Kendrick Lamar has just won the Pulitzer Prize in Music, the first time it has been awarded to a pop artist. For that matter, outside of a few jazz prizes, it has always been awarded to a classical composition. Is this a good thing? Are there any good reasons for limiting the Pulitzer to certain genres?
There’s a Pulitzer Prize in Music?
I also did not know this.
I remember the uproar when Wynton Marsalis was the first to win it for a jazz work, even though it was very old fashioned jazz. That was 1997, now that I look it up. It seemed longer ago.
The Music Pulitzer was first given out in 1943. I don’t know why they waited that long. Back then the only serious music was classical music. The early works were deeply Americana. Again, I don’t know if that was the wartime sensibility or the intent of the award. But basically it was seen as a classical music award. And that’s fine. Somebody should take modern classical music seriously and maybe even rename the stuff to get rid of the oxymoron.
Kendrick Lamar winning is like Dylan winning the Nobel Prize for Literature. Coming out of left field doesn’t begin to describe it. Maybe DAMN is really that good. I haven’t listened to it, but it seems to be deep Americana in a way that Aaron Copland was in the 1940s. Even so, I wish they hadn’t done it. Dylan is a one-of-a-kind genius. The Nobel Committee didn’t commit any sin by bypassing other rock lyricists all these years. But you can’t convince me that the best music in America every damn year since 1943 has been classical or a certain rare species of jazz. Does this make Wynton Marsalis eligible for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?
I’ll be curious to read the commentary on this over the next week or so. Not to see how many people hate it or defend it, but to try to figure out where they’re going next.
At the end of the day, it’s a private club. It’s up to them to gamble on whether stuff like this dilutes their brand by muddying the criteria or strengthens it by creating buzz and conversation.
My guess is the latter. Most Americans, I think, don’t give two craps about the Pulitzer prize in anything but investigative journalism. And even then, most Americans can’t be bothered to give more than a single crap.
They do, and they have. Too few people were paying attention for the renaming ceremony (ha ha), and of those who were, quite a few disagreed with the new name.
All the new names for modern classical music that I’ve seen are either inaccurate or sound pretentious. Sometimes both. In addition, for most of the ways in which pop music is known for being “less than” classical music, it’s easy to find supposedly artistic music that acts more like pop. And opinions differ - for example, if someone says “pop is pop because it’s too formulaic and predictable”, then I answer “Bring me all the Mozart, it goes into the Pop bin”. 
It’s a complex issue and I’m conflicted about it.
I’ve been exposed to Classical music since childhood. I wasn’t a fan at all but I can’t deny that it had a crucial formative role in my tastes. Years later, when I started developing my own likes and dislikes, I went for the pop hits of the day, then 80s metal, then Gothic-Cold Wave, then Classic Rock, then 40s-70s Jazz. After this journey, I went back to Classical music at 30 and I’ve stayed mostly there ever since, deepening and expanding my understanding of it. If I had more free time, I’d probably listen to Jazz more frequently, too. On the other hand, I’ve completely lost interest in almost all other music. I still get a kick out of listening to 70s and 80s stuff, but almost exclusively for nostalgic reasons.
The crux of the issue, as I see it is this : there is absolutely no reason to consider Classical music and Jazz as the only genres that are worth taking into consideration, yet how can we be sure that the new genres will still be artistically relevant and meaningful for future generations ? Are they being judged along the same critieria ? If not, why ? And how do we make sure that the new criteria are equivalent in terms of quality ? Classical music and Jazz have long, firmly-established traditions which allow us to compare newcomers to past geniuses. How does this work out with genres that have no such tradition? Great works of art appeal to our senses AND to our intellect. This is what makes them relevant over centuries or even millenia. Are we sure that the new genres are up to the task?
On the one hand, I can’t deny that the Classical music world has a bit of a navel-gazing habit, which is not entirely unfounded, but definitely irritating. It’s the whole ivory tower problem. It must also be said that a lot of its post-World War Two developments have alienated a huge chunk of the public, not without reason. When each new work needs intractable program notes the size of a small book to be “understood”, you’ve got a problem. On the other hand, I’m afraid this sort of opening-up, while artistically and perhaps even morally sound, will lead to a diluting of the value of the prize. To be honest, Dylan getting the Nobel Prize was farcical in my view. As for Kendrick Lamar, the little I know of his music sounds very slickly produced and highly proficient but doesn’t strike me as particularly deep, distinctive or memorable. I don’t know, really…
I was listening to some Jazz a few days ago and reflecting how it seemed to me that pop music is getting more and more boring musically. Not bad or annoying or offensive. Just boring. Jazz cats could improvise on the spot on some intricate chord progressions, keeping the music fresh, innovative and daring. Classical music has a centuries-long tradition of developing beautifully moving music out of highly complex rules and structures. But what do I hear in current pop music ? An undeniable moving away from harmonies and melodies in favour of beats and flow. I admit that some of it is technically extremely impressive, virtuosic even. But I doubt that these parameters have as much potential for deep development.
I voted “Other”.
Trying to not put my cranky pants about achievement awards in general . …
According to the Pulitzer website, the award is given “for distinguished musical composition by an American that has had its first performance or recording in the United States during the year.”
All meanings in English are mutable, and so “distinguished musical composition” can potentially cover a lot of ground. And really, “music” is such a broad category, that works in different paradigms really can’t be compared using the same criteria. Unless the Pulitzer organization wants to re-define the category/criteria to limit submissions to pieces in the classical style, then other styles ought to be able to win the prize, and not just for emulating or trying to beat classical orchestration at its own game.
That said, I don’t know Lamar’s work, nor enough about its place in comparison to other like-minded works to have an opinion about whether he specifically deserves the prize. But he certainly should be eligible. Unless they want to change the criteria for the prize.
Music is music. Those of us around in the music saw the beginning of a new form of music that is now classic. You going to argue it’s not eligible?
The prize is awarded “For a distinguished musical composition of significant dimension by an American that has had its first performance in the United States during the year.” I don’t see anything at all about specific genres that are or aren’t eligible.
Yes this is a good thing.
The entertaining thing is that while DAMN was overwhelmingly critically lauded and has now won the first Pulitzer for a pop album, it did not win Album of the Year at the Grammys.
I would be curious about the ages of the people who pick the winner. Maybe in recent years younger people have been added to the judges group.
I voted other. I don’t think there needs to be a Pulitzer prize in music.
What’s more, “Classical music”* is young compared to pop. The art music tradition, any art music tradition, is a mewling child compared to the entire existence of music, and most music, through most of human existence, has been popular music pretty much by definition, as there wasn’t the elaborate apparatus to support non-popular music in any form.
Various forms of pop music come and go, just like various forms of art music come and go, but pop is eternal in a way art music is not.
*(Classical music isn’t even what art music is now. Classical music was composed between 1750 and 1820, and has specific characteristics not shared by modern Western art music. This just goes to demonstrate that no specific style is eternal, even in the music most divorced from the masses.)
Kendrick Lamar’s lyrics are absolutely distinguished.
Mute the vocals. Is the music distinguished?
I think the prize is for music, not lyrics, and I think there’s no universe in which his music has more merit than that socially-obscure modern classical composer.
I voted “all”, but only because styles can change.
I’m sure they would never have given a journalism prize to PewDiePie, but that’s the level of what’s been done with this year’s music prize - they chose “relevance” and popularity over quality, and chose “cred” for themselves over awarding the prize as intended.
Before the flames arise: I know PewDiePie is no journalist at all, while Kendrick Lamar is actually in the music business. But K L’s strong point isn’t his music composition, it’s his words. He’s not in the music composition business, even though he does end up composing music when he writes songs.
If music composition as a whole (i.e. people listening to music that was written this year, where “music” is not the same thing as “songwriting”) is out of style right now - which I think it is - then what should the prize committee do? I think the answer is obvious, and I think that answer becomes easy when you consider the journalism prize. Why didn’t they give it to PewDiePie, back when he was at his biggest? Because upholding an abstract standard for “what journalism is” matters to the prize, more than popularity and recognition do. Giving the prize to someone who (slightly arguably but actually not much) isn’t even involved in the activity the prize is awarded for, is not very bright. I think they should have awarded it to someone who, when you ask them what kind of work they do, always says “music composition”.
I disagree. There has always been “folk” music. “Pop” music is music written by professionals to make money from the public, whether by other professionals performing it in public or on recordings or letting the public buy it to perform themselves, as with sheet music. Pop music in a modern sense first appears in the 19th century, well after modern western classical music.
I say “modern” classical music because elites have had retinues of musicians waiting on them from ancient days, exactly the way modern classical music evolved.
Here’s the “elaborate apparatus to support non-popular music”: There’s a big room with seats, and the band gets paid somehow.
It’s not a matter of genre (“classical” vs “jazz” vs “pop” or whatever); it’s a matter of what is a “distinguished musical composition.” In the past, this has been a prize for a musical (not lyrical or poetical) composition (not performance or recording). IMHO this drastically changes what it’s a prize for.
You’re right, but you also gave me an idea.
Preliminary round for distinguished musical compositions:
Remove the words from all the scores, hire a highly-skilled group of players, and have all the compositions played one after another by the players you just hired. Oh - don’t have a score? Sorry, that’s not a composition yet, please bring it back when it’s finished.