LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CLASSICAL Archives


CLASSICAL Archives

CLASSICAL Archives


CLASSICAL@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CLASSICAL Home

CLASSICAL Home

CLASSICAL  March 2000

CLASSICAL March 2000

Subject:

Re: Conversations with Sessions

From:

Thanh-Tam Le <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 7 Mar 2000 05:44:54 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (154 lines)

First of all, many thanks to Steve and Stirling for launching this thread.
Maybe something would be worth pointing out before I go on: Sessions's
music is not known to a minority of listeners in France, it is virtually
unknown to most musicians.  What I mean is that what may have been written,
said or praised about him in the United States has little part, if any, in
my own approach of his music.  I also have to apologize for my approximate
English, which does not help in making my point:-)

If I understand Stirling's remark ("you are both Thanh-Tam"), he means that
I am both an admirer of Sessions (not all of his works to the same degree,
though) and a non-proponent of atonality.  Indeed, my posts about Sulek or
Natasa Danilovic bear witness to that, and atonality or 12-tone music per
se is not something one should be for or against IMHO.  But I have nothing
against Boulez and have taken part in some premieres of fairly
"modernistic" works myself.

Demonstrating that Sessions was a great composer by detailed analysis
of what he has invented is difficult, and what appeals to me in his music
more than the vast majority of 20th century composers I know (which leaves
a few dozens at a comparable level, don't worry) is not primarily his new
modulations, rhythmic patterns or orchestral timbres.  I am saying this
neither as an excuse nor as an attempt to avoid the discussion by the
eternal "art is beyond words and ideas" argument, simply stating a fact.

As Steve rightly points out, Sessions considered himself a composer of
synthesis, believed in the unity and coherence of the European tradition
and wished to bring this out in his own music.  Oddly enough, these views
are almost opposite to my own.  I do agree that there are links between
all "Western" composers, and the French obsession with "tabula rasa"
really is not something I'd endorse, but there is a vast range between
this and acknowledgeing the possibility to gather the whole Western
musical tradition within a single man, and a single work.  So what do I
find outstanding in some of Sessions's works (to make it clear, four or
five "masterpieces" and a dozen more rewarding ones make an important
composer in my view)? His perception of time, very flexible, intensely
contrasted but always balanced.  His orchestral sound: there are indeed
composers with a similar intervallic range, others with "comfortable",
spacious sonorities, but I know few who manage to combine both qualities
with such ease.  A kind of tautness which is not dry.  The often-praised
ending of his 7th symphony is more than a trick, like deciding to dissolve
the material while it should reach a climax.  I cannot "prove" that this
ending is convincing and satisfactory at that stage of the work, of course,
but it strikes me as such.  If there is no reason for this feeling, why
don't other masterfully conceived symphonies convey the same impression to
me? Naturally this "impression" is not of the level of being romantically,
sentimentally enthused by an illusion.  As a performer, I cannot indulge in
such undetailed, blurred approach.  As a mathematician, I generally find
that long analysis striving to unveil all of what makes Beethoven's 5th or
Sibelius's 7th so impressive in architectural terms fall short of reaching
a comprehensive explanation, however intersting and illuminating they may
be.  Schematically, my point here would be: this Sessions ending is not
very common.  It does not come as a discrepancy, or a cheap way to get rid
of the work.  It comes after a rather dense and eventful movement, and does
not appear to be prompted by exhaustion.  I can imagine that bringing it
out, as a conductor, is no dull task, just as persuasively bringing out the
climax of Sibelius's Nightride and sunrise is a subtle one, worthy of apt
performers.  And it does strike me as fully adequate.  So, it is remarkable
to me.  I am ready to change my mind, but I, in turn, would need some
argument like "you are biased" for this or that reason, and "here is what
makes this movement ordinary, and your impression a mere illusion".

I pay much attention to intervals, and, to put it plainly, to the eloquence
of intervals.  Can a third or a seventh be eloquent per se? Only within a
framework, not necessarily a sustained melodic line anyway.  Sessions's
violin concerto is constantly interesting about this.  Yes, it does show
the influence of Stravinsky's concerto (I would not say that it "betrays"
this influence, since Sessions probably would not have denied it).  But the
pace is different, the temporality is different, long-term, fully-fledged.
It also has a special radiance, a "spiritual" light (I mean, not physical,
chromatic as Debussy's would be -- a parallel could be found in comparing
Schoenberg's violin concerto on the one hand, Valen's on the other, or else
contrasting parts of Berg's).  All this might look like vague, general
statements again, but they cease to be as soon as you take your violin and
start to play.  The density of events in Sessions's music, certainly high,
is not unique, Nancarrow obviously beats him.  But it is outstanding if we
consider that there are very few inert, anecdotic, filling elements in it.
Some composers follow one idea at a time and enliven it with short
interjections, timbral variations, spicy modulations (e.g.  in Prokofiev),
and others really deal with several ideas, each developing with its own
logic, its own voice, and yet interacting in non-destructive ways, so
that the listener is not left with the depressing choice between isolating
one element and following it, or taking the whole picture as a kind of
undiscriminating chaos.  If Sessions's ideas were so dull, and if his
technical clarity was less than impressive, I really do not think that we
(I) would care to follow them, and they would collapse one after the other,
either by its own exhaustion or by mutual destructive interference.

In short, Sessions's music sounds as eventful to my ears.  But what is
captivating is not the density of events, it's the density of events which
I wish to understand.  This may sound arbitrary, but we should think it
over, and see if the interest we take in most musical works does not partly
come "down" to that.

I am fully aware that most of my arguments refer to "balance", "expert
handling", and so on.  Sessions's music is not revolutionary, it never
meant to be.  I read that he had been called "the American Brahms".  Did
Sessions simply take German Romanticism and put it in Schoenbergian closes
which did not fit it? I don't think so.  I have never read disparaging
comments from avantgarde musicians, but they may well exist.  Let us not
forget that (at least in France) inventing new techniques is not lofty
enough for radical thinkers, they always want to build a brand new world,
and this, for instance, implied that 12-tone technique was totally
incompatible with classical patterns and Romantic expression (an assertion
which Schoenberg himself would undoubtedly have rejected).  Most works
written for conventional forces do use the same frequencies, the same
instruments, and if I may say so, the same performers and audiences.  To
which extent is novelty enclosed in unheard-of elements? Of course it is
much more difficult to point out what makes Sessions's use of classical
forms, exuberant juxtaposition of fully-fledged thematic lines, use of
ordinary metres personal and new, than to isolate a new modulation, a new
pattern, but is one really more "real" than the other, more significant?
Sessions's 7th takes elements which, while not being spectacularly new,
are well-wrought, boldly stated, carefully instrumented; and he brings
them together, and creates new correspondences between them, leads us to
hear them in different surroundings, within a new context.  Listen to the
beginning of his 4th symphony, airy, dynamic, made of short notations, but
smoothly flowing; always balanced, because no part of the orchestra or the
spectrum is left void, but not thick or static.

Can another composer build on what Sessions has created? This might be
difficult.  Does this make him unimportant, and reduce him to the mere
enjoyment of a few individuals, at the level of unthinking praise? So many
Hungarian composers have unsuccessfully tried to carry on Bartok's work.
Maybe the problem was that Bartok had fully realized what he had in his
mind, not as a theory, but within the limits of each single work.  Mozart
had no heir either.  Some take it for a proof of his lack of genuine
significance, but not everybody has to endorse this opinion.

Now, to really express what makes Sessions's best works worth hearing,
maybe I should take a CD and stop it every other second.  Why not.  It
would say much less about his music than actually playing it, and that's
why we are performers rather than musical analysts (others are much more
competent for that).  But it might be the only way to oppose the notion
that if we cannot reduce our interest and admiration for a composer to a
page of clear-cut reasons, then we are at the level of blind (or deaf)
acceptation.  I simply don't see myself as an unreflecting or primary
person, and this is not meant as autocelebration or bombast of any kind.

I wonder whether we are not criticizing Sessions for not having more
clearly expressed his thought in words than he did in music!  Quite a
paradox, don't you think?

Sorry if this post was wholly useless, or at least unsatisfactory.  As a
matter of fact, I've never found one satisfactory written description of
music and what it implies, and sadly (or fortunately) quite a few composers
are even less adapted to words than others.  Nevertheless, discussing them
is interesting.  Unquestionable demonstrations may well be more utopic, not
just about Sessions but about any (interesting) composer, and that is good
enough a reason for me not to argue, as Steve said.

Best wishes,

Thanh-Tam Le
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
July 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager