements is unknown, but I think it's worth finding out. In the absence of evidence to the contrary (Eve De Castro-Robinson doing a sell-out tour of all the major centre town halls would do) I'll maintain these suspicions, while trying to keep an open mind.

Addendum April 2007: Having waxed lyrical about John Psathas' View from Olympus, I should concede that at least one NZ composer has floated down from their ivory tower. More please!

Posted by stuart at December 23, 2006 6:59 AM