I hate the word AESTHETIC.

I really latched on to the reading by Morton Feldman as soon as he used the word "aesthetic". In relation to new composers emerging at the time of this interview, 1964, Feldman denounces many peers as "revisionists", simply and endlessly going on a crusade for political reasons behind their composition, yet denying the aesthetic.

"Remember that 'revisionists' do not see chance as an aesthetic. They see it as a process they must "humanize" and present in a very portentous technical fashion. This is, of course, done without aesthetic goals in mind."

The issue I take with this is almost as simple as the nomenclature that Feldman chooses. (I'll explain in a minute!) Later, he speaks about why music is stuck running in place: "The reason music is ailing is because everyone is still following the same historical process..."

Of course I agree with you, Morton! Music is stuck in place with every new performance of Beethoven 5 each year (no worries, I love Beethoven 5). However, many young composers likely do feel the need to adapt to this mold (in which tonality, non-chance procedures, etc.) for many reasons; financial and employment security, popularity, the list would go on and on.
Yet I think audience's perception of aesthetic is one of the most prevailing reasons that music is still being held back. If people walked out of Lincoln Center humming and buzzing about a new piece by Thomas Adès, instead of simply saying "Well it was a nice opener, but I don't really remember liking it", perhaps we might be on the right track. But all too often, Adès and his composer comrades are not exactly the aesthetic that audiences look for.

I even see this in my close friends; After class last week I went up to them, very excited about our discussion about Babbitt and showed them a page from a score. The conversation lasted about 1 minute, and went exactly like this:

Me: "Guys, look how crazy these rhythms are! I would have to spend so much time working out these nested rhythms before even attempting to play this. So mathematical!"
Friend x: "Looks like saxophone music to me, haha!" [the piece was for clarinet]
Me: "Well did you know Babbitt had no real concern for his audience? He was a pretty ego-centric dude and felt his music was so advanced that the audience couldn't appreciate it anyway"
Friend x: "Alyssa, that's how all twentieth century music is. They don't care about anyone." (Walks away)

Friend y: "Well he's kinda right, generally that's how a lot of that a tonal music is and how the composers felt".

Cue: My jaw hitting the floor, walking away defeated and flabbergasted.
End scene

______

I'm kind of ashamed that these musician friends actually have generalized over 110 years of music into a single group, and openly admit that they have no care for their audiences.
And I have thought about it non-stop since last week: Why do they feel this way? Is it because they have learned in such an "academic" way, just like Feldman denounced? Is it because they have not had the proper education? I don't think these are any of the answers, but all I could focus upon was that they could read, understand and perform this music, but simply wanted something a little more singable.

So why do I hate the word aesthetic? Because it's vague, meaningless and an opportunity to 'cop out' when you're trying to decide exactly why you don't like that piece by Cage or Babbitt (e.g."Oh well I can't really appreciate the aesthetic...") Feldman uses it to characterize the new movement of chance music beginning since the 50's, while simultaneously denouncing the work of new composers that does not accept willingly these new and radical aesthetics that the "New York School" was creating (also a vague term, as Feldman notes). Yet composers will and have become successful more radical and less revisionists; now we need to work on the audiences and performers.