manner and substance

The concepts of manner and substance are essential to understand when applying analysis and judgement onto a new or old work of modern music.  

Substance: the meaning, the message, the truth trying to be expressed

Manner: the method in which the composer articulates.

The substance is what is trying to be communicated and the manner is the way in which it is delivered.  A truly great work of art has both.  When one is heavy on either side, I believe a lot can be learned, but its ability to transcend itself and leave a lasting impression becomes severely limited.

In practice

Substance: a song usually sung by Andrea Bocelli - perhaps a message of heart break and sorrow told in a simple format.  Rich in truth and maybe even with an adequate metaphor, but interested in expressing only the message - there is no interest in how it is expressed, just as long as there is a semi-tone modulation in the bridge much to the delight of his audience.

Manner: a Lied (song) in Anton Webern style serialism where even the text must conform to the matrix,even disallowing a message separate from the music. It is all manner, involved with itself and expressing only that, although extremely intricate and brilliant in its own way.

I will admit that a synthesis of Bocelli and Webern cannot exist... but a synthesis in Hegelian terms is what I mean.  If we admit that these two extremes exist in our musical institutions a synthesis of the two, manner and substance that is, is what makes a great work of art.

That an audience has an experience not only by what is being said but how it is articulated. You can see these sides in the field today: the more commercial end of modern music which entertains all audience expectations, and the cerebral intellectual formalism challenging audiences.  I pose that something in the middle will actually add to the experience of the audience and enrich their lives. It should also enrich the rich tradition of classical music.  

I welcome posts now to challenge or give examples to start a discussion with these terms. Who represents Manner, who Substance - who synthesizes well (for give the homonym).

the audience and the artist

I would like to pose some definitions for this site and discourse here as we can all say wonderful and terrible things about any piece of music, but if we define a bit of music's function and what an audience is, then we can move forward out of the abyss of relativism.

It should be recognized that music is a communal art form, with exceptions, it is mainly for an audience.  An audience being a temporary community that have given a place in their lives for the composer and performers. Composer and performer have the traditional roles and definitions

Now a days this kind of devotion - 2-3 hours to one subject - is quite rare in our scatter brained world. In a way, it is a sort of religious experience where they can escape from the normal day's experience. However they do not choose a true escape, they want to be nurtured and fed a sustenance beyond loosing themselves for a few hours (i.e most films and TV). I admit the reality of this happening for the audience goer is rare, but does, and more to the point it is possible every time someone steps foot to the concert call or theater. The audience will open their hearts if given the opportunity.  If someone opens you heart to you, would you ever defy and betray them? waste their time, shock them, or hold them to understand a concept that had nothing to do with their love?

Composers and musicians have a responsibility to a public to provide them experiences that can change their lives. To challenge, not mystify, to provoke by telling truths not inflammatory exaggerations of meaningless formalism.

I will try not to make classifications but an audience that chooses the concert hall or opera house should be addressed directly and confronted with their own experiences articulated by those who study that articulation. The articulation of most modern music is beyond the comprehension of a normal audience who is used an accepted musical language supported by "museum" institutions. If composers continue to leap ahead of their audiences they will find nothing but public rejection or ambivalence as is usually the case.  

Challenge and beauty are desired and long for by all audiences who still come to the concert hall. There is a particular way for this time, a music to speak to us, I hope this blog can begin to articulate, either rules or ideas to inspire and further this music. Right now the feeling in the audience is: "I know it when I hear it." 

But the answer is not novelty nor to use the beauty of the epochs of the past but find a sharp, passionate cutting blade of truth that not only reflects our lives but shows us something in which we can learn about our own hearts. Currently most modern music rejects an audience or dumbs it down to meet them. Give us the music of our time.

manifesto

Contemporary classical music should strive to communicate the profundity of the shared human experience and stop wasting audiences' valuable time with what is supposedly called "important" music.

Weather the language be tonal or a-tonal, it should communicate through our shared knowledge and traditions experiences to enrich and fulfill our lives and stop the solipsistic rantings of academia and the cheesy wailings of commercialism, and get down to the honest truth, better than any other art form can:

         The human condition is eventually about dealing with our own impermanence.
         We seek eternity in moments.  More often than not, we come to music for a
         solution to this pain; we seek transformation.

Stop running composers and give us honesty, meaning and solace within which we can live our tragic and profoundly wonderful lives.  Stop mucking about within your silly little brains and reach us!  Audiences are longing for a voice to give us the music of our time.