For those who may be interested in examining my book, The Future of Modern Music, I now provide a brief outline. My first task was to sharpen the distinction between what is modern and what poses as modern music. This was important because there exists today a grave confusion as to the meaning of the adjective ‘modern’ as applied to music. If we don’t make this distinction clear, all that follows is nonsense. Too many people apply modernism to anything that resided in the 20^th century that contained a little dissonance. That is a common error. For others, modernism exists in any era – it simply is what’s happening at a given time, and is appropriate as a description for music in that era. This, too, is wrong for its reluctance to confront the creative process.

We mustn’t yield to these impulsive descriptions, for to do so renders the profound efforts of the 20^th century meaningless. There is a unifying thread in music that qualifies it to be considered modern, or modernist, and it isn’t just a time frame. Modernism is an attitude. This attitude appears periodically in music history, but it is most effectively understood in the context of creativity, most pronouncedly found late in the 20^th century. Modern music is the music composed that results from research into the attributes of sound, and into the ways we perceive sound. It usually involves experimentation; the experimentation yields special discoveries that bear fruit in the act of composition. This distinction is crucial; for even though much cluster music, and some neo-classical music, contains high dissonance, their focus is reactionary. The experimental work of Schönberg, Berg, Webern, Bartók, Varèse, and that of some Stravinsky, is forward-looking, in that the music is not a solution unto itself: it provides a template for further work and exploration into that area. Even more so, the work of Cage, Xenakis, Scelsi, Nono and Estrada is path-breaking. Given the clarification provided in this terminological examination of modernism, the argument in the book proceeded.

The Future of Modern Music is laid out into two roughly equal halves: the first half of the 20^th century is perused as a background; the last half of the century is given intense concentration. The focus for both halves is placed upon the crucial and seminal discoveries within those historical frames, into the background behind these discoveries, and on the philosophical problems that led the composers to their discoveries. I provide a time line at the beginning to give the reader a snapshot of music history in the making. Innovations such as atonality, klangfarbenmelody, chord-coloration, granular sounds, near-inaudibility, ataxy, the continuum and others are briefly discussed. More in-depth considerations of all these topics are provided within the chapters on the composers, themselves.

The composers discussed are purposely arranged so as to show a developing lineage, following the emergence of the disciplines of sound-based composition, and culminating in its explicit revelation in the works of Pape and Estrada. Finally, the work at Les Ateliers UPIC is examined in the concluding chapter.

The composers chosen for discussion herein are the ones I consider to be the most exemplary models in the development of sound based composition. They are as follows:

Limited discussion is added for consideration of innovations of Milhaud, Ives, Ruggles, Vermeulen, Cooper, and Pape. The book concludes by laying down challenges for the composers of tomorrow’s music, or for the future of modern music.

There is so much glitter in the world, and so much noise pollution that we are being rendered incapable of reflection and of creative thought. We become mortified at the thought of a little challenge. We are paralyzed when faced with the challenge of keeping our evolutionary legacy in focus. We cannot afford to trade away quality for mediocrity, just because mediocrity is easier and more enticing. This would not be an acceptable social outcome. To live we must thrive. To thrive we cannot rest.

Entertainment is a laudable pursuit in certain settings and times. It cannot be the force that drives our lives. If a composer desires to write entertaining music, that is all right. But that composer must be honest about his or her motives for doing so. Do not write entertainment and then try to con the public by claiming this is great music. It is best to be able to discover the key to the writing of a music that can fulfill a need for tomorrow. By understanding nature, the nature of sound and the human condition, we can write music capable of conveying something essential. That goes beyond entertainment. It fulfills music’s most crucial purpose: providing a teaching role. What better way to go through a learning process than to find oneself doing so while wrapped in a cocoon of beauty? Music can be our best teacher.

It is all right to find beauty in old sources. Even Respighi can be very charming, engaging. It is also just as good to listen to soothing, euphonious music as it is to write such music. But can’t we as composers do better than this? Why can’t we give something besides pleasure to tomorrow? Young composers today are at a crossroads. They can fulfill a vital mission by helping fulfill a tradition that carries on a cultural legacy. Today’s composers must begin to dream; and then compose.