GlenN Branca's 25 Questions

I ran across a New York Times opinion article from 2007, posted by composer/guitarist Glenn Branca. The article was a list of 25 questions, created by Branca, addressed to composers (and musicians in general, I guess), on issues of contemporary classical music in the 21st century. The list of questions is based on the same idea as David Hilbert’s 23 mathematical problems published in 1900. I don’t think that’s an essential connection to make, but Branca mentioned it, so I figured I would include it here.


I think some of these questions are genuinely interesting and important for musicians (specifically composers) to ask themselves, but some of them are a little ridiculous, if not completely unnecessary. Also, and this may be a little harsh, but I feel like a lot of these questions are from the viewpoint of someone whose experience with contemporary music is mostly limited to the orchestral world, which I feel is problematic. But that’s a different discussion for a different time. Regardless, I enjoyed answering these questions and I’m interested to hear other people’s answers to the questions.


Here’s the list, along with my answers:


1. Should a modern composer be judged against only the very best works of the past?

• No, they shouldn’t, and past composers shouldn’t be judged according to modern trends. Contemporary composers should be compared to and contrasted against what came before, but past composers shouldn’t be the only measuring stick we use. To compare a masterwork like Georg Friedrich Haas’ In Vain (2000/02) to Beethoven 9 (1824) would be ridiculous. The language is so different and shows an extreme degree of compositional evolution (whether good or bad) that it would be unfair to judge either one against the other.
  

2. Can there be truly objective criteria for judging a work of art?

• I’ve grappled with this for a few years, and I think I now feel comfortable saying yes, there is a degree to which objective criteria can be applied to a work of art. However, I think the idea of communication of an idea is more important than objective criticism. But, by using objective criteria to teach composition (and more importantly musicianship) a seasoned composer will have better mastery of their materials. At this point the key is communicating the idea, not adhering to the criteria for writing “good” music.
  

3. If a composer can write one or two or more great works of music why cannot all of his or her works be great?

• I almost feel like this is a trolling question. Why can’t a painter only do great paintings. Why can’t an author only write great novels. Why can’t a filmmaker only make great films? Why can’t an opinion columnist only generate great (read relevant) questions?
  

4. Why does the contemporary musical establishment remain so conservative when all other fields of the arts embrace new ideas?

• I don’t know if I would say the contemporary music establishment is conservative. The orchestral tradition is definitely conservative, and that could be a reason that they aren’t doing so well these days. Smaller chamber ensembles, summer festivals and lots of university programs are embracing new ideas, new technologies and highly support the creation and performance of exciting and challenging new music.
  
  

5. Should a composer, if confronted with a choice, write for the musicians who will play a piece or write for the audience who will hear it?

• I think composers are ALWAYS confronted with this choice, and it is a personal and philosophical decision that he or she has to make. Sometimes it depends on the piece and situation in which the piece was commissioned or will be performed. Click here if you would like to know more about how I feel on this topic.
  

6. When is an audience big enough to satisfy a composer or a musician? 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 100,000,000?

• Seriously? 100 people is the minimum number attendees to be satisfied? I would be happy with 10 engaged listeners over 100 passive/disengaged listeners.
  
  

7. Is the symphony orchestra still relevant or is it just a museum?

• I want to say it’s still relevant, but it’s definitely in danger. I’ll also add that it’s difficult to be relevant when the programs contain such a small amount of modern music.
  

8. Is micro-tonality a viable compositional tool or a burned out modernist concept?

• Is functional tonality a viable compositional tool in the 21st century or a burned out common-practice period concept? That seems like a ridiculous and oversimplified question, doesn’t it? Asking the same question about micro-tonality should seem equally ridiculous. Our ears are capable of hearing micro-tonality and discerning quarter-tone differences between pitches, both melodic and harmonic. Any micro-tonal system should be viewed as as a potentially useful compositional tool, not as some kind of failed mid-20th century experiment
  

9. In an orchestra of 80 to 100 musicians does the use of improvisation make any sense?

• I think that depends a lot on the aesthetic and mood of the piece. If used effectively, yes it can make sense. Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima (granted that’s only 52 strings) and Echoes of Time and the River are both good examples of large ensembles utilizing quasi improvisation in a very effective way. That many people improvising simultaneously can easily be done poorly. But if the desired result is a complex morphing sound mass, then there’s really no other way to create that texture without a large ensemble, and improvisation can help facilitate that kind of sound world
  

10. What is the dichotomy between dissonance and tonality and where should the line be drawn?

• I think this questions is actually asking about the dichotomy between atonality and tonality, not the dichotomy between dissonance and tonality. It’s also a loaded question, because it implies that there is a dichotomy between the two and that there is also some kind of objective delineation that could/should be followed. Dissonance/atonality is an aesthetic choice and tonality is an aesthetic choice. Composers shouldn’t be expected to only choose one or the other, nor should there be expectations as to how or when those harmonic/melodic languages should be used.
  

11. Can the music that sooths the savage beast be savage?

• What does this question even mean? I’m inclined to say yes, since we all perceive and respond to music very differently. 
  

12. Should a composer speak with the voice of his or her own time?

• Yes, and I think it would be difficult to truly compose honest or authentic music in the style or voice of another time/century. That isn’t to say composers should avoid referencing older music. But when a composer writes music that sounds distinctly in the style of older music I would be more inclined to say that represents compositional exercises in replication than representing genuine artistic expression. Music is, in many ways, a representation of culture of the time during which it was written. Composing music that sounds centuries-old is, in a way, representative of centuries-old culture. There’s more that could be said, but I’ll leave it at that.
  

13. If there’s already so much good music to listen to what’s the point of more composers writing more music?

• Not going to dignify this question with a response.
  

14. If Bach were alive today would he be writing in the baroque style?

• See my response to Question 12 above. Short answer: No.
  

15. Must all modern composers reject the past, a la John Cage or Milton Babbitt’s “Who Cares If You Listen?”

• Well, first of all, Milton Babbitt’s “Who Cares if You Listen” was not about rejecting the past, but was more about the place of concert music in 1958 after half a century of development, and the reasons it was driven further into the walls of the university and further away from the public sphere (I know, that’s an oversimplification of that article). Second, no, not all modern composers have to reject the past. In fact, many composers of the middle and late 20th century wrote difficult and experimental music that embraced (and sometimes directly quoted) music of the past. With that said, the quickest way to explore new ideas is to reject the old ones.
  

16. Is the symphony an antiquated idea or is it, like the novel in literature, still a viable long form of music?

• I think it’s still a viable form of composition, but the actual formal structure of the symphony has evolved to the point that a 21st century symphony has little resemblance to an 18th century symphony, or symphonic form in general for that matter. In fact, I wouldn’t call Branca’s own “symphonies” by that term. It seems like a lot of orchestral music (and large ensemble music in general) is often referred to as a “symphony” when the piece has little or no resemblance to symphonic form or the tradition of the symphony. 
  

17. Can harmony be non-linear?

• Not a simple question, but I think Brian Bridges can answer this much better than I can. Also, Bridges’ article is actually in direct response to this question (Branca is quoted in the article)
  

18. Was Cage’s “4:33” a good piece of music?

• 4:33 was at worst a great piece of performance art and at best an incredibly necessary piece of avant-garde music. Also, Cage did write pieces other than 4:33, a lot of which is really great music. Why are we still hung up on calling him out over that piece, which has clearly lasted the test of time and doesn’t need to be argued any further?
  

19. Artists are expected to accept criticism, should critics be expected to accept it as well?

• Of course, in fact their feet should be held to the fire more so than artists. If a critic/journalist is guilty of irresponsible journalism then they should expect to be called out on it, especially since their opinions can often have a huge impact (positive and negative) on an artist’s career.
  

20. Sometimes I’m tempted to talk about the role that corporate culture plays in the sale and distribution of illegal drugs throughout the United States and the world, and that the opium crop in Afghanistan has increased by 86 percent since the American occupation, and the fact that there are 126,000 civilian contractors in Iraq, but what does this have to do with music?

• Nothing, as far as I can tell (at least on the surface), but for the record I’m into it.
  

21. Can the orchestra be replaced by increasingly sophisticated computer-sampling programs and recording techniques, at least as far as recordings are concerned?

• When I see a question like this, it just sounds to me like fear mongering by someone who is uncomfortable with technology, or has little to no experience with it. As far as recordings go, the use of sophisticated sample libraries is great for film and tv scores, but are not real enough to replace a recording of live orchestral players. Also, even though it wasn’t part of the question, I think it’s important to remind everyone that advancements in technology will never, let me repeat that, NEVER replace live performers or the thrill of live performance. Let’s collectively stop worrying about that.
  

22. When a visual artist can sell a one-of-a-kind work for hundreds of thousands of dollars and anyone on the internet can have a composer’s work for nothing, how is a composer going to survive? And does it matter?

• There is a lot I could say about this, but I’ll try to keep it brief. The obvious answer is to get a position teaching, but those jobs are limited, and not everyone wants to be a teacher, and that’s fine. However, composers should get over the idea that they can sustain themselves financially solely on commissions. Lots of composers and performers are finding new ways of getting their art out through writing music to perform themselves, forming new music ensembles (Talea ensemble, Dal Niente, Alarm Will Sound), doing their own recording and distribution. It seems that the 21st century composer has to be an entrepreneur as much as an artist. On a side note, if a composer is trying to make money primarily on commissions and selling his/her music, then the composer can’t focus on making every piece masterpiece, so Branca just answered question 3 by even considering this question.
  

23. Should composers try to reflect in their music the truth of their natures and the visions of their dreams whether or not this music appeals to a wide audience?

• This question is similar to question 5, but I’ll still answer. First, I think there is a problem with saying that there is objectively something a composer should do. Who is to say how someone is supposed to express their artistic voice? Also, I think for composers (and all artists) to strive for a wide audience can often be an exercise in futility. Everyone hears and perceives music differently, and composers all conceive their music differently. The primary reason popular music reaches a large audience is mostly due to marketing and has very little to do with the quality and appeal of the music. Mass appeal takes into account market research, target audience, image, etc., and in order to reach the wide audience, something has to give, and if what gives is artistic integrity then the allure of mass appeal isn’t worth it. Some musicians can achieve mass appeal, and when it happens it’s a wonderful thing, but if mass appeal is the primary goal of your music then, in my humble opinion, you are creating a product, not art.
  

24. Why are advances in science and technology not paralleled by advances in music theory and compositional technique?

• This is a loaded question. Music theory continues to develop as music continues to develop. There are entire journals of music devoted to analysis of late 20th and early 21st century music. Additionally, those advances in science and technology ARE ADVANCING COMPOSITIONAL TECHNIQUE! I don’t mean to sound arrogant or rude, but Branca is kind of showing his lack of knowledge of electronic/computer music with this question and with question 21.

25. Post-Post Minimalism? Since Minimalism and Post-Minimalism we’ve seen a short-lived Neo-Romanticism, mainly based on misguided attempts to return to a 19th century tonality, then an improv scene which had little or nothing to do with composition, then a hodge-podge of styles: a little old “new music,” a little “60’s sound colorism”, then an eclectic pomo stew of jazz, rock and classical, then a little retro-chic Renaissance … even tonal 12-tonalism. And now in Germany some “conceptual” re-readings of Wagner. What have I left out? Where’s the music?

• Where’s the question? Branca just mentioned a few developments in the late 20th century and, from what I can tell, is making the assumption that this isn’t music? Is that what’s happening here? Also, what is retro-chic Renaissance, and where can I find some? I guess my attempt at an answer is that music is everywhere, it’s constantly changing and evolving, and because of advancements in technology it’s become more widely available. And in no way is that depressing.
  
  

Well, there it is. Glenn Branca’s 25 questions and Jon Fielder’s 25 answers.

I’d like to get a discussion going about this, for anyone interested in humoring me. Also, any reactions or feelings about the questions themselves would be an interesting discussion as well. Put your answers, comments, concerns in a comment below and let’s get a discussion going!