Delighted to hand the floor today to our young correspondent Jack Pepper today for a look at why we need a new Britten in Britain for the 21st century, and what conditions might be necessary for one to emerge. And no, it's not just the mainstream media. Jack, 18, is a writer and composer. JD
Great
Britten
Jack Pepper
 |
| A centenary stamp for Benjamin Britten, 2013 |
We need another Britten. Facing social and political divides,
and frequent misperceptions of classical music, we need a musical polymath to
become an ‘establishment’ figure who can excite the public and prove that all
aspects of music can unite us. What happened to the classical musician as the public
voice of justice and humanity?
In public and in private, Benjamin Britten was exactly what
the 21st-century needs. The problems we face today were all in some
ways addressed by the composer. Born in Lowestoft, Britten was never a
representative of the highest born elite, and so was a perfect representative
of the ideal of music for all. Today classical music faces criticism that it is
the preserve of a wealthy minority. Composing for schoolchildren and amateur
groups in works like Noye’s Fludde,
Britten opened the genre to younger audiences, a passionate advocate of music
education.
Today we are surrounded by debates about how best to engage younger
audiences with classical music. Determined to ensure the success and
accessibility of Aldeburgh and later Snape Maltings, in 1953 Britten told
Imogen Holst that “We’ll have a school here”. Today music festivals are
fighting over Arts Council funding whilst trying hard to launch new schemes for
young composers and performers. As a homosexual who neither flaunted nor
suppressed his sexuality in public, Britten frequently used his music to
express his personal viewpoints and comment on contemporary issues, be it conflict
in the War Requiem or homosexuality
in Death in Venice. In 2017, we
commemorate 50 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Britain,
whilst also facing growing conflict in Syria, Ukraine and Yemen. Britten was a
vital figure in a divisive century; he came to epitomise freedom, the rights of
the individual, and the openness of music to all. He came to symbolise Britain.
But where is our Britten today? We have musicians who
champion classical music amongst young people and amateur ensembles, likewise
we enjoy high-profile conductors like Sir Simon Rattle championing the arts in
the face of cuts and cultural cynicism. But do we have a figure entirely comparable to Benjamin Britten, both in
the breadth of musical disciplines they represent and the public platform they occupy?
In being equally capable and known as a composer, teacher, conductor, pianist,
accompanist, writer, musical spokesperson and civil rights symbol, Britten
was able to demonstrate the gamut of music’s potential to benefit society as a
whole. Barenboim is probably the most notable and publicised musical polymath
of today, known equally as a conductor, pianist, writer and political activist,
but who in Britain can claim to combine such disciplines in an equal manner,
and with similar publicity in the mainstream media?
A musician of Britten’s versatility is more likely to
encourage the public to adopt them as a figurehead, since they represent so
much more than an interest in a certain repertoire or an area of music. To
generalise, a top-class, frequently-televised conductor will likely appeal to
an audience at least partially distinct from that which is attracted to a musical
academic; it is reasonable to assume that a conductor of, for example, Leonard
Bernstein’s stature, was attracting certain fans who may not have occupied the
circles surrounding, say, Charles Rosen. Similarly, a song accompanist will likely
have a very different main circle of admirers than a musician who is a political
heavyweight. Britten, and Bernstein in America, stand out because they combined
these diverse skills, and in doing so they came to represent all that was great about music, making
them more likely to be adopted by the broader public as a representative of the
arts. In uniting different musical disciplines, and combining this with a
distinct personality and determined set of personal beliefs, Britten was able
to symbolise all that was exciting, fair and engaging about classical music. A
representative in its fullest sense.
But Britten was not only a great figurehead because of his
own attributes. Society was receptive to his influence. Britten was
commissioned to compose an opera – Gloriana
- to celebrate the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, whilst he also
welcomed the Queen to the new Snape Maltings hall, just outside Aldeburgh, in
1967. He was given a platform that made him very much an establishment figure –
one who the public recognised and thus one who was listened to – whilst also
maintaining the freedom to express his own, often then-controversial, views. He
was associated with his country and treasured by its public whilst also able to
maintain his own viewpoints. Nowadays, composers continue to be commissioned to
compose for royal events, with Paul Mealor writing for the wedding of the Duke
and Duchess of Cambridge; classical music continues to be at the heart of
national occasions. Music itself has not lost its ability to unite people or to
commemorate moments of national significance; likewise, music has not lost its
share of high-profile figures who champion the arts. The problem is that the public
platform for such views has diminished. The majority of these figures are still
confined to musical circles. The debate about the importance of music in a
volatile world is restricted to the musical world alone. What Britain lacks
today is a figure that represents the arts to the wider public.
Other nations have this. Gustavo Dudamel opened up music for
younger generations when he was appointed music director of the Orquesta Sinfónica Simón Bolívar – Venezuela’s
national youth orchestra - in 1999. Daniel Barenboim has shown music’s capacity
to unite opposing factions by conducting both Israeli and Palestinian musicians
at a concert in 2014 to promote peace in Gaza. However, it’s not that Britain
doesn’t have its own classical figureheads. Nicola Benedetti established the
‘Benedetti Sessions’ workshop programme that offers rehearsals, masterclasses
and performances for young people. Classical music still enjoys a broad range
of global and national ambassadors who, like Britten, champion the genre as a
way of breaking down age, class and political barriers. But are they recognised
in truly public spheres for doing so?
We no longer see
vast crowds of excited children attending the opening of a classical concert
hall, as we did with Britten in 1967. Nor is the general public likely to
identify a classical musician as a national and global figurehead for
education, rights and freedom. Whilst Britten came to epitomise musical
inclusiveness and the apogee of British musical achievement, today we lack a
figure who an everyday Briton would immediately recognise as ‘ours’. Top
musicians like Rattle, Benedetti and others are widely recognised for their
championship of the arts, but this is still largely confined to musical
circles. Think how many movie stars appear on The Graham Norton Show, The
One Show or Top Gear, and then
consider how many classical musicians we see in similar prime-time slots. Ask
someone in the high street which musician best unites and epitomises this
country, and they’d probably say Adele. But Adele does not combine the variety
of disciplines that Britten did, a diversity that would provide the strongest
possible evidence of the power and importance of music to all. Britten was a fantastic
symbol of music’s potential to better humanity because he represented so many
different aspects of this musical world.
Yet without a platform, even a figure
who did match Britten’s diversity would struggle to become a national icon. Whilst
classical musicians are still trying their utmost to promote the accessibility,
equality and openness of music in the manner of Britten, they seem to lack the
public voice that gave such a platform to Benjamin Britten, and to Handel and
Elgar before him.
What makes a
Britten so necessary today is that he represented a time in which classical
music occupied a central role in society. Whilst music, both then and now,
tries to unite people in times of division – look at the ‘One Love’ concert in
Manchester – classical musicians no longer seem to occupy a pivotal position in
this. It is significant that, on that Manchester stage, not one classical
musician appeared. This is at least in part a result of newspaper headlines
that today favour a Britain’s Got Talent
controversy rather than a Leonard
Bernstein, and newspaper arts sections that diminish in size by the day. Whilst
classical music used to feature heavily in newspaper columns and radio
discussions, we must now travel ever more frequently to specialist music
websites and journals to hear the same level of discussion about classical
music. There are numerous individuals working tirelessly to promote classical
music and to bridge divides, but they are not receiving the publicity they
deserve. Their voices are confined to the musical circles that already support
their beliefs.
However, it would
be wrong to suggest classical music has diminished as an agent of change on the
world stage solely because of a lack of mainstream media coverage. Alongside
greater media support, classical composers must not be afraid to speak the
language they find most truthful to them; with the growing recognition of film
and game scores as legitimate forms of classical music, and the movement away
from the hegemony of atonality and the accompanying belief that one must only
write twelve-tone music to be taken seriously, I believe our musical integrity
is improving. We must continue to pursue music as an honest reflection of what
is within us, and not write what we feel we ought to.
Once again, Britten
perfectly captured this musical truthfulness; he wrote mostly tonal music at a
time when the Darmstadt school was bringing dodecaphony and electronic music
into the mainstream, a time when tonality was increasingly dismissed as
backward. As Oliver Knussen argued, Britten, “rather than trying to do
something new and different for its own sake, says something important with
means that can communicate very directly. He deals with imponderables in a very
commonsensical way.”
And so, to be both artistically true to oneself as well as
socially useful – is that not the purpose of music, after all? – composers must
be strong enough to pursue their own individual goals, without fearing stigmatisation,
whilst also trying to have some form of useful voice. Britten was strong enough
to admit he was many things at a time when it was unconventional to be so: a
pacifist in a time of war, a homosexual in a time of conservatism, a tonal
composer in a time dominated by atonality. He was strong enough – and respected
enough – to be himself.
As such, we need
another Benjamin Britten - someone all people can identify with, and identify
with classical music – as well as a mainstream media that gives greater
attention to such figures. We need someone who can encapsulate both the freedom
of music to say what one desires, as well the necessity of allowing such music
to communicate something valuable to the broader public. British classical
music needs a polymath public figurehead again.
