Inspired by this thread and this one. I’m thinking it probably is not possible. A musician could write new swing music, today, maybe as worth hearing as anything from Glenn Miller – but it would be a pastiche, not something honestly part of the swing canon. It’s, like, Billy Joel’s"The Longest Time" is doo-wop, only it isn’t really.
If somebody’s out there writing swing music, can you really say that swing music’s time has passed? It might not be as popular as it once was, but it’s still a viable genre.
A writer named John Barnes wrote a fascinating essay on this subject 404 which is unfortunately no longer online, in which he suggested that the natural lifespan of a genre/style is about three generations - one generation in which a few artists manage to partially satisfy a previously unmet desire of an audience, a second generation in which artists grown up in the genre really start to hit the mark in satisfying the audiences’ need, and a final generation in which artists struggle to find untapped veins of novelty and use them up, very skillfully. When people start looking at new innovations by saying “Is this really part of our genre?” instead of “Look at where X is taking our genre?” the genre is tapped out, and future works in the genre can only be pastiche.
So yeah, no one can really write a revenge play, or a restoration comedy anymore without it being a pastiche, but people can still do new things in rap or situation comedies (Barnes, being an science fiction writer, is mostly concerned with his genre, by the way - which might be in stage three).
I’d rather use the term “style,” but whatever you want to call it, it’s not defined only by the qualities of the work, but by its context also.
When Stravinsky composed Pulcinella around 1920, based on music by Baroque composers, it wasn’t called “Baroque” but “Neo-Classical” music.
As an artist, in order to make any sort of impact, you need more than talent. You need fans, critics and fellow artists who are willing to talk about and help spread your work, and in doing so they give it a context. For examples closer to us, “punk” and “hip hop” are much more than just music. David Gilmour can scream all he wants, no matter what it sounds like, it’s not punk.
If you decide to write music in the style of Gesualdo, and you’re able to get people to listen to, like, and talk about your work you’ll probably be called a “neo-madrigalist” of something like that.
I’ll argue against this contention. Look at the sonnet–hundreds of years have passed since the sonnet craze of the 1590s (and of course it didn’t start there) and people are still writing good (if somewhat unfashionable) ones. Why is the sonnet (and numerous other literary genres) exempt from this rule? Or portraiture, which is still thriving as a genre in painting, despite the relative unpopularity?
I don’t think either sonnets or portraits are “genres” in the sense that BrainGlutton or Andy L are using the word. They’re both more descriptive of the form of the artwork, while the subject here is more about style.
People still write songs, for instance, but one written today in the swing style would be a pastiche, in the same way that a sonnet written today in the style of the 16th century would be a pastiche (or at least that’s the argument as I understand it).
Stuff and nonsense. A Richard Wilbur sonnet is identical in form and style to a William Shakespeare sonnet. Wilbur’s not writing in Elizabethan diction, but neither was Shakespeare writing in language that hadn’t been used in 300 years either. If you’re going to define “style” strictly according the fashions of a particular time, then you’re giving a circular argument in which time is going to dictate if something is appropriate to its time. Duh!
Anglophonic Irish balladry has lasted longer than three generations. Perhaps it has long since descended into pastiche but songs continue to be written in this style.
You mean stuff like “Green Fields Of France” and “Dirty Old Town”? Could that sort of song be described as an Irish version of the Blues?
Really? I mean, there was a swing revival just a few years back. The Squirrel Nut Zippers are pretty darn good, and they’re not horribly pastichey. And the Royal Crown Revue seem to be a bit original, too.
And blues just kind of goes on endlessly. I call horseshit.
(As for science fiction, sci-fi may wane, but real science fiction is more than sci-fi.)
Well yes and no. Take your swing music example. In the mid to late 90s, swing music enjoyed a brief resurgance in popularity. Groups like Cherry Poppin Daddy’s, Brian Setzer Orchestra, Big Bad Voodoo Daddies and The Mighty Mighty Bostones came out with music that had a distinct “swing” sound. But as you say, it’s a “pastiche”. A different genre like “neo-swing” or “ska”. Not true swing like the big band music of the 20s, 30s and 40s.
Same thing with punk rock. True punk rock was defined in the 70s. All the stuff like Green Day and Blink 182 that is derived from punk is really a separate and distinct genre.
IMHO musical genres are as much defined by their time period as their sound.
I think it entirely depends on Longview. Classical Music spans hundreds of years. I think the bias is in your classification… given enough time, all music is classical and representative, its record is what is important. You are thinking in decades. I am thinking in centuries, and so will the people who hear our music in the future.
Ahem.
FUCK YOU.
That’s punk rock. If it’s punk, it’s not a pastiche. If it’s a pastiche, it’s not punk.
There’s no reason you can’t write punk today.
(Blink 182 is not punk.)
I don’t know. It’s not really “Irish” in any strict sense either though. Both those songs were written by people from beyond these shores.
I have to side with msmith537. Punk is not about a sound. It was a response of its time and place and class to other events happening contemporaneously.
That’s one reason why English punk doesn’t sound much like American punk and never had as much effect here. Revolting against Jimmy Carter didn’t have the same oomph. The Ramones had far too much joy in them to rip themselves to shreds in the first place. Early rap took that place because ghetto blacks had the legitimate anger that white boys lacked.
Sure you could write stupid, loud, angry, unlistenable songs today. But they would be unlistenable because they had no raison d’etre. Individuals make art, but society makes a genre. Genres pass when society does. Everything after that is pastiche.
Like All things in life it’s a question of timing.
Today a performer could do a nostalgia set that mixed songs from the 1920s and 1950s and few would care which was which.
In 40 or 50 years a someone could do a doowop set and mix in The Longest Time without giving an explanation that it wasn’t really classic, original doowop.
There will always be collectors and academics who care deeply about sequence and precedents, but for casual listeners the sound will ultimately be more important than the chronology.
So, eventually, songs that we view as nostalgia, pastiche or tribute can be regarded as rightful members of a bypassed genre.
In regard to classical pieces could one argue that Movie Score music is the modern equivalent? When I think of composers like John Williams his music sets mood and tone to stories being told using real instruments as opposed to electronics.
Sorry. No. The very fact that Green Day was played on MTV 24/7 is the very antithesis of punk. I like Green Day and all, but those bands are just more commercialized versions of the Sex Pistols / Clash / Ramones sound and aesthetic. It’s not scary music for heroine addicts hanging around CBGBs in NY anymore. It’s music for every upper middle-class college fraternity party.
Oh and Blink-182 is just as punk as Green Day.
2 reasons it’s so different:
-
big bands are no longer economical, so music of the swing genre that hopes to be commercial has to be written for a smaller group (usually 6-8pcs). The Setzer Ork is an exception, funded by his big success with the Stray Cats et al.
-
it’s primarily dance music, and dancing has changed a lot. It used to be a social activity for the general public, and the appeal was equal parts music and dancing. The revival is much more about dancing and perhaps a show esthetic, so the music is more stereotyped.