The Death of ModernismExcerpts from William Rhoads's essay The Death of Modernism in Contemporary Music appeared in several issues of the WAC newsletter over 1996 and 1997. The entire essay is posted here.http://www.wiscomposers.org/news/rhoads/rhoads1.html

Copyright © 1998-2005 Wisconsin Alliance for Composers. All rights reserved.Last updated 19 June 2005.

IntroductionAutonomy vs. HeteronomyAhistoricity vs. HistoricityHigh/Low: Divisionism vs. SynthesisConception vs. PerceptionConclusion: PostmodernityBibliography

I. IntroductionWe must really accustom ourselves to the fact that there are periods of mutation in the history of music, and that these periods question the very principles that, after much discussion, have been generally accepted , and then by sheer reiteration, have gradually lost their significance.(Pierre Boulez, L'esthétique et les fétiches, 1962.)

The position Postmodernism occupies in the late 20th century has been a source for extensive discussion and debate, and, while much has been written to address this phenomena by artists and philosophers alike, taken as a unit, most of these theses support an apparent dichotomy of possible explanations. The first hypothesis, represented by Lyotard, Morgan, and Jencks, supports the notion that Postmodernism is simply a product of evolving Modernist thought. The other, represented by Rochberg, Ferry, and Krukowski, proclaims Postmodernism's independence by establishing evidence of its distinct practices and incompatible aesthetic framework in relation to Modernist principles. As a representative of the latter position, my intent will be to distinguish Postmodernism as a separate conceptual/artistic framework with its own governing principles and ideas. As a composer, I will address this issue as it relates to concert music by tracing, in tandem, the developments and ideas in aesthetic theory and contemporaneous musical activities. Before I lay out my theory, it is first necessary to 'clear the air' by addressing the well known arguments presented in opposition by Lyotard, Morgan, and Jencks.

While Jencks contends that Postmodernism would be better categorized as Late Modernism by virtue of a shared method of self-definition (i.e. definition by negation: not this, not that..), Lyotard supports the claim that Postmodernism is merely another stage of Modernist intellectual development toward the aesthetic goal of presenting the 'unpresentable' (e.g. the infinite) through art. The difference between the two (i.e. Modern/Postmodern) approaches discussed by Lyotard lies in their tactics for reaching the same (albeit logically impossible) goal. If the Modernists are concerned with presenting the unpresentable by negation, that is, only as missing contents implied through a recognizable formal structure, the Postmodernists are concerned with putting forward the unpresentable positively, with little or no emphasis on formal structure, as it is believed that aesthetic preoccupation with form results in further distancing oneself from the unattainable. So the two seemingly independent aesthetic ideologies laid out by Lyotard are, in fact, connected by virtue of a shared telic imperative--presenting the unpresentable. In the context of Morgan's definition, however, the plurality of artistic styles, considered so characteristic of Postmodern aesthetic thought, is a product of an accelerated, even vertiginous, Modernist tendency towards the ideal of originality. This pluralistic aspect of modernist thought is a symptom of the current state of affairs within the Modern epoch--that of a system which has run its course--which he labels the 'Delta of Modernism': "a point in the history of American art where the vanguard energies of artists began to divide and subdivide, and eventually to branch off into a network of autonomous and and uniquely individualistic concerns", about which, Morgan (I believe correctly) concludes that "the journalistic term 'Pluralism', which became associated with the art of the 1970's, gave some indication that the necessity for holding an aesthetically based set of criteria was being challenged." [Morgan: 183-4].

The resulting plurality of artistic styles occurring in the 70's represents a theoretical Eden of Modernist thought characterized by a shift from the 'Revolutionary Individualism' of Modernism to the 'Narcissistic Individualism' of Ultra-Modernism. The two individualist classifications are distinguished by means of degree. While the ideological base of Revolutionary Individualism lies within a particular group or movement (e.g. Serialism, Neoclassicism, or Post-Impressionism), the aesthetic foundation of the Narcissistic Individualist lies in the each individual artist. The shift from a Modernist to an Ultra-Modernist artistic climate can be traced, on a local temporal level, to the Avant-Garde activities of the 1960's, and, on a broader temporal level, to the very beginnings of Modernist thought in the late 19th century, when Modernist imperatives were given the breath of life through artistic exemplification. As I will explain in greater detail later, this gradual shift into an Ultra-Modernist universe harked, with equal conviction, not only the dusk of Modernist thought, but also, concomitantly, the dawn of Postmodern aesthetics. With this in mind, one can easily see where the confusion arises regarding the existence of a new era, as Pluralism furnished a nearly seamless connection between the two epochs; which is perhaps better understood not as a connection but as an elegant transformation of aesthetic thought. In this respect, the 'Delta of Modernism' is the concomitant Modernist equivalent of 'Pluralism', which, for sake of clarity, I will classify as the first sign of a new Postmodern era. Returning to Morgan's prophetic observation, what set of aesthetic criteria did Pluralism challenge? It challenged the idea that any one artistic ideology was better than any other, which led to the eventual breakdown of two of Modernist paradigms: divisionism and ahistoricism. It challenged, by extension, the Modernist ideal of social autonomy and the belief in the value of

creating for posterity as, in their isolation, artists found, not the promise of future success and, hence, the eventual possibility of communicating with others in society, but the very real prospect of complete and utter indifference--a total loss of individuality caused by sheer power of number. In short, this transitional period challenged everything the Modernists believed in, and it's success was as inevitable as its own timely departure.

In regard to Lyotard's assimilative characterization of Postmodernism as another Modernist tactic toward reaching the same end (presenting the unpresentable), this entire definition rests on a house of cards, since one of the defining traits of Postmodernity is its complete lack of teleology; a stand which is partly the result of a rejection of two concepts: the ideal of progress, and that of the masterpiece, both of which carry implications of exclusionism (a, perhaps the Postmodern anathema). "A period had been entered in which the rules and practices that made the masterpiece a possibility and an ideal no longer defined the making of art...a new generation of artmakers who felt themselves disenfranchised by the institutions and attitudes embodied in the masterpiece, construed as the symbol of everything elitist, exclusionary, and oppressive in the world of art." [Danto 1991: 272]. Hence, progress excludes those who do not share in a telic imperative, and the masterpiece excludes those who do not subscribe to the social/aesthetic framework in context of which the masterpiece is recognized as such. Perhaps more importantly, in a true Pluralistic society there can be no context within which to judge, no shared set of principles through which to gain recognition. As Krukowski observes, "its [i.e. Postmodernism's] central aesthetic 'virtues' do not dominate--indeed, cannot be located in its various uses...Indeed, there is no common criterion of aesthetic virtues that applies, nor, as it seems, is one wanted." [Krukowski 1992: 195]. Much of the above argument can, of course, be used to refute Jencks' 'Late Modern'/'Definition by Negation' theory, as it too depends on the inherently Modern concept of exclusionism as the primary basis for its argument; a principle which has since been replaced by its logical antithesis. I will only say, in addition, that while I believe Jencks is correct in establishing negativism as a common thread between the two modes of artistic thought, this link is far too general to serve as a sufficient connective agent, since it's commonly the case that one era succeeds another by virtue of a dialectic (e.g. Classical period challenging the ornamental/textural excesses of the Baroque). That said, to lay any possible suspicions to rest regarding the validity of my refutation I will devote the final section of my paper to a more positive definition of Postmodernism. Before I do so, I will offer a description of the conceptual foundation of contemporary aesthetics by way of contrast. That is, I will explicate the differences between the two aesthetic practices by comparing the unique perspectives of each in regard to those issues which led to their initial separation. The distinction between the two practices can be broadly characterized by a duality in perspective with regard to the following interrelated sets of issues:

1. Autonomy vs. Heteronomy 2. Ahistoricity vs. Historicity 3. High / Low: Divisionism vs. Synthesis 4. Conception vs. Perception .

II. Autonomy vs. Heteronomy

All art stands outside life, in a space of its own, metaphorically embodied in the plexiglass display case, the bare white gallery, the aluminum frame. When one seeks a deeper connection between art and life than this, Modernism is over.(Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box, 1992)

Social isolation and emphasis on formal considerations (art for art's sake) is a hallmark of Modernist aesthetics. In the field of music this view is exemplified in the works and writings of the Post-Serialist generation whose major proponents include: Boulez, Adorno, Babbitt, and Stockhausen, as well as a host of other composers primarily associated with universities. The main interest of the group's adherents was to exploit the formal possibilities inherent in the sound medium by manipulating materials in a completely self-referential manner. The goal was to create a piece of music which was as close to it's own nature as possible, untainted by extra-musical considerations, as this would only serve as a barrier between the composer and her/his materials and would consequently impede one's capacity to express oneself in a purely abstract, musically exclusive context. "The disappearance of all syntactical and grammatical paradigms, of all lexical tokens, focus it unremittingly to generate connections from within itself, connections which no longer emanate from elsewhere, and if they did they would just be dismissed as alien." [Adorno 1963: 258]. In consequence to this approach, two implicit concepts arise. First is the notion that art is created not for the consumption of contemporary society but for posterity. Art is supposed to be misunderstood by the unenlightened, in fact, one may go so far as to say that good art, to be considered such, must fulfill this criteria if it has something to offer beyond the scope of concurrent compositional procedures and mannerisms. Second is the idea of the isolated genius--an individual "gifted with a personality that puts him ahead of his time--his followers, although they are already, as such, an elite, have something 'compact' about them--that he is destined to the solitude reserved for the elite of this elite." [Ferry: 200]. These two concepts as a pair, as they relate to music, represent what I believe is a Modernist misinterpretation of an artistic philosophy attributed to Ludwig von Beethoven. Using this misconstrued version of Beethovenian integrity as a spiritual guide, Modernist composers equated these two aspects of Beethoven's personality with artistic supremacy. In this framework, composers were content in their autonomous explorations, for success was just around the corner: "bitter though this disagreement may be, it is, I believe, only a question of the two parties being 'out of phase' with each other, and the next generation will fairly soon correct the unhappy relationship between society and the individual." [Boulez: 38]. Success will happen soon enough; in the mean time we, as composers, must content ourselves with small audiences consisting mostly of specialists and the occasional sympathizer. After all, no one else is expected to understand - how could they? "Apart from the highly sophisticated and complex constructive methods of any one composition, or group of compositions, the very minimal properties characterizing this body of music are the sources of it's 'difficulty', 'unintelligibility', and isolation...each component of a musical event also has been 'multiplied'...each such atomic event is located in a five dimensional musical space determined by: pitch class, register, dynamics, duration, and timbre. These five components not only together define a single event, but, in the course of a work, the successive values of each component creates an individually coherent structure, frequently in parallel with corresponding structures created by each of the other components. Inability to perceive and remember precisely the values of any of these components results in a dislocation of the event in a work's musical space, an alteration of it's relation to all

other events in the work and, thus, a falsification of the composition's total structure." [Babbitt: 279]. With this state of affairs in mind, Babbitt concludes with a practical word of advice: "The composer would do himself and his music an immediate and eventful service by total, resolute, and voluntary withdrawal from the public world to one of private performance and electronic media, with it's very real possibility of complete elimination of the public and social aspects of musical composition." [Babbitt: 279-80]. I say this interpretation of Beethovenian artistic precepts is somewhat Procrustean in its Modern guise because the one vital characteristic which is overlooked in Beethoven's artistic persona is his ability to communicate with the public in his own time. After all, what use is their in leading people to new artistic heights if nobody has the desire to follow? I term this peculiar Modernist dilemma the 'Beethovenian Complex'.

In reaction to Modern autonomist principles, composers representing the new Postmodern artistic philosophy, (e.g. Monk, Reich, Zorn, Daugherty, and Anderson), confronted the old order with it's diametrical opposite--complete and indiscriminate heteronomy. No longer concerned with formal/aesthetic purity, Postmodern composers turn their attention to content, using as a source for ideas, the immediate social structure and the characteristics arising from its context, reveling in the new found "freedom to choose or reject alliances according to the internal imperatives of style." [Krukowski 1992: 137]. The inherent lacuna present in the Beethovenian Complex is now recognized, and the Postmodern reaction to this dilemma is compensatory. Art eats it's surrounding culture, uses it for nourishment, to give it life and return life to its constituents. An artist's influences are as vast as our society's technological capacity to collect, store, and retrieve information. Contentual sources range from world musics to television, from personal experiences to political issues, in fact, procedures of the Modernists themselves become nothing more than an option--another product in the marketplace of ideas. This democratization of influences leads to an ironic turn of events with regard our immediate predecessors, described by Krukowski as a "demotion of artistic autonomy from artistic ideal to a specific kind of image--one of many images in the crowded lexicon of newly reputable images." [Krukowski 1992: 213]. This indiscriminate assimilative dynamic applies equally to the Postmodern composer him/herself, as a new discovery is immediately shipped, stored, and shelved for the next interested consumer. The contemporary artist perceives formalism as removed, irrelevant, and ultimately dangerous to her/his existence. Autonomy is lamented as an aesthetic error, as Krukowski explains: "The growing disparity between social and musical development couples formal freedom with social alienation. Within its development music discards its traditional service function, yet it is unable to assume a new symbiotic relation to its culture... Music's formal victory is thus rendered hollow by society's indifference." [Krukowski 1987: 50]. An additional consequence to this democratization of influences is the demystification of the act of artistic expression. No longer is the ideal artist a fated inhabitant of Zarathrustra's mountaintop--isolated and, hence, beyond the affairs of everyday existence. The myth of the solitary, self-destructive artist has been dispelled: dismissed as just another example of Modernist exclusionism, as Krukowski advises "beliefs must be updated... first belief to go is about the rarefied nature of genius--second... identifies creativity with illness...maladjusted and self-destructive, third... the primacy of value judgments on interpretation." [Krukowski 1992: 182-4]. As a result of this demystification we find that we are, in fact, all creative, that creativity doesn't necessarily lead to self-

destruction or marginalization, and finally, that all art, good or bad, is valuable because the act of creativity itself is valuable.

In the midst of this seemingly insatiable pluralistic universe one can easily suffer from aesthetic vertigo, or from anxiety caused by Icarian nightmares, but they can do so without shame--what one won't encounter here is the imperative of originality.

III. Ahistoricity vs. HistoricityIn the new music, time as duration becomes a dimension of musical space. The new spatial image of music seeks to project the permanence of the world as cosmos, as the eternal present. It is an image of music which aspires to Being, not Becoming.(George Rochberg, The New Image of Music, 1963)

The concept of ahistoricity in Modernist thought centers around two key issues: the emphasis on innovation or aesthetic originality as a criteria for artistic value, and a conscious resistance to historically contingent mannerisms and procedures in the creation of new works of art with a goal toward complete emancipation from the framework of tradition. With regard to the latter position, turn of the century painter, Jules Pascin complains, "To be Modern is to perceive the past as the locus of only negative messages, of things not to do, of ways not to be, or, of the paintings in museums as 'les morts'" [Danto 1992: 124]. The quintessential Modernist never looks back, and enters without regret into a monogamous relationship with the future; s/he wears her/his infatuation like a badge of honor, exhibiting a near puritanical commitment to the ideal of progress. Picasso further observes, "Painters no longer live in a tradition and so each one of us must recreate an entire language. Every painter of our times is fully authorized to recreate that language from A to Z." [Danto 1992: 128-9]. References to the past are considered signs of weakness and artistic insincerity, degrading not only to the integrity of current aesthetics but also to that of preceding artistic accomplishments. Examples of aesthetically corrupt figures are numerous, but are fortunately easily found sifting through the ruins of our dead past, among them are such composers as Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Dvorak, Tschaikovsky, to name just a few, and, of course, Rachmaninov, in whose music, "in the course of its Post-Romantic debasements... emptied it of all content, freed it of every genuine musical event and threw it on to the market as a commodity." [Adorno 1963: 39].

The importance of innovation, and emphasis on artistic originality, isn't merely a mandate for progressive artistic action, it is a necessary requirement, an aesthetic obligation. The continual evolution of artistic ideas and procedures ensures art's continued existence in the future, for, without movement there is death, and if art ceases to move, it too shall die--caught in a perpetual state of creative indolence and aesthetic entropy. Already, this danger exists, caused by the monolithic presence of popular culture, a nearly irresistible commodification machine that transforms everything in it's path into a cheap imitation of the original idea, a cultural comfort food. In this social context, the Modernist is caught in a Promethean struggle between society and solitary artist. Adorno explains, "The new music suffers from the practiced and the all-too-familiar, from which it differs so profoundly. It impotently takes up arms against the way of the world; its posture is aggressive." [Adorno 1963: 256].

By contrast, the Postmodern musical landscape--represented by such composers as Bolcom, Rochberg, Crumb, and Blackwood--is characterized not by perpetual artistic supersession, but by complete indifference with regard to the concepts of historical linearity and teleological progression. As Krukowski explains, the past loses its linear connection with the present, thus, historical style, rather than seen as an aesthetic taboo or as 'les morts', becomes a bazaar of available influences [Krukowski 1992: 200]. The Modernist fixation on the future has been replaced by a Postmodernist infatuation with the past and present. "Past art is for using, not venerating; it contains no telic imperatives of stylistic transformation or continuity, but it does provide a practical resource for present purposes... it is a history of recurring images, contrasting ideologies, and assumable technologies." [Krukowski 1992: 196]. History is seen, not as a sequence of exhausted ideas and obsolete aesthetic practices, but as an artistically rich, culturally relevant, and intellectually fascinating resource for possible aesthetic guises and compositional procedures. Contrary to popular belief, this intense interest in reconnecting with the past, doesn't forsake the cause of artistic innovation. The Postmodern aesthetic universe is limitless in the sense that it's ultra-inclusivist tendencies continue to permit the opportunity for development of new artistic ideas while it's relativist disposition grants aesthetic value to what in the immediate past may have been considered the most ephemeral artistic ideas. Since there is no teleological framework within which to judge a discovery as having successfully moved the artworld closer to some aesthetic utopia, the concept of artistic evolution has ceased to have any practical application with regard to relative artistic validity. In other words, while new artistic inventions are possible in a Postmodern tradition, these discoveries are no longer considered any more valid than their predecessors, or even their contemporaries, since there is no aesthetic framework or telic imperative within which to determine such a status. There is no artistic utopia, and if one does in fact exist we may safely assume our existence in it. For, if no sense of direction is apparent in the current activities of composers, then perhaps none is needed, and all desires to the contrary can easily be dismissed as Modernist nostalgia. Since direction implies motion toward a particular end, if this teleological tracing reveals no common activity then we can conclude one of three things: 1. we are in a temporary state of aesthetic limbo (Modernist Assimilative Theory: Lyotard, Jencks), 2. we have reached a post-historical aesthetic utopia wherein all past telic imperatives have been successfully attained (Death of Art Theory: Danto), or 3. that the need or desire to fulfill some aesthetic goal has been declared unnecessary in determining the validity of a work of art and even dangerous to the continued existence of art making in contemporary society (Postmodern Aesthetic Theory). It is this final theory which I believe most adequately describes the anti-teleological basis of contemporary artistic ideology. If the third explanation is accepted as a logical foundation for the Postmodern aversion to teleological imperatives then the Modernist concept of artistic progression is safely declared null and void in the context of contemporary aesthetic thought. It was certainly in this spirit that Rochberg announced, "I was freed of the conventional perceptions which ascribe some goal directed, teleological function to the past, insisting that each definable historical development supersedes the one that has just taken place either by incorporating or nullifying it." [Rochberg: 239], a declaration which, if anything, is clear testimony to a fundamental shift in aesthetic principles from the concept of utopian evolution to that of perpetual utopia--from a continual state of becoming to one of infinite being.

With this Postmodern position in mind I will further elaborate on two aesthetic paradoxes resulting from Modernist precepts which are often presented by contemporary artists as evidence of the era's extinction. The first is the result of what Rochberg terms the "cultural pathology" of his own time, characterized by an uncontrollable desire for aesthetic originality. Philosopher, Luc Ferry, describes the dynamics of this particular state of affairs as follows, "Solely obsessed by the quest for novelty and originality for their own sake, it slips over into its opposite, the mere empty, dreary repetition of the gesture of innovation for innovation's sake. The break with tradition itself becomes tradition--'tradition of the new'." [Ferry: 196]. Hence, the Modernist stand against history, which existed partly as a result of an aversion to aesthetic stagnance, and partly as a means to allow artists greater freedom for expression, gradually evolved into its own worst enemy. The Modernist repulsion toward inert artistic principles resulted in an uncontrollable fixation on novelty, which eventually caused the Modernist aesthetic dynamic to turn in on itself. The result was to counter the aesthetic inertia caused by historical derivation with a new aesthetic inertia caused by an obsession for innovation and novelty. A 'tradition of derivation' is replaced by a 'tradition of the new'. Also as a result of this aesthetic compulsion toward originality and revulsion to historically contingent mannerisms was the artistic obligation to avoid referential repetition or traditional gestures. Consequently, the Modernist goal toward complete artistic freedom ultimately fostered a new system of aesthetic constraints, every bit, if not more limiting to the act of artistic expression as the one preceding. Ferry summarizes, "since imitation or repetition tend to become the sin against taste par excellence, in fact, the only one that is unanimously so regarded, the artist, who believed himself finally free from rules and constraints sees himself subjected to the constraint of constraints, the one imposed by his own historical consciousness." [Ferry: 233-4]. The second aesthetic paradox stems from Modernism's self-proclaimed infatuation with the future in lieu of all things historical. This preoccupation with the future finds artistic value only in the gesture of innovation and originality and looks with disdain on referentiality to past practices. Consequently, this viewpoint undermines the value and durability of all artistic achievements, past, present, and future, so that even the Modernist hopes of posterity are shattered by their own criteria for artistic worth. In fact, all artistic innovation, although created with eye toward the future, can ultimately be considered hopeless with regard to artistic validity, for, as soon as the work is created it becomes a present achievement whose eventual fate is to become an obsolete artifact of the past. Hence, the transformation of a Modernist artwork from an object worthy of attention to one of aversion is merely a matter of time--once it is created it is past, and once it is past it is no longer an object of aesthetic concern.

IV. High/Low: Divisionism vs. SynthesisI do not belong to your organization. I know nothing about it. I'm not even interested in it--and yet, a request has been made for me to give what purports to be a keynote speech. Before I go on, let me warn you that I talk dirty, and that I will say things you will neither enjoy nor agree with. You shouldn't feel threatened, though, because I am a mere buffoon, and you are all Serious American Composers. For those of you who don't know, I am also a composer. I taught myself how to do it by going to the library and listening to records. I started when I was fourteen and I've been doing it for thirty years. I don't like teachers. I don't like most of the things you believe in--and if that weren't bad enough, I earn a living by playing the electric guitar.

(Frank Zappa, excerpt from the keynote address delivered at the 1984 convention of the American Society of University Composers (ASUC))

The conceptual division between high and low culture inherent in Modernist precepts is a direct result of the imperative of social autonomy which dictates a necessary opposition to the qualitative equation of value and popularity. Any attempt at connecting with the culture at large through one's medium is immediately considered an artistic compromise as the only means to achieve this connection lies in exploiting those procedures and mannerisms which are common to all who exist in society. This attempt would consequently curtail the artist's ability to fulfill the necessary criteria of originality since the general population is familiar only with those gestures graced with the luxury of time to allow an adequate degree of cultural dissemination. Hence, with the imperative of originality firmly in place, all creative ventures which in any way incorporate commonplace musical gestures are immediately categorized as 'non-art', or perhaps more charitably, 'low art', or 'mass art'. To the Modernists, low or mass art, by virtue of it's derivative nature and it's relatively gargantuan proportions, is a malignant, monolithic cultural presence whose primary effect is one of artistic ossification, intellectual stagnance, and creative inertia. In short, it is a threat not only to the aesthetic teleological principles of Modernism but also to the cultural development of the society as a whole. Low culture is ubiquitous, it has taken complete control over the masses who have long since traded in their ability to make conscious decisions for a mindless dependence on the commodification machine of mass culture, which is all too happy to make the decisions for them. Once the informational possibilities are preselected and prepackaged by the cultural power brokers they are then presented in a desiccated form to the masses, marketed only for those features deemed most marketable, at the expense not only of its own potential, but also of the potential of the people to entertain other possibilities and alternatives. Adorno observes, "The reactions of listeners appear to have no relation to the playing of the music. They have reference, rather, to the command of publishers, sound film magnates, and rulers of radio. Famous people are not the only stars. Works begin to take the same role. A pantheon of bestsellers builds up. The programs shrink, the shrinking process not only removes the moderately good, but the accepted classics themselves undergo a selection that has nothing to do with quality." [Adorno 1994: 540]. The entropic nature of this state of affairs leads to an increasing level of intolerance toward the presentation of what is new and different. The constant reiteration of traditional artistic forms and styles leads to a disproportionate desire for comfort and inactivity over imaginative interpretation and intellectual stimulation. This increased affinity for repetition and familiarity finds expression in the marketing slogans and advertisements of the aforementioned cultural money mongers in an effort to distort and exploit those features which will ensure a profitable return. The result is a vicious and increasingly emaciated circle which threatens to either assimilate the Modernist creations into it's context in a desiccated form or to expel it from the culture altogether. To be Modern it is not enough to distinguish yourself as occupying a higher ideological plane in relation to low culture, or to proclaim yourself as the unacknowledged cultural messiah, you must also take an aggressive stand against its crippling properties, if for no other reason than for spiritual self-preservation.

The Postmodern position on the issue of divisionism in contemporary culture is less the result of an intentional dialectic with our predecessors than that of a characteristic

distaste for all things exclusionary. This Modernist dichotomy of high and low is seen as a manifestation of aesthetic bigotry, a reflection of the oppressive nature of white, upper income males who implicitly use factors of race, sex, and economic status to stratify artistic worth in society. As Krukowsi explains, the "distinction between fine and popular art loses credibility in Postmodernism because they are seen more as fostering political illusions than worthy ambitions." [Krukowski 1992: 200]. "Art for art's sake, and the formalism that was part of it, floated to the 'top' of society, to a cultured elite who saw themselves as a cut above those who could not comprehend this art and who wallowed in the vulgar, the popular, arts. What begins to emerge is that the distinction between high and popular art does not merely distinguish different types of art, but, much more than this, it actually accentuates and reinforces traditional class divisions in society." [Novitz: 35-6]. Modernism is seen as the last bastion of white European male domination over the realm of artistic activity--another example in a long line of elitist and exclusionary historical aesthetic contexts. If the underlying artistic concerns of Modernism are rooted in the world of philosophy, the artistic concerns of Postmodernism are firmly entrenched in the sphere of history. How fair are historical accounts with regard to artistic validity if all historical documentation is marred with the same exclusionary tendency apparent in the ideology of our aesthetic predecessors? Look at the diversity of artistic activity in contemporary society; certainly the artistic climates of past cultures were more varied than our historical accounts of them would seem to describe. If these aesthetic biases are truly invalid, then much of what should have been documented is lost forever, covered over by the self-aggrandizing efforts of xenophobic cultural philosophies and megalomaniacal social agendas. Now that we are aware of this prejudicial injustice we must make an effort to move beyond it. Besides, denying this inherent right of all creative practices to be placed on a level aesthetic plane would result in a split in our own personae, and would reveal a somewhat hypocritical nature in our own everyday activities. The Postmodern attraction to this argument is further enhanced by the fact that even artists subscribing to this set of beliefs at one level or another find themselves leading a double life: one existing in the halls of academia, (the contemporary equivalent of Zarathrustra's mountaintop) dedicated to Modernist principles of formalism and autonomy, creating intellectually intriguing compositional structures which adhere to an equally engaging framework of compatible procedural theories; the other existing in society, watching T.V., listening to Jazz, Hip-Hop and Rock & Roll, reading Stephen King novels, worshipping cultural icons, and keeping up on--perhaps even participating in--current social trends, concerns, and tribulations. In this respect, the Modernists, many of whom indulged in one or more of the various forbidden fruits of popular culture, were, in a sense, closet eaters, neither out nor about, whose secret fancies and capricious escapades were experienced not without a certain degree of shame--perhaps this is, in part, what made it so attractive.

Aside from the Postmodern affinity for inclusionism and its disdain for social prejudice, another aspect of contemporary aesthetic ideology which is incompatible with the Modern concept of divisionism is its opposition to the imperative of autonomy as a deciding factor of an object's artistic validity. As mentioned earlier, the heteronomous nature of Postmodern aesthetics leads to a democratization of available influences. Hence, all things being equal as potential sources for creative inspiration, the arbitrary boundary between the two cultural traditions is necessarily dissolved. Rather than being seen as a source for criticism, mass culture is considered a valuable artistic asset, a treasure trove of creative ideas and effective tactics for generating and

engaging larger audiences. Replacing the Modernist sentiments of fear, disdain, and envy is a feeling of admiration, and a desire to emulate, perhaps even compete with mass art's relative popularity, and it's capacity to communicate in a wider sphere. In contradistinction to a Modernist approach, popularity is considered an aesthetic virtue, and the ability to reach large numbers of people, by hook or by crook, is seen as an artistic act worthy of sincere admiration. Popularity being considered a valuable artistic trait, Postmodernists trace an inherent contradiction in our previous beliefs regarding the comparative value of high and low art. Novitz explains, "the popular arts are seldom seen as the bearers of our cultural heritage or our national heritage. If anything, most are denigrated as valueless and crass, but they continue all the while to be sought out as objects worthy of our attention. The high arts, by contrast, earn lavish praise but are seldom the object of popular attention." [Novitz: 21]. It is a peculiar characteristic of contemporary music to recognize the complex diversity of its cultural tradition, to utilize those aspects deemed most useful for the purposes of expression, and to place on an equal plane any and all artistic possibilities inherent in this intricate web of human creativity. Nothing can escape this network of ideas as the web of influence is an indiscriminate keeper--high, low, historical, Modern, academic, ethnic--all become distinct and equal parts, captured in the diverse rubric of Postmodern artistic thought.

V. Conception vs. PerceptionIn the hands of a talented composer, serial composition could produce highly expressive, and often ingenious music, and it became fashionable, almost mandatory, among composers growing up after World War II. Probably its intellectual rigor and sheer difficulty for the creator, performer, and listener made it seem almost automatically worthwhile, regardless of how it actually came out.(Philip Glass, Music by Philip Glass, 1987)

While it is agreed that the emphasis on means rather than ends as a Modern characteristic is more a product of Late or Ultra-Modernist activity (e.g. Cage, Babbitt, Boulez, and Xenakis) than that of the age as a whole, it can still be recognized as a distinguishing factor of Modern aesthetics for two reasons. First, while the mentioned figures may not represent mainstream activities in the Modern era, they do nevertheless occupy an acknowledged status and respected position in the context of Modernist artistic activity by virtue of their philosophical and procedural approaches as either a higher or at least equally important component of their artistic contributions. These artistic contributions are seen in a Modernist environment as a radical manifestation of the germinal precept of autonomy. In short, the works of these artists represent an almost mannered exemplification of an art turned in on itself; concerned not with the surrounding culture but with its own materials and aesthetic boundaries. Cage, in the footsteps of Duchamp and his followers, explored the outer limits of artistic consciousness by offering listeners an ideological framework which would allow them to accept any sound as a possible source for aesthetic appreciation. He offered listeners an opportunity to experience this musico-philosophical concept in his works by employing an elaborate procedural scheme through which all (or many) of the musical parameters were governed by chance operations. It is, of course, in this respect that we see a well documented connection between Cage and the likes of the Post-Serialists, both of whom establish sophisticated extra-musical structural principles to govern various parameters (e.g.

pitch, rhythm, timbre, and dynamic), often at the expense of perceptually/aurally based gestural considerations in an effort to convey their own unique aesthetic message. The difference between the two approaches, of course, lies in the particular aesthetic context each group establishes in order to "properly" appreciate their work: Cage furnishing us with an Eastern based philosophical framework prescribing our indiscriminate acceptance of all sounds as music, and the Post-Serialists establishing an imperative of structural and, hence, perceptual sophistication as a necessary prerequisite for aesthetic enjoyment. So, while it's true that the Ultra-Modernists embody a more extreme manifestation of the Modern imperative of autonomy, it is also true that they shared this propensity, to a greater or lesser extent, with their contemporaries, however radical their approach is deemed in comparison. It is in this respect, that is, with regard to compatible aesthetic context, that the second reason for establishing these figures as representative of Modernist activity arises. In fact, this second pretext is equally applicable to all Modern composers, in that they embody to greater or lesser extent the same fundamental aesthetic principles. This distinguishing element can be understood as follows. While the artistic ventures of Modernist composers are defined as embodying, at varying degrees, the Modernist imperative of autonomy, the identical activities of these same artists, considered in a Postmodern aesthetic framework, would be understood merely as an another equally viable artistic contribution to an already rich aesthetic universe. That is, rather than being seen as representatives of a universal guiding aesthetic principle, these same artists are given a different identity under a Postmodern guise to that of just another contributor to the already existing artistic climate--one whose ideas and contributions are just as viable as any other for the purposes of artistic expression.

This Modernist fixation on procedural and ideological features in music is another reason for the characteristic divisionism between high and low cultures explained earlier, and the proponents of this approach have found a considerable degree of refuge and stability from popular culture in our academic system. The result of this increased sophistication in the handling of musical materials has lead to proportionally related decrease in the size of audience members. What is left is a small but dedicated group of listeners consisting of specialists (e.g. other composers, and music theorists) and the occasional supporter. Ironically enough, what hasn't changed in this course of events is the composers desire to affect her/his listeners, however small these numbers may be. Aware of the musical demographics characterizing their small public, composers inevitably work in a style that is most conducive to communication in the context of this specialized audience--that of complex systems of musical organization and intellectually intriguing ideological frameworks. Inherent in this state of affairs is the presence of a vicious, and ultimately self-destructive cycle. In an effort to meet and challenge the intellectual interests of their adherents, composers continually up the ante with regard to the promise of structural complexity in their works. The increased sophistication of means in order to achieve this goal leads to the proportional increase in emphasis on parametrical features in a composition, which, in turn, results in a gradual alienation of those in the already small ranks of supporters who are not able, or for that matter, not willing, to comprehend the complex constructive principles inherent in the composition. Hence, this vicious circle takes a form analogous to that of a black hole, destroying all those within a close proximity in an effort to increase its own power, marking those beyond it as merely the next level of its evolution. What results is a dynamic which will ultimately lead to complete and utter isolation--a state of affairs analogous to that of

composers in the late 60's and 70's, which I have described with due regard to Morgan as the 'Delta of Modernism' [Morgan: 182-90].

In his autobiography, Philip Glass describes an apparently self-defining experience in his life as a student in Juilliard with regard to the composer's own view on what I've categorized as means oriented concert music. Glass often attended new music concerts in which many of the works seemed to be devoid of any a redeeming aural quality whose performance would elicit the completely serious remark, "It's actually much better than it sounds." from empathetic audience members [Glass: 13]. In consequence of this and other related experiences, Glass realized this aesthetic direction to be incompatible with his own artistic instincts and consequently pursued an alternate compositional course which was later to be coined (not with Glass' endorsement), Minimalism. While more will be discussed about Minimalism in the succeeding section, it is mentioned here to exemplify the beginnings of a fundamental shift in aesthetic beliefs which is inherent to Postmodern aesthetic principles, that is, a partial shift from a compositional emphasis on means to that of ends, or, in other words, from conception to perception. I say a partial rather than a complete dialectic shift in principles because one essential characteristic of Postmodern thought is a near militant disdain for exclusionist activities and beliefs. With this in mind, it would be inconsistent with contemporary artistic thought not to include the possibility of creative expression through conceptually oriented composition. In a Postmodern ideological framework aural considerations and contentual expression are given the opportunity to occupy a higher position in a compositional hierarchy in deference to elaborate formal schemes and syntactical explorations without penalty, but, more importantly, the fact that this opportunity exists as a compositional possibility doesn't negate the validity of other options, even if their origin lies in the practices of our immediate predecessors. It does however challenge the idea that any aesthetic ideological structure necessarily define itself by negation (as noted earlier), which is clearly a more fundamental oppositional difference between the two eras.

VI. Conclusion: PostmodernitySo all in all, things don't look so bad. We are in a position where one style can feed the other, where one technique enriches the other, thus enriching all of music. We have reached that supra-level of abstract musical semantics, of pure Idea, where those apparently mismatched components can unite--tonal, nontonal, electronic,serial, aleatory--all united in a magnificent new eclecticism.(Leonard Bernstein, The Unanswered Question, 1973)

By way of conclusion, I will make good on my promise to furnish the reader with a more positive characterization of Postmodernism as a new aesthetic/cultural context for contemporary concert music. In order to do so one must first accept the premises outlined above distinguishing Postmodernism's existence as a separate ideological entity characterized by its own unique aesthetic precepts and fundamental cultural beliefs. As I have described Postmodernism's birth as having risen from the ashes of Modernist individualistic imperatives, I believe I've established quite clearly Postmodernism's coming into existence not merely as a direct result from a dialectical aesthetic response to previous artistic beliefs, but more importantly, as an elegant transformation of ideas given rise in consequence to the pluralistic state of affairs in which composers found themselves during the aesthetic 'delta' described by Morgan.

In their isolation, composers were given the opportunity to contemplate the meaning of their art anew, to entertain other aesthetic possibilities without the outside influence of competing 'isms', and, by virtue of their dispersion into society as individuals, were able to regroup under a completely distinct set of artistic beliefs. It is in this sense that the period of Pluralism can be understood as the concomitant Postmodern equivalent of the Delta of Modernism, as this transitional period marks a vital stage in the development of both ages. In this respect, the last gasp of Modernism serves simultaneously as the first breath of Postmodernism; the dawn of a new age rises from the dusk of the one preceding. This change, however, was as gradual as it was subtle, and the eventual appearance of Postmodernism in its present state can be most easily understood as having been marked by several important contributions toward aesthetic self-definition. These contributions, which are concomitant rather than evolutionary in nature, are categorized in contemporary aesthetic discourse by the following terms: 1. Eclecticism, 2. Minimalism, and 3. Disturbationism (or Disturbationary Art). What marks these activities as contributions toward a Postmodern aesthetic rather than that of a Modernist context is their subscription to the uniquely Postmodern precepts of heteronomy, historicity, and inclusionism. Gone is the Modernist imperative of perpetual revolution and the artistic climate of competing 'isms'. What we are left with is a democratized aesthetic setting where new ideas vie not for status as cultural messiah but for that of an engaging contributor to the already complex rubric of artistic ideas. In the world of painting Danto describes this state of affairs with the following scenario: "There were many options for painters--Impressionism, Expressionism, Cubism, of course; Futurism, of course; varieties of Realism--but only one true option. But now, if Pluralism was accepted in 1981, one option was as true as any other. It is not that everything was historically correct, historical correctness has stopped having application." [Danto 1992: 218].

The term "Disturbationary Art" originates with the philosopher Arthur Danto in his classification of culturally referential, sociopolitically charged artworks intended to modify the views and perhaps even transform the lives of the perceivers [Danto 1991: 299]. While Danto's definition is concerned primarily with explaining the artistic practice of desecrating recognized masterpieces and traditional gestures for the dual purpose of engaging the viewers attention and protesting the oppressive nature of European art-historical accounts, it nevertheless describes, on a more general level, the practice of many artists who use socially/historically referential images to protest current moral corruptions and social injustices. The main purpose of Disturbationary artists is less a concern for purely formal characteristics of the medium than with the powerful representation of the desired content. Often this power is realized by presenting morally/socially disturbing images to the viewer/listener, which, by virtue of their capacity to shock the sensibilities, captures the viewers attention. Examples of this type of activity in the current art scene are far too numerous to give an adequate account of them, however, the most recognized representatives in music are somewhat less copious, the most obvious examples include such composer/performers as Lori Anderson, Diamanda Galas and Meredith Monk. Since music by its very nature is less capable of conveying literal messages without the aid of textual or visual accompaniment, the disturbationary content found in contemporary concert music is inevitably much more subtle, and arguably more personal (and hence, more effective), in virtue of this abstractionary characteristic when it does successfully communicate the desired message to the listeners. With this in mind, this disturbational character can be traced to a greater or lesser degree to those composers who use their music to

convey strong, socially referential, moral messages with the intent of modifying the listener's consciousness in favor of a particular ethical position. In addition, the works of these composers, because of their referentiality to prevalent social issues, can be seen as a manifestation of the Postmodern affinity toward social heteronomy. Some examples of a disturbationary approach are apparent in the works of Steve Reich (Different Trains), John Adams, (Christian Zeal and Activity), and John Corigliano, ('AIDS' Symphony: No. 1), all of whom touch on sensitive social issues with the hopes of effectively moving the listener in a particular moral direction.

The Minimalist aesthetic is said to have arisen partially as a result of a dissatisfaction with an over-intellectualized approach toward composition attributed to the Ultra-Modern or Post-Serialist generation of composers who were at the time significant members of the more 'prestigious' universities in Europe and the United States. The representatives of this Ultra-Modern approach include such composers as Boulez, Stockhausen, Babbitt, Martino, and Wuorinen--a group which, in all fairness, are often deemed representatives of such an aesthetic by virtue of a relatively small number of compositions with regard to their entire output. That said, that fact that they did employ such conceptually (as opposed to perceptually) emphasized principles at one time or another is enough to consider them as having some interest in such activities and was certainly enough to grant them the status as antithetical figures in the eyes of the Minimalists, if not for the reason of their output then for their widespread influence on the musical ideology of the time. Along with this opposition to 'means-oriented' composition, the Minimalists also expressed in their music a fervent interest in the repetitive structures and rhythmic regularity of popular and ethnic musics, in particular, the repetitive patterns found in Rock as well as East Indian and African music. As New York Times critic, Robert T. Jones explained, "These were young, talented and ambitious would-be composers who had grown up with the rhythms and philosophical content (notably cynicism and despair) of rock music socked into their souls as solidly as the traditions of Bach, Beethoven, and Bartók." [Glass: xiii]. Aside from the obvious strains this type of approach places on the Modernist division between high and low forms of expression, the Minimalist musical aesthetic also entails the acceptance of the Postmodern principles of heteronomy and historicity. I say the Minimalist approach embraces the Postmodern concept of historicity since the musical materials used are most commonly drawn from the tonal tradition rather than from a newly created syntactical context. However, it can be argued that, while Philip Glass and his contemporaries (e.g. Lamonte Young, Terry Riley, and Steve Reich), did effectively define a new aesthetic, their hopes of creating music that was perceptually more accommodating than their predecessors was virtually unfulfilled, since sitting through a twenty minute piece consisting of intermittent bleeps and spontaneous clusters is scarcely less tolerable to the average concert goer than sitting through a four hour composition featuring a seemingly infinite repetition of a 4 or 5 chord chaconne figure. It is in this respect that we can appreciate the developments apparent in the activities of the more recent Minimalist influenced composers. In this second generation, often called Post-Minimalist (Adams, Nyman), Mystical-Minimalist (Taverner, Gorecki), or Totalist (Gordon, Branca), we see a more concerted effort to reconcile the earlier generation's 'weaknesses' in the realms of aural accommodation and structural simplicity.

The terms 'Eclecticism' and 'Pluralism' have often been used interchangeably in aesthetic discourse. This practice is particularly evident in the writings of composers

George Rochberg and William Bolcom. The result of this terminological ambiguity has been the indiscriminate application of either expression for two fundamentally separate aesthetic activities. With this in mind, I will attempt to place each of these terms in their definitionally proper contexts by first contrasting the two with regard to their unique definitions, and then by proposing a more appropriate application of these terms with regard to the classification of analogous aesthetic activities. The following is an excerpted definition of both terms taken from the Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary:

1. Eclectic 1: selecting what appears to be the best in various doctrines, methods, or styles 2: composed of elements drawn from various sources.

1a. Eclecticism the theory or practice of an eclectic method.

2. Pluralism 1: the quality or state of being plural 3a: a theory that there are more than one or more kinds of ultimate reality b: a theory that reality is composed of a plurality of entities 4a: a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation within the confines of a common civilization b: a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state.

While both classifications necessitate the existence of a diverse universe, the one fundamental factor which distinguishes the two terms is the concept of autonomy. A Pluralistic environment is one in which the constituents contribute to the inherent cultural diversity by virtue of their own unique features, which are necessarily distinct from that of the other members. In music, this scenario is analogous to the state of affairs characterizing the artworld in the late 60's and early 70's in which the Modernist imperative of artistic autonomy reaches its highest point, its teleological utopia; where each composer was defined as the product of her/his own autonomous artistic explorations--that period which Morgan appropriately calls the "Delta of Modernism", and which I have, I believe, also rightly termed the period of "Pluralism". The term "Eclecticism" implies the existence not of autonomous subjects defined through their own isolated and unique features but of a universe consisting of heteronomous individuals who draw freely from their surrounding environment. Hence, self-definition comes not from isolated discoveries and autonomous explorations but from the creative assimilation and personal interpretation of outside influences. An aesthetic analogue to this state of affairs is present in the works of composers such as John Zorn, William Bolcom, George Rochberg, Easley Blackwood, Frank Zappa, and John Corigliano. Apart from a complete disregard for traditional autonomist principles, the common thread between all these composers is their desire to incorporate diverse musical influences into a personal aesthetic framework. In such an approach, these artists benefit not only from the freedom to draw from their surroundings, but also from the ability to reach a larger audience by virtue of the possibility of using a musical vocabulary which is familiar to the listener.

The two most frequent criticisms one encounters in current discussions regarding this type of compositional approach refer less to the procedures involved than with the end product. The first complaint stems from the pastiche-like manner in which music of this sort is often presented, as is evident in the works of Zorn and Bolcom. The

grounds for this critique are usually based on the principles of unity and organicism. That is, the apparent complete disregard for unifying musical elements and the fluid transformation from one idea to the next yields a composition which is characterized by a somewhat chaotic and haphazard succession of ideas whose relationship to one another seems more dependent on arbitrary temporal succession than on shared relational elements. The main problem with this argument is it's rather myopic conception of what is needed in order to make a valid work of art, namely the existence of some arbitrary unifying agent. Proof of the claim that the criterion for validity is in fact an arbitrary product is glaringly revealed in the myriad aesthetic practices and imperatives instantiated in the course of this century, all of which employ some type of agent to justify and establish the identity of given group of artworks. Examples of such unifying agents come in many guises which include philosophical/aesthetic frameworks,and complex structural systems, as well as the more traditional examples of programmatic content, organicism, and variation. The Eclecticist, having benefited from retrospection with reference to the artistic practices of her/his immediate predecessors, recognizes the arbitrary nature of such a decision to employ a unifying agent, and as a result, places it on a higher level of abstraction. In other words, the decision itself to utilize a unifying framework is now seen as just another aesthetic option, which may or may not be considered in deference to its complete or incomplete negation. The consequence to this state of negation can be understood as a kind of pure temporality. In this respect, pure temporality is understood as the musical dimension wiped clean of its potential unifying agents and either replaced with a new one or simply left without a replacement--thus, relying solely on its intentional existence within a particular 'time-frame' to establish its artistic identity. On a less abstract level, the frenetic manner in which these musical ideas are presented within a particular temporal 'space' can be seen as an artistic expression of the overall diversity and rate of change we are accustomed to in contemporary society. As Stephen David Ross correctly points out, "Postmodernism is as much a result contemporary technological developments as of a sensibility to language and discourse." [Lyotard: 538]. We live in a culture saturated with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of latent information made readily available to us at the touch of a button, the turn of a dial, or even the prompt of a voice. The potential rate of consumption in virtue of this technology is dizzying, and the number of choices presented to us as a result of this increased availability of information verges on a uniquely Postmodern form of cultural decadence. The ubiquity of this information and the seemingly endless variations through which this material is conveyed is unprecedented in its efficiency and staggering in its proportions. It is in this respect that we can interpret the frenetic pace and characteristically schizophrenic character of the Eclecticists as an artistic exemplification of this peculiarly Postmodern state of affairs.

The second argument against the Eclecticist compositional approach is somewhat easier to dispel since it relies on an inherently Modernist belief as its foundation. Antagonists point out that a prominent feature of compositions which employ preexisting musical idioms or styles (e.g. Rochberg, and Blackwood) is an almost complete lack of artistic individuality and stylistic originality. Rather than contributing something personal to the adopted system, composers seem content working within a chameleon-like aesthetic framework, mimicking the gestures and mannerisms of another era at the expense and compromise of their own artistic identity. In addition, the Eclecticist composer is accused of artistic insincerity, using

well worn musical formulas and illustrative gestures in order to elicit particular emotional responses from the listeners rather than expressing themselves in a personally relevant manner with their own unique musical vocabulary. The conceptual foundation underlying this entire argument rests squarely on the Modernist imperative of originality, which, in turn, necessitates the characteristically Modern fixation on novelty and innovation as criteria for artistic validity. As is the case with any uniquely Postmodern phenomenon, the fundamental problem underlying many of the critiques regarding Postmodern activity lies in the misapplication of irrelevant aesthetic criteria to an essentially distinct artistic practice. In a Postmodern aesthetic framework the Modernist imperative of originality is rejected, not because of it's subscription to the concept of originality, but because of the exclusionary repercussions inherent in the establishment of any principle as an imperative for artistic validity. As a result of this characteristic disdain for all things exclusionary, in a Postmodern aesthetic context the idea of originality is reduced to the status of merely an aesthetic option, one among many, each being endowed an equal degree of potential significance and importance. Consequently, the accusations of artistic insincerity and aesthetic compromise are equally dispelled, in virtue of the fact that the derivative application of preexistent musical languages and gestures is no longer defined as a taboo aesthetic practice with reference to the precept of originality. In other words, since derivation is no longer equated with creative weakness or artistic compromise, the act of derivation itself is no longer stigmatized as an aesthetic iniquity. On the topic of artistic insincerity, this claim again results from a misapplication of Modernist views on history to that of the Postmodernists, and should be sufficiently nullified in virtue of their distinct ideological perspectives with regard to this topic (see section III). In further defense of the Postmodern position on the subject of history I will pose the following question: As residents in a society characterized by the unprecedented availability of historically and ethnically diverse musical information, both in the form of recorded/live performances, and educational materials, is it really implausible to consider the music of other cultures and historical eras an integral part of our experience and hence an important part of who we are? If this indeed is the case, then the issue of sincerity, as it refers to the artistic expression of culturally/personally relevant content is truly a non-issue in our current social context, and should be dismissed as such. In an effort to remedy the dilemma of aesthetic misapplication, I propose that we first establish a plausible aesthetic context within which we can postulate the goings on of contemporary composers with due regard for their artistic integrity. Once this framework is created in the prescribed manner we should then analyze the possible ideological incongruities and aesthetic contradictions with an intent to ameliorate the problematic discoveries by furnishing viable solutions. With this in mind, getting back our original argument regarding the derivative practices of the Eclecticists, it is also important to note that, while originality is no longer considered a necessary criteria for artistic value in contemporary aesthetic thought, this doesn't negate the possibility of employing a self-created, autonomous musical vocabulary. The difference lies not in it's preclusion from current artistic activities but in its relative importance compared to other compositional possibilities. It is less a matter of critical aesthetic prohibition than that of the assimilative democratization of all artistic contributions.

In closing, it seems appropriate, with reference to an artistic age dedicated to the principle of cultural heteronomy, as well as an era plagued with the seemingly constant prospect economic instability in the arts, to contemplate the possible function

and relative importance of contemporary concert music in its surrounding social context. In a society defined by the increasing fragmentation of special interests, the disintegration of communities, and the alienation of the individual, the one factor that seems to link the whole of its members together is the existence of a shared source of association; a society bound together by virtue of a common experience, and, hence, a common identity. The means through which we are able to recognize, express, contemplate, criticize, and celebrate the dynamics of this relationship between the individual and society is through culture, in its many forms and manifestations; whether it be through music, television, literature, visual arts, cinema, or computers. It is, however, the unique property of music, in its various forms, to be able to communicate with individuals on an more abstract, and, hence, potentially more direct emotional/personal level. In virtue of this innate ability to forge personal connections through its medium, music not only serves to express this relationship between individual and society, but also, perhaps more importantly, it is, in its most glorious manifestations, able to bridge the immeasurable abyss that exists between one human being and another. The establishment of a new, Postmodern aesthetic framework which allows one the opportunity to draw from shared cultural experiences and musical traditions for the purposes of artistic expression will become increasingly more important as the world continues to fragment into smaller groups, facing us with the very real danger of social estrangement and cultural alienation. It is with regard to our capacity as artists to exemplify these points of reference that we as composers hold the power to affect the lives of our fellow human beings, right now, at the time in which we live--herein lies the greatest source of our artistic vitality.

Selected Bibliography

Adorno, Theodor. Quasi una fantasia. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. London-New York: Verso, 1963. pp. 37-53, 249-269.

Adorno, Theodor. "On the Fetish Character of Music and the Regression of Listening" in Art and Its Significance, 3rd edition. Ed. Stephen David Ross. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994. pp. 539-547.

Babbitt, Milton. "The Composer as Specialist". in Esthetics Contemporary, revised ed. Ed. Richard Kostelanetz. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989. pp. 278-284.

Bernstein, Leonard. The Unanswered Question--Six Talks at Harvard, Cambridge, MA.-London: Harvard University Press, 1976.

Boulez, Pierre. Orientations. Ed. Jean-Jacques Nattiez. Trans. Martin Cooper. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. pp. 31-99.

Cage, John. John Cage: An Anthology. Ed. Richard Kostelanetz. New York: Da Capo Press, 1991.

Danto, Arthur C. Encounters and Reflections--Art in the Historical Present. New York: The Noonday Press, 1991. pp. 272-278, and 297-312

Danto, Arthur C. Beyond the Brillo Box--The Visual Arts In Post-Historical Perspective. New York: Farrar-Straus-Giroux, 1992. pp. 15-31, 115-129, 147-160, and 217-231.

Ferry, Luc. Homo Aestheticus--The Invention of Taste in the Democratic Age. Trans. Robert De Loaiza. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press, 1993. pp. 1-7,114-148, and 192-261.

Foreman, Richard. "Glass and Snow". in Esthetics Contemporary, revised ed. Ed. Richard Kostelanetz. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989. pp. 305-309.

Glass, Philip. Music by Philip Glass. Ed. Robert T. Jones. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.

Jencks, Charles. "Postmodern and Late Modern: The Essential Definitions". in Esthetics Contemporary, revised ed. Ed. Richard Kostelanetz. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989. pp. 285-289.

Kostelanetz, Richard. "Contemporary American Aesthetics". in Esthetics Contemporary, revised ed. Ed. Richard Kostelanetz. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989. pp. 13-31.

Krukowski, Lucian. Art and Concept-A Philosophical Study. Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1987. pp. 3-28, 45-75.

Krukowski, Lucian. Aesthetic Legacies. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1992. pp. 1-16, 65-88, 118-224.

Kubler, George. "Style and the Representation of Historical Time". in Esthetics Contemporary, revised ed. Ed. Richard Kostelanetz. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989. pp. 125-131.

Lewitt, Sol. "Sentences on Conceptual Art". in Art and Its Significance, 3rd edition. Ed. Stephen David Ross. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994. pp. 691-692.

Lyotard, Jean-François. "What Is Postmodernism?". in Art and Its Significance, 3rd edition. Ed. Stephen David Ross. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994. pp. 559-564.

Morgan, Robert C. "The Delta of Modernism". in Esthetics Contemporary, revised ed. Ed. Richard Kostelanetz. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989. pp. 182-190.

Novitz, David. The Boundaries of Art. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1992. pp. 1-41.

Reich, Steve. "Music as a Gradual Process" in Esthetics Contemporary, revised ed. Ed. Richard Kostelanetz. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989. pp. 302-304.

Rochberg, George. The Aesthetics of Survival. Ed. William Bolcom. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1984. pp. 1-24, 155-163, 204-242.

Zappa, Frank and Peter Occhiogrosso. The Real Frank Zappa Book. New York: Poseidon Press, 1989.