Stephen Hicken writes:
>Some observers of the classical music world (including but not limited to
>Norman Lebrecht) see a crisis in our music that threatens its viability as
>an art form, if not its very existence.
Please allow me to utter to controversial opinion that I find that Mr.
LeBrecht can be very right on this point, just so You don't need to wonder
where I stand. *G*. Many are not convinced be LeBrechts arguing - could
be as he doesn't show much evidence in his writing (and this might be
intended) that he actually knows anything of the music itself - but just
that his raised question provoke controversy should be a sign of at least
^Something^.
>Contemporary music-music being composed today and in the very recent
>past-is, in pure numeric terms, a very small part of the world of
>classical, or concert, music. Our Editor pointed out in the last issue
>that contemporary music is the second largest category of disc sent to
><ARG> for review.
The 20th century didn't success to produce composer like the 19th (and/or
even the 18th) century did. If you now count the factual number of
composers I think you will find that 20th century should not be the 19th
after. That is FWIW a sacrosanct modernist argument....what is not worth
much when one realize the fact that the 20th century had so much greater
resources to hand to produce a blossoming musical life for its contemporary
subjects (read: us living in this time). If the number of the musicians
actively dabbling with classical music in the 19th century should be
reduced to the number of one hundred; the corresponding number for the
20th century should be over one thousand. Thereto comes that composers of
the 20th century should have had better chances to spread their music, as
radio was invented, television, CD...and more people were in the healthy
financial position to spend some of their money on art. The relation
100:1000 - 1:10 - certainly doesn't go for the number of composers of
magnitude. Still, despite chemical intoxication from 20th century
industrial pollution, it is unlikely that people are more stupid in this
time or have lesser musical talent and ability for composing than the
people of the 19th century. So, for the one not satisfied, the conclusion
must be drawn: it must be the system that has a 'dud-fip' somewhere.
It is though not at all impossible though that the number of composers
will increase, at least from Scandinavia - something like the baby-boom of
Finnish conductors - there are strong wills in motion. How many of those
composers who then have something to say is left for time to tell. To
notice is after all that while 19th century liked originals, 20th century
did not, and that is an important reason to 20th century's triumph in
science and failure in art.
>My experience leads me to guess that if you limit the numbers to "major"
>commercial labels, contemporary music would drop considerably among
>categories.
With except for the former Soviet label "Olympia" this would be my guess
too. Our time is, like Jupiter, eating its own children.
>Anecdotal evidence like conversation, correspondence, and observation
>indicates that many people are discouraged from entering the world of
>concert music by these style wars.
I would be interested in examples of that "anecdotal evidence". I doubt
that this would be other than marginal; the "civil war" in France with
monsieures Rameau and Rosseau just seemed to increase the interest, and
the German "civil war" was never reported to turn people away for just
its sake. That was a time when criticism meant something....
>He even invokes the Nazis ("goose-stepping academics") in reference to
>those who visited the horrors of the Passion visited on him as a student.
>Comparing opponents to the Nazis is considered beyond the pale even in
>today's debased political environment
I don't want to see why the word "Nazi" is taboo when it comes to
the discussion of art oevre. The nazis - on Hitlers implication -
intentionally spoke with double tounge in art issues. And don't come
and say that they didn't know anything about Art.
>Again, this kind of focused writing on music is not easy, and will take
>great time and effort to achieve. The result, however, will be well worth
>the effort.
I notice, Mr. Hicken, with amusement, that your post is written in the
very same idiom as the review of Pendereckis "Lukaspassion". I beg my
good wishes, with the joyment to see a critic that has actually thought
something substantial.
I am however not sure that the discussion tonality/atonality is more
possible to push aside than the arguing about absoulte/programmatic of 19th
century for the critic, and that it will solve the problem Mr. LeBrecht
tries to bring our notice upon; but criticism has other things to improve
on, that will weigh heavier, more convincing...
Please allow me to quote David Lamb (in Seattle) response to Hicken an me
on another discussion-list (CLASSM_LIST):
Lamb:
>Mr. Hicken takes an interesting tack in suggesting that negative campaigning
>by critics has turned people away from music. I can't believe that this was
>the case when Berlioz attacked Rossini and favored Gluck and Spontini, nor
>did it seem to be the case in the Brahms/Wagner wars a little later.
>Controversy has always been good for art even when tempers flare and there
>is uproar in the concert hall. Still, I think Hicken is right to tone down
>the attacks on style and pay more attention to a calm description of the
>music itself.
Me:
This meaning "listen to the music itself", it always irritates me. The
tonal movement claim that atonalism is dud as it is dud to listen to, the
atonalists say "I don't understand what the problem with modern music is,
just listen to the music itself...", and now we have a movement that wants
to get over the debate with "listening to the music itself". I don't think
there are many who don't listen to the music they choose to have in their
ears - marking affinity with a subculture or not.
>I have always thought that critics have far less impact on public opinion
>than they imagine themselves to have. But if in fact they have promoted
>apathy among audiences, it may be their reward for having praised so much
>that is frankly not very good. When every movie is rated "two thumbs up"
>people begin to lose confidence in the reviews. It surely works the same
>way with classical music criticism.
It is just that, that a reviewers function is not to tell "this is good",
"this is bad" (but they seem to believe it is), because that can everyone
do himself. The reviewers function is to tell something about music that
get the reader/listener to perceive the music in a new way, give him a new
perspective, make him feel "gee this is really interesting!!!". That could
be done in ways like telling about the musics function, how it fills that
function, and above all: what the music evoked in the reviewer as
listener.
Nowadays most critic is written in magazines and an important part of the
criticism should be that in the major newspapers. The reviewer is a man
that has established himself as a name, and that reputation gives him the
divine authority to tell "this is good", "this is bad", and his name makes
his opinion so sacrosanct so he is just right there. This is just rubbish,
because, and now I will be grim, but one have to be; the criticisms
function is not to feed critics, so no critic should have a name and
reputation that allows him to be lazy. A reviewer must have something
interesting and substantial to say, and thereby justify his own existence
in every review he writes. If one cannot do this, on eshall not write
reviews. Because the criticism is not there for the writers of critic
sake. That is an important thing to realize.
Another important thing to realize is, that the criticism is not there
for the papers (pick any major newspaper you want) and magazines (pick for
example that "Fanfare", where it thereto are most idiots who write) sake.
In Czernys, Hoffmanns, Schumanns, Buelows and Hanslicks and Shaws time,
criticism really meant something, because it was there for the arts sake.
The last example of pure criticism was perhaps Ernst Newman in "Sunday
Times"?; when Alban Bergs opera "Woyzeck" was staged in its first
performances in London in the 50'ies, Newman devoted three successive
weekly articles on the opera, each of them with over 1500 words. This was
a rarity in even Newmans time. Do I need to raise the question if this is
even possible today? The German newspapers (SZ, FAZ, BM etc), which are the
finest today have 2-3 reportages of Classical performances - instrumental
and vocal - (in addition to a few weekly CD-reviews) per day, though
articles of literate magnitude. Magazines like "Grammophone", has reviews,
short thin notes each, on which I say nobody, how skilled he ever is, can
write anything substantial. At least I have never seen anyone that has
succeeded in that. As long as the written mediums for criticism has this
attitude "the criticism is to give our editors a work" and not "criticism
is for the art", the classic society will jump on crutches, because when
the reader find only magazine reviews which are so short so the standard
reviewer only can find space to write "This was good/bad", I understand
that people find it boring to read. It doesn't lock any newcomers to CM
either and many papers with more extensive scripts choose a so high level
that newcomers are pissed off with the probably foreverlasting belief that
CM is an intellectual snobbery. To write how many keys and which Mahler
modulates his stuff in the development section in his 7rd symphonies 1st
movement in a reviewers manner "I am Ilmari Krohn"...is not just as boring
for the newcomer as "this was good/bad. Fine.", it is a threat to the
classic culture with this aura of shobbishness it creates.
Criticism is not there for the reviewers of the papers, it is for the Art,
dammit!
Since Internet was created, a new chance has appeared to share ones
love for the arts. A website is not bound as much to proportions as a
paper-newspaper, and could therefore allow better chances to let the art
itself be the point for thew criticism. I don't know for sure, but I guess
this was what Norman LeBrecht meant when he said "The future for CM is - if
there is any - in Internet". I see the great chance to reform criticism.
Unfortunately, there has already been fame-seeking reviewers like David
Hurwitz, who use this to in the traditional manner make a name of
themselves gives the first netbased criticism a new reader might read, a
bad aftertaste. Another sad example is that institutions of criticism with
great resources at hand, and all chances to become great, like AMG, falls
down to editors criticism in not giving there writers free hand enough.
I don't, however, think it would be impossible to reform the attitude to
CM given to people from criticismwriting even in newspapers. The fora for
criticism just have to give up the modernist approach of perfection, like
that a column for a review must be for example 20 lines long. If the
papers just create the good climate for their writers - what not is more
difficult that such changes like toning down the emphasis on formalia -
they will soon get writers enough to pick out those who have good quality.
Didrik Schiele
[It is not fair to post messages from other discussion lists, for what
should be obvious reasons, and going forward will not be allowed. -Dave]
|
