Thoughts?
Sun, Aug 26 2012, 4:22PM
#2
RE: Thoughts?
Mark wrote: "Re; the original post, I can't help but thinking, as obvious as it seems, that composers tend to be labelled as traditionalist or avant-garde perhaps a bit too easily, and maybe it's an over-simplified black or white distinction. That distinction then rubs off on us as listeners, so that, consciously or not, whenever I hear a new composer I tend to pigeonhole them one way or the other..."
I quite agree with you Mark. To take some obvious examples, both Philip Glass and John Adams are consistently labelled as minimalists, and certainly that is how they set out. But both of them have moved on, especially Adams. I haven't yet heard Glass's more recent symphonies but it seems that he too has moved away from 'mere' minimalism.
There is a danger that we only hear what we are expecting to hear. On rehearing Boulez's Marteau sans maitre recently (in the context of French music of Ravel, Debussy and Messiaen), I was much more aware of a continuum than the 'complete break with tradition' that goes with the name Boulez.
Pity we can't have some 'blind' listening tests on the Forum!
Chris
Sun, Aug 26 2012, 5:42PM
#3
RE: Thoughts?
Well come back, Chris.
You may be right in your post, but I cannot fully agree. Glass has left his indelible mark as minimalist in a way that he will need huge efforts and memorable works to "redeem" himself. Adams has done successful efforts far from his minimalist ones. Nixon in China is a bold work and, to some extent, a milestone of the modern Opera. However, it fails to be a memorable work, in terms of pure music. On the contrary, it alienates quite a few unsuspected melomanes or potential classical listeners.
Boulez, in his "Marteau" might not completely break with the French tradition (definitely, he is close to Messiaen, but remotely close to Ravel and much more Debussy). However, the key issue is that the ratio of breaking with tradition is so critical that can alienate or repulse even people with extensive listening background, let alone newcomers. I have done (along with my music friends) blind tests with unsuspected young people and, in a ratio of 90-95%, the response was: if that is the contemporary music, we prefer to stick to pop, folk or any other non-classical genre.
In any case, "Le Marteau" along with the most significant works of Glass and Adams remain isolated to their specific clientele or loyals. As I mentioned before, check the recordings of "Le Marteau": barely four exist now. If the work could naturaly gain new audiences, more and more recordings would follow in the more than 50 years of its existence. "Nixon in China" managed to reach two recordings and so on.
Some of the advocates of the contemporary music try to convince us by urging us to "open our ears and our souls" to receive this music. What they forget or neglect is that the great composers of the previous periods open, with their music, our ears and our souls. None of us was ready to open his/her ears or soul, at the very beginning, to listen to any Fugue by Bach or a Piano Sonata by Beethoven or a String Quartet by Schubert and so on.
So, it's not exactly that we hear what we expect to hear. If there is a memorably great music, most of us, if not all, we will listen and, somehow, will react accordingly. See with Shostakovich case: there is a variety of reactions, but, most of the listeners respond positevely and go for a further listening. Thus, a plentitude of recordings of his works.
Parla
After last nights performance of that Messy Un-symphony, I think we can pigeonhole absolute rubbish as absolute rubbish far too slowly.