I listened yesterday to William Bolcom's "Songs of Innocence and of Experience". It made me think again about polystylism. I like the idea of polystylism, first of all because I believe it offers a virtually unlimited range of tools and expressive possibilities to artists and composers. The most important thing, beyond any other, is the expressive quality of art and music. Or else, why do we really do it? Thus, if in piece of art, or music, somebody manages to imagine and "invent" and bring into existence a work that is so expressive and varied and convincing while using polystylism, style is entirely unimportant. Rules and barriers and preconceptions, are much less interesting than a moving, inspiring, coherent, perhaps even life changing message.
But here is where the problem comes. Can something that uses polystylism extensively be truly coherent, and convincing, and balanced as a whole? Because polystylism per se is just a gimmick if it is used as a goal in itself, and not as a means to unexplored expressive heights! Polystylism should only happen because of a genuine need of expressing something beyond stylistic barriers. And it should be totally convincing, unless you want to create nothing more than caricatures. And those were interesting for a while - but there are too many around now, there is nothing new in it anymore. If a work switches too often, too suddenly, between styles that are maybe too "far" from eachother, it becomes an "artistic schizophrenia". Of course that can and should be surprises, but too many of them and there is no more surprise, but only an incoherent, incomprehensible mess.
Also, I know from my experience among other musicians, friends - and myself too - that it takes very little for somebody to decide they don't like a piece. Maybe just because of a short passage they for some reason find "boring", or "irritating", etc People can easily "condemn" a piece even only because of a short section of it.
Now, I don't want to imply that "Songs of Innocence and of Experience" fails. But so far, I am not convinced it succeeds either.
I don't have time for more now, I'm afraid.
But here is where the problem comes. Can something that uses polystylism extensively be truly coherent, and convincing, and balanced as a whole? Because polystylism per se is just a gimmick if it is used as a goal in itself, and not as a means to unexplored expressive heights! Polystylism should only happen because of a genuine need of expressing something beyond stylistic barriers. And it should be totally convincing, unless you want to create nothing more than caricatures. And those were interesting for a while - but there are too many around now, there is nothing new in it anymore. If a work switches too often, too suddenly, between styles that are maybe too "far" from eachother, it becomes an "artistic schizophrenia". Of course that can and should be surprises, but too many of them and there is no more surprise, but only an incoherent, incomprehensible mess.
Also, I know from my experience among other musicians, friends - and myself too - that it takes very little for somebody to decide they don't like a piece. Maybe just because of a short passage they for some reason find "boring", or "irritating", etc People can easily "condemn" a piece even only because of a short section of it.
Now, I don't want to imply that "Songs of Innocence and of Experience" fails. But so far, I am not convinced it succeeds either.
I don't have time for more now, I'm afraid.
No comments:
Post a Comment