Several experiences recently have gotten me thinking about the "state" of modern "classical" music. The first was a conversation with a student where we discussed how little influence modern "classical" composers have on society. He said, "But that should change, right? Because it's become so much more accessible?"

Then today my assistant instructor was teaching minimalism, and he kept comparing it to integral serialism.

Then just now I saw a thread on Facebook: a middle-aged composer had (lightheartedly) complained that so many young composers point out on their websites that they write music that "people want to hear," and most of the replies were from people saying that we should be happy they're writing things people want to hear, because modernism ruined music and now they're trying to save it.

I have mixed feelings about this. I believe high modernism alienated a lot of people, but the absolute disdain with which it's seen today by anyone who's not a music theorist (and even a lot of music theorists) is almost offensive. Someone found almost every hated piece beautiful--this is almost never discussed--and there is beauty in complexity.

At the same time, I am pretty convinced that people are wrong when they suggest that things are better today. The modernists may have driven away their audience. But the reason modern "classical" composers don't have a comparable voice today isn't due to the modernists: it's due to radical changes in society that have occurred in the meantime and had both good and bad effects. One of those effects is that people can now easily have enough music in their lives. We can hear it anytime, for very cheap, from digital media and the internet. But we can also experience it live in invigorating (and socially valued) venues at bars and restaurants, again for pretty cheap. Why would the average person go out of their way to go to a symphony concert? (Of course, "elite" society has embraced The Classics as "our music," and that's one reason.) That's not a socially exciting venue any more for most people, and they have alternate routes to music that are very satisfying.

If we want to "draw people back to classical music," the large-scale changes that need to happen aren't "writing prettier music." They are education on the one hand, or changing everything about "classical" music: the way it's written, the venues in which it's performed, and the discourse about it in society. There are ensembles enthusiastically pursuing the latter changes, but to me they can have a sense of faddishness to them ("let's throw some Radiohead on the concert!").

Of course, to an educator like myself, the important time is now. I get to experience lots of great music myself, so in many ways I'm happy with where we are right now. But I teach everything I possibly can, and that includes Babbitt and Boulez and Stockhausen along with Rochberg and Riley and Adams. Okay, to be honest, I'm not including John Williams, or Eric Whitacre, or Frank Ticheli, but I'd love to make the effort to do so. (Hm.... maybe not Ticheli.) I will finish my course by pointing out to my students that in teaching a course on 20th century music, I'm telling a story, and hopefully empowering them to retell the story in their own words. They're not passive observers of changes in society or music--they're the ones who will shape them.

Sometimes that's scary to me, and sometimes it makes me really excited about the fact that I have the opportunity to teach them.