Reflections

---

This chapter examines two key aspects: the roots and historical context of my artistic practice, and the ethical considerations I regard as most significant in a compositional approach rooted in this tradition. The discussion addresses two primary concerns: the ethical dimensions of compositional practice within Western Art Contemporary Music and the ethical implications of using gen-AI in artistic creation. In the following section, I provide a detailed analysis of my field of practice, focusing first on its historical contextualization and then on the role of computers in the creative process, particularly in computer-assisted composition.

The Question of Comtemporary Music

The term Contemporary Music or New Music*In general, the terms Contemporary Music and New Music can be –and are usually– used indistinctively, although some authors use this different conceptualization to establish a categorical clear difference between them. See for example Joan Arnau Pamies, "New Music Is Not (Necessarily) Contemporary Music - New Music USA," NewMusicBox, 06/2016, https://newmusicusa.org/nmbx/new-music-is-not-necessarily-contemporary-music/. conventionally refers to a wide range of compositional and performative artistic musical practices that emerged in Western cultural centers after the Second World War, during the latter half of the 20th century, and continue into the 21st century. To clarify, I use the term Western Art Contemporary Music (WACM) to define these practices specifically.

WACM is characterized as a type of critical and self-reflexive music that seeks to challenge, expand, or break away from the traditional stylistic and aesthetic norms of earlier musical traditions. Initially, the philosophical foundations of contemporary music were deeply rooted in the ideas of modernity.*Modernity, in its conventional understanding, refers to a global movement emerging in the early twentieth century, that sought to align society and culture with the experiences of modern industrial life. Some of the most important principles of modernist art included a rejection of historical artistic values –which were viewed as conservative or bourgeois– and an interest in innovation and experimentation, putting the focus on materials and processes. Modernism was often driven by utopian social and political agendas, embodying idealized visions of progress. Around the 1960s, the subsequent rise of post-modernism marked a reaction against modernist ideals and methodologies. In https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/m/modernism. Accessed May 23, 2023. Some early contemporary music practitioners drew influence from thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Ludwig Wittgenstein, with Theodor Adorno arguably being one of the most significant and influential figures in this regard.*See for example Adorno, Aesthetic Theory; Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment (Stanford University Press, 2007); Adorno, Philosophy of New Music.

After World War II, some European and American composers, influenced by modernist ideals, sought to break with tradition to redefine music. Early figures like Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez, and Milton Babbitt explored compositional methods by blending mathematical and abstract formulations with music theory and organization to create new compositions. Soon after, this scientificist approach led to music becoming hypercomplex and disconnected from the interest of broader audiences. Despite this, some composers defended it as a cornerstone of WACM, viewing it as a mission to elevate music to a higher state of development.*See for example Milton Babbitt, "Who cares if you listen?," High Fidelity 8, no. 2 (1958).

After a few years of severe criticism of the dehumanized results of some avant-garde experiments,*See for example Iannis Xenakis, "La crise de la musique sérielle," 1, no. 1 (1955). composers shifted toward more personal styles, leading to a diversification of aesthetics described by Leonard Meyer as a period of stasis by the 1960s.*Leonard B. Meyer, Music, the arts and ideas: patterns and predictions in twentieth-century culture, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967). Later generations of composers adopted a more inclusive attitude toward both tradition and popular music, deviating from some of the negational stanzas of modernism. They favored a pluralistic approach, drawing from diverse musical genres and celebrating the fusion of styles and the deconstruction of established WACM conventions, for example, by exploring non-Western music, cultural narratives, and rituals. Some theorists refer to these composers as postmodernists.*Some theorists view musical postmodernism as a dialogue with, rather than a rejection of, modernism, reflecting and critiquing its ideals while coexisting with them. For example, David Metzer, Musical Modernism at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge University Press, 2011).

These fragmentations and interplay between philosophical perspectives have undergone various shifts in dominance, influencing the focus and shaping the preferences of those curating WACM concerts and festivals. For example, we have witnessed the rise of the “New Complexity” movement, featuring composers such as Brian Ferneyhough and others, as well as subsequent responses to it, including movements toward “Neo-Tonalism” and the reactions that followed. These alternating trends potentially persist into and beyond what has been termed “Late Modernity,” a period I will elaborate on in the section ‘Field of Practice.’ But before delving into that, I want to address some specific ethical concerns I have around a compositional practice rooted in WACM as it has unfolded thus far. Some of these ideas, even though they have been fiercely discussed in the past, still somehow spill into our current day.

Ethics of a Compositional Practice

In his lecture “Music is Toxic,” Dmitri Kourliandsky examines parallels between music and political systems, suggesting that music is a reflection of societal hierarchies and power dynamics.*Dmitri Kourliandsky, “Music is Toxic,” lecture at the Festival and Academy for Composers "Impuls," 2023. In addition, some of the main topics addressed by him in this lecture are also present in this video: Kourliandsky, "Author VS Avatar [Video]." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jLSPJIAhws&ab_channel=DmitriKourliandski Using models like “tonal feudalism” and “twelve-tone democracy,” he illustrates the political nature of musical revolutions and counterrevolutions. Kourliandsky also emphasizes the role of music composition as a societal act, urging composers to view our work as a mirror of political realities and to engage with the inherently political nature of creating music.

As I understand them, his reflections are mainly aimed at raising awareness among young –and not-so-young– composers about the importance of the act of composing: music and the act of composing are socially relevant, and composers should seriously engage with these reflections, understanding composition as a fundamentally political act. I completely agree with his idea so far. However, there’s something unsettling about Kourliandsky’s talk: It seems to primarily address composers of WACM at one of the largest mainstream festivals, located in one of the wealthiest European countries, which allocates a significant budget to sustain these practices –a situation mirrored in much of Europe. In this context, I believe his main thesis encounters some resistance.

It has often been observed that much of WACM –as commonly understood in the context of Kourliandsky’s lecture– frequently operates as a divergent practice with limited resonance within broader society.*Of course, it is easy to be divergent when your life situation does not face significant risks, such as economic pressure or political persecution—circumstances that are the fortunate reality for many Western-European young composers but do not replicate globally. This is a personal idea I have held for a long time, and I was pleased to hear it echoed by Pier Luigi Sacco in his keynote speech at the SAR Conference 2023, titled “Too Early / Too Late.” The full speech can be found here: https://sar2023.no/node/86. Why might this be the case? Could it be that these tendencies stem from historical directives that encouraged a deliberate distancing from tradition, popular musical, and societal norms? If so, I wonder how these historical legacies continue to shape the ways WACM practitioners position our work today.

Despite a long history of politically engaged and activist experimental and avant-garde music practitioners –figures like Luigi Nono, Pauline Oliveros, George Crumb, Cornelius Cardew, and George Lewis, among many others– I find myself questioning whether much of the music produced today, particularly by the composers Kourliandsky appears to address, genuinely reflects the issues he suggests it does. Probably, it’s easier to observe how Kourliandsky’s ideas potentially manifest in certain styles of popular music, for example, where lyrics, choreography, and visual elements –such as those in music videos– advocate violence or oppression, particularly against women.*The clearest and most massive example for me is reggaeton, a dance genre originated in Panama in the 1980s that has become massive in Latin America starting in the early 2000s. In most cases, reggaeton has explicit lyrics that apologize for the use of drugs, violence, disposable love and sex. Creators and listeners of such music share responsibility for producing and consuming content that perpetuates these issues. However, when it comes to WACM, things are almost always up in the air. Historically, WACM has been viewed as seeking some form of social advancement,*It is true that, even for avant-garde practitioners, the idea of music’s capacity for social advancement was somewhat limited. Adorno, for example, mainly saw this music as a critique of the capitalist culture industry, which he argued reduced art to a commodity for mass consumption. In contrast, the avant-garde rejected conventional musical forms, tonality, and harmony, creating tensions and contradictions that inherently reflected modern society. While Adorno recognized the potential of avant-garde music to provoke critical thought about social conditions, he was skeptical about its ability to directly influence social change. Rather, its transformative power was more intellectual than revolutionary. See Adorno, Aesthetic Theory; Adorno, Philosophy of New Music; Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightement. and it is within this perceived goal that the contradiction lies, as I see it.

Of course, this is a deeply personal perspective, and I recognize that others may strongly challenge it. However, I wonder: Is this perception a reflection of a broader disconnect between the stated intentions of WACM practitioners and the actual resonance of our work? Could it stem from changes in how political engagement is expressed in music today? Maybe the political or activist potential of contemporary composers has taken on subtler or less overtly recognizable forms?

In considering how an artistic practice rooted in WACM might truly reflect the issues Kourliandsky discusses regarding the act of composing, I believe that practitioners should potentially critically examine two important ethical concerns inherited from past traditions: the idea of seclusion and the notion of epistemological colonialism, and how these aspects might still influence the ethical implications surrounding our practices today. Furthermore, given that WACM is often supported through public funding, these issues call also for a deeper reflection on the relationship between public resources and the music produced, and what responsibilities, if any, composers and practitioners have in ensuring that our work resonates with or engage the public that sustains it.

Concerning the theme of seclusion, I find myself reflecting on the potential risks of social and artistic isolation tied to certain historical directives in the practice of WACM. Specifically, the lingering influence of discourses that elevate formal and material complexity, as well as the pursuit of an “academic” or “serious” status, as primary measures of artistic value and prestige. While these ideas were critically examined and debated –sometimes quite harshly– in the late 1980s*See for example Susan McClary, "Terminal Prestige: The Case of Avant-Garde Music Composition," Cultural Critique, no. 12 (1989). and beyond, I wonder whether the paradox of WACM’s relationship with accessibility and complexity has truly been resolved. This is not a novel observation, but it remains an important one.

Might the excessive pursuit of complexity inadvertently lead to works that struggle to communicate their conceptual depth? Could this tendency create a gap between the music and its audience, especially for listeners without formal training, who may dismiss such works as “random” or incomprehensible? Does this alienation risk fostering a perception among audiences that they are unprepared –or even “not smart enough”– to engage with what is presented as a high art form?

This disconnection –whether intentional or unconscious– often positions practitioners apart from the societies that financially support our work through public funding. I wonder whether this distance holds inherent value or if it risks alienating audiences who might otherwise engage more deeply with these practices. Could a conscious and ongoing reevaluation of the relationship between WACM and its audiences open pathways to practices that are more socially resonant? And what role should we, as practitioners, play in addressing such questions?

These are reflections that are very present in me and possibly have a strong impact on my work. This is not to say my music is simple, or easy to listen to. Quite on the contrary. However, I do not wish that the value*The value of an artistic element is imprecisely defined by a large and complex network of external factors that it is not the scope of this project to identify and disentangle. However, I find interesting some of the discussions regarding the concept of value of art and creative practice in Boden, The creative mind: myths and mechanisms. of my work to derive from the approval of a specific ideal listener or from conforming to narrow frameworks of validation by highly educated or musically trained audiences. In this sense, I wonder: Can we envision a concept of value in WACM that resonates more broadly with audiences, fostering an inclusive and expansive artistic dialogue?

The second issue I observe arises from the significant infusion of financial, technological resources, and social capital*Pierre Bourdieu, "The field of cultural production," Poetics 12 (1983), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003118305-8. into Western central countries following World War II, which propagated WACM ideas, techniques, and philosophical debates, establishing them as the norm for composers on the periphery. This has historically positioned Western central countries as both creators and arbiters of the standards that define legitimate and worthy contemporary music.

This influence has left a lasting impact on composition pedagogy and educational frameworks worldwide, an effect that, I believe, continues to persist. Some authors have described this paradigm as a longstanding manifestation of European colonialism, perpetuating certain ontologies and epistemological views.*Wallerstein, along with the four volumes of his book The Modern World System (1970-2011) proposes that the history of the modern world can be viewed as the history of the expansion of European states and their institutions into the rest of the world. Of course, the modernity that colonialism generated has certainly changed in postmodern times, but certain aspects of colonial epistemology and ontology continue to persist, influencing how the periphery understands the world and how it lives in ways that still reflect colonial legacies. In this line, even though the European colonialist project officially ended with the national liberation and independence movements of the 1960s, its impact hasn’t just vanished. It’s still there in the background in peripheral societies. In the case of WACM, such hegemony many times has shared the venue with a strong negative valorization of popular culture and folk music expressions, alongside ideologies that were deliberately Eurocentric,*Composers and theorists such as Kofi Agawu and George Lewis have extensively addressed these issues, providing critical insights into the dynamics of cultural hegemony and decolonization in contemporary music. See, for example Kofi Agawu, “Decolonising Representation.” Herri, no. 8, 2023, https://herri.org.za/8/kofi-agawu/. Accessed 28 Nov. 2024, and George E. Lewis, “On the Decolonizing of Classical Music.” UCLA Herb Alpert School of Music, https://schoolofmusic.ucla.edu/george-e-lewis-on-the-decolonizing-of-classical-music/. Accessed 28 Nov. 2024. elitist –aimed exclusively at highly educated practitioners– and patriarchal.*See Ashley Fure, "GRID: Gender Research In Darmstadt" (2016) for one of the very few research projects aimed at empirically observing historical gender inequalities in Darmstadt. https://griddarmstadt.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/grid_gender_research_in_darmstadt.pdf, accessed May 23, 2023. To what extent might colonial ideas, consciously or unconsciously, still persist within WACM institutions and even among practitioners themselves? How might these problems be addressed?

The late 1990s and early 2000s indeed marked significant shifts in Western cultural, artistic, and musical institutions, characterized by increasing emphasis on participation, inclusion, and diversity.*The European Association of Conservatories, Academies of Music and High School (AEC) has stated as the Pillar 3 in its Mission as “promoting participation, inclusiveness and diversity”. Retrieved from https://aec-music.eu/about-aec/aec-vision-and-mission/, accessed May 23, 2023. This openness allowed a broader range of styles, approaches, and practitioners to enter WACM stages, a trend that is observable in many festivals and other related institutions. Could this evolution represent a new form of stasis –one distinct from Meyer’s concept– where diversity in participants and origins, rather than just techniques and styles, becomes the defining characteristic? In this sense, a valid ethical concern for a practice rooted in WACM could be how music strives to be inclusive of a diverse audience and a range of musical influences and how the emphasis on diversity is not merely symbolic but transformative.

For some practitioners, this inclusivity might take diverse forms, but for me, it relates to my own experience as a musician engaged with various popular musical genres. Setting aside the more complex issue of cultural appropriation,*Some discussion around it can be found on Lloyd Whitesell, "White Noise: Race and Erasure in the Cultural Avant-Garde," American Music 19, no. 2 (2001), https://doi.org/10.2307/3052612. an essential aspect of WACM practice could be to embrace –rather than exclude– these varied musical experiences. Such inclusion might foster richer engagement with artistic questions across cultural perspectives and narratives.*See, for example, Tian Fu’s artistic research doctoral project, An Integration of Chinese Rap and Neue Musik, here: https://sar2023.no/node/25. and Erik Halvorsen’s project Spatium Temporis, which studies elements of Sápmi music and culture, integrating them within a contemporary compositional practice. How can WACM practitioners navigate this inclusivity while maintaining authenticity? And to what extent can embracing diverse influences shape a more equitable and dynamic field of practice?

It is fair to say that, in my practice, and especially within this project, one should not expect to find overt references to popular traditions. Why is that? While I have been involved in numerous projects across different musical styles, I don’t strongly identify with any specific popular genre.* However, in the past, I have been actively involved as a pianist and arranger for Argentine Tango. You can listen to some recordings from the orchestra "Sanluistango," with whom I collaborated from 2016 to 2019: https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/artist/5NUcvoOqMcjF4wiaC2ywNq. In addition, some of my past experimental music projects employed Argentinean and Latin American folk elements. See for example, 'Vidala para mi Sombra' (J.S. Espinza) by 'Azul 514': https://youtu.be/Yr2ZPuWgpmA?si=iEriIIqSyCTLsvhm&t=3653 I’m concerned that my use of these traditions might risk becoming decontextualized, superficial, or lacking in meaning, in particular within the scope of this research. However, I believe these narratives still play a role in my creative process, even if their influence isn’t immediately apparent in the music. They shape me on an unconscious level. Admittedly, the presence of these influences in my current practice remains more speculative –or simply a matter of intention.

Following that line, I believe that a potential issue for a WACM composer to reflect upon could be whether to consider how the progress of other musical genres relates to WACM, and how techniques, and advancements from fields such as popular music production, audiovisual production, and other forms of technology might be more progressive –potentially more so than some longstanding techniques in WACM. Moreover, how might these elements be integrated into a creative practice that aspires to sustain itself by reaching a wider audience?*An interesting example that has made me reflect on this is the work of Gabriel Prokofiev, combining DJing, turntables, and contemporary composition techniques. See https://www.gabrielprokofiev.com/

The relationship between WACM and public funding has been –and continues to be– a highly debated issue. Personally, I have no objection to musical practices that avoid commercialization as a means of support and sustenance. However, if a creative practice relies on public funding because it cannot sustain itself, and practitioners choose to dismiss or undervalue the intellectual, educational, or aesthetic preferences of the wider public, we risk being perceived as irrelevant or, worse, unnecessary. Such a perception could significantly harm experimental or research-based musical practices by jeopardizing their support. Instead, composers might benefit from reflecting on the broader implications of how and why our work is supported by society. How can WACM composers balance innovation with societal engagement? How can experimental music ensure it maintains both artistic relevance and public support?

To conclude, I hope these reflections –however brief and subjective– help highlight some important ethical questions that I believe persist within WACM. I firmly believe the social impact of an artistic compositional practice should never be dismissed, provided we, as composers, recognize the significance of our role and take responsibility for it. This process begins by asking ourselves meaningful questions –perhaps some of those I’ve raised here, or others, as my perspective is neither objective nor exhaustive.

Personally, I strive for my music to remain conscious of contemporary social challenges and to foster dialogue about musical, artistic, political, and ethical issues. I hope this awareness inspires similar questioning in other practitioners, especially younger ones. Throughout my research, I have made a conscious effort to address these concerns in my artistic and educational work. I believe these ethical discussions remain vital today and are essential for the future development of the field.

---