Back to The Virtue

During XX century, all contemporary musicians, serious or popular, could well envy classical musicians. Classical music was both high art and entertainment, and classical musicians and composers, such as Liszt, were in the same time musical semi-Gods and pop stars. That was during their’s lifetimes; and after theirs deaths, they are hailed in the face of new musicians as untouchable Gods. No wonder that many contemporary musicians were bothered; and some decided to try to do something about it.

Movie Music

In the times when official academic music was thoroughly unpopular, and pop music basic, movie composers John Williams, Ennio Morricone, Jerry Goldsmith, Maurice Jarre and others wrote music that was, like classical, both artistic and popular. Despite some striking originalities that movie composers introduced, sometimes writing purely electronic scores -- such as the notable Jerry Goldsmith's Alien soundtrack, movie music sounded very much like modern classical music. Institution of movie Oscar for music was unofficially also the prise for the best music out there.

However, academic circles always had mixed feelings about movie music. While recognizing its originality, quality and modernity, and the fact that many of the famed classical composers (like Shostakovitch, say) wrote notable movie scores, they were reluctant to address it. Often it was said that movie music is meant to work for movies and therefore can’t be considered as musical art on its own ground.

But obviously utilitarian function of music doesn’t necessarily tell about its quality. True reasons for this ignoration of movie music lied elsewhere, and they were basically coming down to the fact that academic circles closed themselves inside the well known territory of classical common practice and refusing to step outside. There was even a peculiar attitude of scorn towards movie music. It was viewed as belonging to “easy listening” field, and composers who wrote movie music as no more than second-rate classical composers. A fresh illustration:

New York Times

TV Review | 'Lights! Action! Music!'

In Praise of Film Scores (Didn’t You Hear Them?)

By STEPHEN HOLDEN

Published: August 6, 2007

Classical music for people who are afraid of classical music: that’s one way of looking at traditional film scores, which bring symphonically orchestrated music to more people than most serious composers are ever likely to attract to concert halls. As movie audiences are emotionally swept up in the synergy of photography, acting, settings and costumes, it is music more than any other element that effects what the director Francis Ford Coppola calls the “fusion” of these ingredients into “a critical mass.” It usually works best if it is only half-heard.

Those are among Mr. Coppola’s insights in “Lights! Action! Music!,” a fluffy, disorganized, woefully incomplete compendium of interviews and film clips about movie music that begins this month on public television stations. (It is shown tonight on WLIW in New York.) In a show that flits among more composers and directors than it has the time to accommodate, Mr. Coppola offers the most trenchant commentary. Many of the rest of the comments by various composers are reduced to hyperbolic sound bites included to give viewers a chance to connect a director or composer’s face with a few shallow observations.

Mr. Coppola recalls the Academy Award acceptance speech of the composer Dimitri Tiomkin, who wrote the thundering heroic scores for westerns like “Red River” and “High Noon.” In his speech upon winning best film score for “High Noon,” Mr. Coppola recalls, Mr. Tiomkin mischievously ran down a list of classical composers from whom he had stolen.

In these few first paragraphs of the article a reader already learned that movie music is a relatively unimportant art form that is essentially no more than stolen classical music. This unargumented lack of respect was at times indeed outraging. There was a contrast between appreciation of movie music among musical audiences and the scornful attitude of “musical state”. You could for example read articles saying how it is a pitty that John Williams' orchestration is not united with melodic sense of a certain virtualy unknown composer, who aledgely has better melodic sense than him. Ofcourse, John Williams melodies are world famous while referred master of melody was and will remain anonymous. No wonder than J. Williams got only two lines in Oxford Dictoinary of music, while Ennio Morricone doesn’t exist at all. And ofcourse, virtualy unknown composers had pages.

Why did movie composers had such a low place in musical state? This is what really bugged accademic environment: “…than most serious composers are ever likely to attract to concert halls”. A serious composer does not writte music for speakers, but for live interpertation on acoustic instruments, as dictated by classical common practice.

But this quasi-reason for rejection of movie music of it not being a musical culture on its own ground was a rather good shelter. It was true that movie music was bound for movies; it was belonging more to the world of movie directors than anywhere else.

“New Age” Generation

Controversy started with movie music gained full momentum when “New Age” generation of musicians, born after WWII, started to create genreless synthesizer-based music, “movie music without a movie”, with which we are mostly dealing with in this book. Containing elements of all known forms of music – from classical, over jazz and ethno, to pop and rock, from theoretical obsessions of XX century avantgarde to practical finesses of movie music, this music is, especially during 1970s, to become the most musicaly interesting happening of the period. Everything that movie music brought and that was difficult to describe and more gladly ignored by existing musical establishment, was now emphasized in pure shape: and the argument of music being the background for a movie couldn’t be used anymore. Consequently, despite all of its popularity and often avant-gardness, “New Age” became the most tabooed musical activity of XX century.

This music was made essentially outside of all numerous established circles. It was composed by scattered individual authors from different nations and with different backgrounds: Jean Michel Jarre from France, Vangelis from Greece, Mike Oldfield from England, Kraftwerk from Germany; then Andreas Vollenweider from Switzerland, Kitaro from Japan, David Lanz from America. All these musicians were not coming from any particular direction, nor making music according to any genre, as they often pointed out themselves.

“To me, music was more fundamental and more important that the thought of becoming a musician. I never felt like a musician. I don't feel like one now. Music to me is nature.” VANGELIS

The music itself was highly original and personal. It was also very varied - from depth, mystique and cold abstraction, to common, everyday inspirations. For example, JM Jarre’s albums had two distinct parts, the first sides of the records being more grandiose, and the second one more popular, with which this music was becoming a soundtrack for urban childhoods. Often connected with the world of science and cosmos, this music was telling mysterious stories that were leading listeners beyond the visible and common nature – similar to what popular scientific shows which romanticized scientific explorations of the time, such as Carl Sagan's Cosmos series (featuring music by Vangelis), were doing.

It was wildly succefull. Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells was sold in more than 20 million copies to date -- a success initially especially boosted by student population in England and elsewhere during 1970s. It will remain the best selling instrumental record ever. JM Jarre's wordless, downright weird mixtures of electronic sounds “Oxygene” and “Equinoxe” also sold in millions of copies throughout the world.

This music was the most unclassifiable music ever heard of. It never got a regular name until now. For some time people were usually calling it simply “instrumental music” or sometimes “synthesizer music”; soon there will be many more terms, most of them misguiding. Many etiquettes have been tried, but they were ambiguous and never settled down, as they are mostly rejected from the referred musicians themselves. Andreas Vollenweider was calling it “Contemporary Cosmopolitan Instrumental Music”.

Most often it was called New Age music. This term originally appeared during 1960s in America with quite a specific meaning. In this period, “Beautiful music” and “New Age” were musical movements whose aim was creating beautiful music in the times in which this path was departured both in academic and popular world. Term New Age was connected with same-named spiritual movement. This American New Age movement was mostly tied for ethnic, more precisely far-eastern and Buddhist traditions. This was so probably because this religion, being made to enable coexistence of many people and different races and languages on the same space, living harmonically one next to other, encouraging tolerance and mild temper, was attractive in modern globally over-crowded world, reflected in “world within a world” that is America. There is a book “Surreal history of elevator music and other Mood Song” written by one of the musicians close to these initial New Age ideas. But the label "New Age" will soon be applied to many other takes on music, in America and outside of it, that had no direct connections with New Age American musical and spiritual movement, which created a big mess. Many musicians referred as New Age musicians rejected this etiquette, and since the term constantly changed meaning, it was never quite sorted out. As it wasn’t making much sense to proclaim ethnic-based music into music of age of scientific developments. New Age today is basically more generational then musical entry, reffering to all the musicians motivated by the need to continue evolving classical and traditional music while utilizing new means.

These new means most promnently meant usage of electronic instruments. Much of what was always intellectual property of classical music, was now starting to be done on e-instruments. Obviously, it was only logical that equivalent of classical common practice in our times must be found within what is common sense to do today -- and is following XIX century and that of previous centuries common practice, common sense today?

The conventional instruments that are still used today were developed in the 17th century and now they must wear artificial limbs microphones, speakers. I think we should use instruments suited to our times and our culture: 99 percent of music is listened to through electronic means. The acoustic instruments that we know so well, like the violin and the harp, were invented at the beginning of the seventeenth century, and the piano somewhat later, but they were all created by the craftsmen of the time working closely with the composers of the time. The composers said "Try to make me an instrument like a violin, because I need this type of sound." Now, I have nothing against acoustic instruments, obviously. But if we want a new music adapted to our time, and we do not work with our own craftsmen to make new instruments, it means only that we are less clever than the composers of three centuries ago. Jean Michel Jarre

Less clever or not, by switching to electronic means of production and reproduction of music these musicians started creating new common practice of technological era. Theirs methods are still being worked-out and enriched with new tools.

Music of Technological City

The closeness of this music to modern day living conditions, closeness to feel, colors and tastes of technological city life, made this music easily becoming soundtrack of everyday life. It was thus sometimes referred to as “soundtracks for living”. It could be heard while shopping, while being in the center of the town, on the art exhibition, or on the fairground. It was reaching people in theirs homes through medias often semi-consciously, without taking the center of attention. This music was by rule was not first heard from a bought sound media; people would usually say that they recognize the music from somewhere, when actually listening to the record for the first time. When asked when they first became aware of it, they would usually answer they are not sure.

Authors themselves were not always delighted with this.

Laura Putti for "La Repubblica" newspaper, March 28 1989: “Yes, but your work has been associated with everything: there is no adventure series on TV, before or after his score for Antarctica, that doesn't use Vangelis' music. And the theme of the Barilla commercial has now become almost a classic...”

Vangelis: ”I'm very surprised as well. In the USA this is also crazy; the music used for commercials is almost always mine or made by my many imitators. I don't know if I like that."

But such broadcast made it very exposed, becoming a part of living space of everyone, even of those who weren’t buying it nor consciously listening to it. So the composers of this music were not only artists, but in a way masters of everyday space. This, among other, will enable JM Jarre to later stage concerts in full cooperation with city government, that would almost promote him in the one-day city major.

So there was the connection between electronic music and the world of business, everyday life and the city. It was therefore looking like some sort of official music of our time - like what “composer and impresario” Handel was in his time, moving from court to court as an attraction and staging musical spectacles, in the same time being the expression of power of the societies. In a similar manner, JM Jarre will stage his hi-tech musical and multi-media extravaganzas for millions of people on open space.

But this was not exactly music of contemporary industrial city. It was more music of the cities of the future; actually, what we equate with “a city” and “urbanity” since XX century is little more than deformation. Industrial city life is simply untasteful; it was immediatly recognized as such by people grew up on more refined taste of XIX century and earlier traditions. Much have been written about ugliness and, essentially, anti-urbanity of XX century cities and megalopolises. The pollution often associated with these cities was actually even the least problem; the life-style imposed by such cities – the constant noise, hurry, disorganization and growing alienation were much greater problems. While being built on much higher technology then cities of previous eras, these cities are urbanistically and culturally below, and we can only with admiration and nostalgia look at medieval cities and traditional cities, compared to which our cities are essentially less cities, as Serbian writter Svetislav Basara writes in his book “Ideology of Heliocentricsm”:

…diffuse contours of a megalopolis irresistibly remind of cancer tissue. They, basically, are nothing else, with innumerable tentacles of sub-urban settlements which are metastasizing in space turning it into a surface.

We will not go too far if we say that the downfall of western civilization starts with removing the city walls...

...city walls define municipal space, define center and primary orientation towards geographic directions. Furthermore, city walls separate the cultivated space of the city from undifferentiated space of nature. In the same time, by blocking the penetration of outer elements towards the inside, city walls stop the negative processes which flow from the city towards the outside.

City wall – as a boundary between the city and the city surroundings – disappears, city loses it's autonomy and now all negative influence, those from outside towards the inside as well as those from inside towards the outside, freely flow in both directions and undermine traditional institutions. The city diffusely penetrates into the environment and pollutes it, and pagan models of the surroundings enter the city eating away it's very foundations.

Lack of city walls, finally, means ceasing of differentiation between cultural order and barbarism and the beginning of the permanent siege in which those who attack the city and those who defend it are mixed in a social solution inside of which national membership erases individual differences.

Music-wise, the dirt and deformation with which pop music was crowding the world can be seen as expression of deformation of modern industrial city, with its combustion engines. Sometimes pop music was seen as essentially coming from “Africa”, black men; black man it is, but not that of Africa, but of modern industrial societies. Pop music was not the expression of Africa, Europe or America, of white, black or yellow man, but of industrial civilization, black population artificially imported in these cities, and consequent interactions between black and white races. XX century music in general was music born from conflicts - and among others, WW II conflict and the consequent “baby boom”. If that music lacked something above else, it is the same what modern cities most obviously lack – serenity.

New Age music was more belonging to the future technological city. Unlike industrial city, technological city could first be called city of serenity. We can imagine these “medieval fortifications of the future” – silent cities of electromobiles, covered with domes that protect it from chaotic will of surrounding natures climate, but also protect nature from the city. They are sharply differentiated from nature; inside the city is clean, fresh, human, and silent. Electronic music is an expression, and a vision of such a world and life style.

Electronic music actually started to circulate among people using those channels of industrial city that were already technologic - such as TV and radio, and soon home computers. Through these technological channels, electronic music was able to by great deal avoid usual pop industry of the time, and enter peoples homes directly.

Home music

Peoples homes were an important part of success of electronic music. When we look at it, scientific achievements did not change too much neither the street nor institutions. A photo of an average street today and of the past is not that different. But a photo from inside of our homes today and before, present completely different pictures. Homes were where technological changes were reflected; it is our urban houses which are full of scientific products and modernity, more than our surroundings. The shift of epochs happened there, rather than in the institutions or on the street.

Therefore urban homes became the carriers of the culture of the new age. From this new age cosiness of modern homes, as we might call it, people were looking the world around them through television, radio, books, and soon computers. Urban homes were XX century oases of beauty, freedom, sanity. Spielberg was painting those homes in his movies from 1980s; and these musicians were doing the same with theirs music.

Electronic music was not replicating the 'domestic' conditions for which it was made, but was using it as the context in which to bringing different feelings and ideas. Worlds most distant, as well as the invisible ones – both inside and outside of us, were shown, as well as worlds from the past or fantasies about the future.

The souls of modern urban people were shown to be not so simple as presented in pop music, nor exactly the same as listeners of previous centuries. From the way this music sounded, “the masses” seemed to be much more open minded and sensitive, even childish, than they were imagined to be.

While, as described, "New Age" music had potential to be music of our global surrounding, it was in the same time talking directly to the inner being of modern urban people -- more so then to theirs social being, be it that of the anarchic street or institutionalized world of work and business. When people return to theirs homes and put theirs social selves by side, is when this music would start to talk to them. On this way a very immediate and honest communication was possible, because in this period, more than ever, one could be close to what one really is only in ones home.

This home spirit was often scorned, and electronic musicians were widely named “New Age folks”. Many musicians themselves didn’t like that domestic spirit, such as Vangelis who had something against “domesticity” of Jean Michel Jarre’s records:

Oxygene was so commercial. It was so simple... better said, so domestic in it's whole approach.

But this scene produced the best music of the period, and Vangelis was there also, liked it or not. Later they will call it “house music”; but then it will be something different again -- music only technically made in houses, but drawing inspiration from the street and emitted to popular, street cultural space again. The generation of JM Jarre, Vangelis and Oldfield remained the only one to date to work on this true 'house' way.

It was this “home music” that freed modern music from out-dated elements of traditional classical music. Even the most notoriously untraditional experimental music coming from academic side had many hidden artificial connections with past; while all the written rules were broken, many unwritten ones remained. JM Jarre once said on this:

What is irritating about ‘modern music’, is that often it is not modern, and it is not music.

Space Of Freedom

The way on which music of New Age generation was made was similarly house-based as the conditions in which it was listened. Imagine entering a small Parisian flat and finding racks of weird instruments all over the kitchen. It is here where JM Jarre produced music, primarily for himself, “a world in a match-box” of his own. Soon it will be listened to in other flats of the kind. These musicians were thus creating a kind of flat-to-flat virtual space of freedom, where a few world stars were playing to millions of flats worldwide; experimental musical playground independent from everything that was institutionalized. Inside of this space, these musicians were creating pure music art as felt by one man sent to another, like the name of Vangelis piece “To the Unknown Man” suggests. New Age musicians avoided all established systems and society structures, both institutional and street ones, only using some of theirs channels. It was a kind of ethereal space invisible to the official radars and medias; yet it was everywhere around and was absorbing those who were living in modern urban conditions.

As a contrast to this wild way of making music, in the tradition music was written either by professional composers, selected among highly gifted and trained, or street artists who were making simple folk music. In classical epoch, it was understood that artist can become only by accepting layers of tradition; artists is formed on this way and only afterwards he can add something individual of his own devision. It was assumed that an individual means not that much, especially in intellectual things, and only the banalities and wrongness can be expected if an individual is left to do things on his/her own. What’s more, further back in history it was thought that if a piece of art is too different from existing ones, it is not art, but devils work.

Latter part of XX century was the first time in the history of music when important musical happening was coming neither from streets nor from schools. It could be somewhat compared with the way Schuberts and Schumans music was created, or with music made by princes and idle aristocrats and lords in medieval times - but this was essentially state music, only made in house circumstances. Classical tradition does however contain various examples, practical and theoretical, of “musician per ce” attitude – musician born as a musician and who needs no learning, apart from that s/he will spontaneously gather. “The Russian five” come to mind. However, complete spontaneity and self-teaching was decidedly not approved by classical culture. One should not hurry and give away to every impulse, because one will fall short and miss to reveal greatest potential, neither should one learn alone, because one will spend far more energy and time, failed attempts and failures, while life is short. As Tolstoy said:

We often hear young people saying: I don't want to live by the reason of the other, I will think myself. But why thinking about what is already known. Take what is there and go further. There lies the power of humanity.

But in New Age period, it was different. Why? Because in this period what could be found there didn't suffice.

Jean Michel Jarre:“I studied classical piano at the Paris Conservatory— and I must say that the way we are taught music, both in America and in Europe, is quite old-fashioned, because we learn from books that were written at th,~ beginning of the nineteenth century.“

Journalist: Do you think you could succeed if you haven’t studied music in an isolated academic environment?

Jean Michel Jarre: Obviously my music would be different. But, nobody should be complexed by classical musical training; it's nothing. It’s just a way to make music, not the only way. When I work with electronic instruments, I am not using my classical background. Why? Because electronic instruments are totally new, and so I have a totally spontaneous approach to them. I couldn't approach acoustic instruments so spontaneously, because I learned them.

This music was not only interesting to listen to, but was also inviting, in a sense of identification with musicians and theirs free spirit. They were recruiting new musicians of the kind. Especially with JM Jarre and Kraftwerk, it was easy to identify with them and try making music with the same means they used, because they sounded very self/home made. People, young especially, strive for freedom; rock was giving it, but not through this level of creativity.

It (music) is not a music school, it is not a kind of job, that to me seems completely schizophrenic. You can learn some technical things in school but the best thing is to build your own technique. You want to do your own thing, which is the way that you feel”. Vangelis

The Virtue of Musical Honesty

One of the most important virtues that this space of freefom rejuventaed, was honesty. Musicians were saying what they realty have to say, not artificially acting smarter than they are or hiding lack of idea with “complexities”. Better or worse, this music didn’t sound dry and boring.

Mike Oldfield: I don’t know, pop is kind of… silly to me.

Journalist: “Why do you think it’s silly? What is silly about it?”

Mike Oldfield: What is silly? Pretending. I can’t pretend.

Being honest, theese musicians made sense. It was this musicaly making sense that made these records interesting, be it hazy fantasies of the future from JM Jarre, meta-ethnical sound of Mike Oldifled or synthesizer pieces that sound timeless from Vangelis. These musicians returned common sense to music, and that started seriously lacking in classical music and was never quite there with pop music to begin with. It could be even claimed that these musicians were working on the most common-sense musical wavelength ever: neither turgid and intentionally-smart like classical often is, neither intentionally vulgar and artless like pop usually is.

Individual Eclecticism

Individuality was glorified in this scene. These musicians had the need to turn attention towards themselves by some unusual achievement more than by taking part in parties or again write Mozart & Beethoven-like pieces.

I've been a complete individualist since school and I never mixed with other groups - I was always the one who wanted to do something different. Mike Oldfield

A smart guy, a queer guy or a lousy guy… not a stereotype guy. Jean Michel Jarre

Oldfield is a musician of my generation. He was more into traditional and folk music, but similarly as me he was doing things how he felt, and not how he was taught it is being done. Jean Michel Jarre

While it was happening, it could have been called “swagger culture”. But it wasn’t some superficial swagger. It was an honest artistic strive. Because of all-present decadence, both in street and musical institutions, if a musician wanted to make new beautiful music of our times, he couldn’t afford to belong to neither academic nor pop circles, or even to movie music. All of these scenes on different ways went away form pure musical beauty. Institutions were sterile, and street was producing only pop-orgies. Movie music was docile servant of movies, very utilitarian. So those who wanted new music had no other terrain to work on but some private terrain outside of all institutions. They didn't invent music from the beginning all by themselves, of course; what they did, is using everything around them to produce something intimately theirs. This approach will later be called “individual eclecticism”. Therms such as “private music” also emerged. This private music was authentic wavelength of the generation. Resulting music sounded completely personable like no other ever written; the sheer authorship that these records radiated was unparalleled, even with movie music of the previous generation. It is the question if music ever was, and will ever be, so individualistically made again. A composer always had to be a sort of a monarch, always needed his own isolated space; and during XX century the way to achieve this was literary closing onselsef alone in owns musical world, inside of a private stand-alone studio. Thanks to technological revolution, a single musician could work independently. The first successful modernists were like lonely prophets out there; these musicians were maybe the greatest musical monarchs ever.

This individualism enabled these musicians to escape the contemporary confusion, before all the one that obscured what good music basically is. Through individuality, these musicians brought unexpected and enlightened flights of spirit; and even if not possessing the quality of products of enlightened eras, this music was incredibly original and beautiful in the same time. So these composers stand today for prime examples of triumph of individuality; creators-heroes, succeeding against chances.