Western classical music took 16 centuries to reach a near-perfect status. There were phases when the music made wonderful strides in all directions, but then every time an untidy presumption would rise: what’s new?
When John Woolrich, a composer of Britain, founded Composers Ensemble in 1989, many contemporaries never knew what he meant. But those who had heard his Barber’s Timepiece could imagine.
This was the beginning of a new era by which the 35-year-old composer intended to show the world that he had something new in his mind. Fourteen years later, he agreed with the Italian composer, Luciano Berio, who had said there was no tabula rasa even in music. All repeat, imitate, steal and rearrange to produce a new piece and call it original.
Woolrich studied English at the Manchester University, but later switched over to composition and learnt it. Undoubtedly, he was brimmed with some new perceptions and wanted an outlet to express them. He was aware of his virtues and the capability to portray them. He did it with complete dedication, honesty to his thought and exhilaration. Although he accomplished what he had aspired, he accepted what Luciano Berio had said decades back.
Why western classical music reached this state has a historical background and technical reason that other musical heritages may also face.
Western classical music took 16 centuries to reach a near-perfection status, specially by the efforts of priests. During this whole period, there were phases when the music made wonderful strides in all directions, i.e. creativity, tonality, form and presentation. But after every creation, there was a general feeling: was that the climax? Obviously not, but then every time an untidy presumption would rise: what’s new?
The period of Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) and Fredric Handel (1685-1759) was a glorious one. New perceptions endured, marked by Johannes Brahmas (1774-1856). It came to an end in 1901, with the death of Giusepe Verdi (1813-1901). This made a lot of difference to western classical music, as the grand masters began vanishing without successors.
Obviously, the trend of activity could not continue without meagre textbook theorems. Creativity had to come forth, but without extraordinary imagination great things never come. It was the dearth of creativity. In the words of Norman Lebrecht: “It was a crisis of resources, composers emulated Bach in retrieving whatever was usable and transmittable from the past.” This ingrained some new composers to work in texture, rhythm and other properties of the music.
At the beginning of the 20th century, almost all the composers faced a dilemma: from where should the new music come? Many tried but bowed out. Some found it better to repeat. But then came a new style. Without a proper inspiration, a new dimension opened — the purposeless composition.
This aimed at composing without perception and satisfying the inner urge, or giving little heed to various images they had in their minds. Listeners, anxious to listen some serious reflection of life in music, had to listen to what was being produced, though they paid very little attention aesthetically. From the content point-of-view, they contained more noise than music. The only factor they added was to interpret the social and scientific innovations the composers had found around them. Many of them even placed subjects in music which did not exist in other fine arts.
In this backdrop, when Johannes Brahamas (1833-97) and Gustav Mahler (1860-1911) rose as composers, they could hardly add a flair of their own in any department of classical music. However, when Jean Sibelius (1865-1957) overviewed this scenario, he was appalled. His prime emphasis was on improving the texture by refining it, which had not been attempted for quite some time. Sibelius met with some success, but there was still much to be done, specially in bringing the texture matching the emotions he wanted to portray.
A similar dilemma was faced by Andre Schoenberg (1874-1951) and Wagner (1869-1933) who looked for new themes and idioms. Later on, a dejected Schoenberg laid lesser emphasis on compositions, which relieved him of many worries.
Claude Debussy, the French pianist and father of musical impressionism, was influenced by Robert Wagner, but when he tried to drift from the traditional form, he discovered himself as a painter of the notes. He portrayed pictures in music. That was a remarkable thing. But he was also confined to a limited span of notes and chords. He, too, had to seek guidance from the past. There was apparently no tabula rasa for him.
Puccini (1858-1924) was not an artist in isolation. He knew where to draw his inspiration from and made strenuous efforts to get something new, but for that he had to go through the intricacies of Asian music. Richard Straus (1864-1944), having been guided by Brahmas and Wagner, moved towards opera, song-writing and plays. This gave him much comfort from the too-hard imaginative work.
Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971) also did not feel easy and went back to rich Russian folk music, which really changed his whole perception and added a new colour to his composing faculty.
The growing new comprehension in music in the early 1920s, of course, had its attractions for classical composers. Many composers used Jazz which cast deeply over many classical forms. Though not fully overtaken, it became much a part of what was to become a newer element in classical music.
Incidentally, this first quarter of the 20th century became a turning point in western classical music. After Jazz, radio and other electronic gadgets revolutionized the state and status of classical music. Ironically, this was felt more effective in chamber music than any other genre, as it became more instrumental in creating ‘intimacy’ among people.
The post-World War II was an era of new awakening in almost all art forms. And western classical music could not go unaffected. By 1945, concerts did not remain the only source of music listening, many other sources added to it. Modernism began creeping in during the second and third quarter of the century, and in some regards they gave some very fascinating pieces of imagination. It was more inclined to impressionism and a new kind of creativity. A kind of fertile popularization arose. This is no way an unwelcome phenomenon; on the contrary it opened new vistas for the music.
While some of the modernists used pieces of old masters in the films, the others got a queue and used them suiting to the themes of their compositions. A new kind of atonality, neo-classicism, electronic music and even computer-generated music became part of the new western music.
This became a forerunner to the new western classical music and the contemporary composers did not find it unfair to use this influence in their creations, of course, without losing the essence of musical phenomenon we have been experiencing for the past many centuries. The only virtue of such behaviour is the pluralism the modern modes of communications have given.
This does not essentially mean that western classical music has changed its characteristics. The fact remains that the phenomenon of tabula rasa has remained a constant course for western composers, at least during the 20th century, as John Woolrich may have felt. But this may not be the situation with other systems of music.
For instance, the music of the subcontinent. It can be safely said that our music does not suffer from the phenomenon of tabula rasa owing to a basic characteristic of our music, i.e., the acoustic value of our system. Ours is essentially a music that is based on improvization. No two musical expressions rendered at different occasions sound alike. In this way, every rendition becomes an individual creativity. In fact, creativity in our music is measured by the invention of new ragas and their variations are counted as additions. Since the first raga was named thousands of years back, new variations and genres have come into being. Connoisseurs, scholars and great grand masters made rich contributions. Every largess added new colours to our music. A number of Malhars, Kedaras, Kalyans, Kanras, Toris, etc, have been invented.
Every raga has its own flair, but every time the question was raised: Is there any capacity of more ragas to invent? Some even argued that our music has reached a saturation point and there could be no need of a new raga or genre. But when Dhurpad reached its climax, Khayal came into being and generated such popularity that Dhurpad lost the glamour and became confined to a few families. Tilana, Qawali, Qalbana, Thumri, Tappa, all added to our musical heritage, notwithstanding the present introduction of fusion music.
Today, our music has become an ensemble of traditional and modern idioms. We may have two opinions on fusion music, but the basic structure of our music is retained. This can be attributed to the difference between western and our music which is of physical structure. While, in western music all notes are equally divided, our musical notes bear variegated frequencies. As no two music systems can be compared in terms of creativity, the fixed frequency notes makes things difficult for the composers as compared to our music which gives a performer a wide range of versatility.
Unlike Woolrich, we do not suffer from this kind of creative trauma. Although every music has a common perception of expressing emotions, the versatility our music offers is of a very wide range. This is due to many virtues, specially improvization. Then there is the specific style of rendition that varies from one school to another, called Gharana music. It is due to this fact that Bhairvi, Mian Ki Malhar, Darbari, etc, have been sung by almost all vocalists and instrumentalists, but every performance presents a different form.
There cannot be a problem like plagiarism or theft of a composition for our artists as there always exists a state of tabula rasa. Every performer has a distinctive style. He, in himself, has to produce a piece of his own. That is the charm of our musical heritage.
Western classical music took 16 centuries to reach a near-perfect status. There were phases when the music made wonderful strides in all directions, but then every time an untidy presumption would rise: what’s new? 
