CLASSICAL Archives

Moderated Classical Music List

CLASSICAL@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Schwartz <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 09:16:22 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (74 lines)
M. Miller quotes Aaron Copland:

>"An unusual and disturbing situation has gradually become all-pervasive
>at public performances of music: the universal preponderance of old
>music on concert programs.
>
>This unhealthy state of affairs, this obsession with old music, tends
>to make all music listening safe and unadventurous since it deals so
>largely in the words of the accepted masters..."

He then asks:

>Disturbing? Unhealthy? Obsession? Unadventurous? These words are, to me, a
>bit rough when describing the old music.  I would appreciate some input on
>this.  Thanks.

Copland describes a phenomenon that happened during his lifetime.  From
the beginning of public concerts to the early part of the 20th century, the
public wanted to hear new music, "novelties" as they were called - stuff
they hadn't heard before.  The archeological passion of the 19th century
(Mendelssohn's revival of the Bach St. Matthew Passion is probably the
most famous example), led to a feeling of connection with the past and to
the glimmerings of the idea of a canon of masterpieces.  However, this was
still only occasional.  Liszt, for example, was unusual in his programming
in that he included works by past generations.  The bulk of the old work
was performed mainly by specialist organizations, often cathedral choirs
exploring the repertory of the Church.  The situation of classical music
was more like that of pop music now, where listeners are interested more in
Ricky Martin than in the Byrds.

The rise of recorded technology, however, has (with certain other
things)led to, in my opinion, an abnormal and unhealthy situation.  The
presence of recordings has given rise to almost an exclusive interest in
the past among the minority who listen to classical music and little to
none in new music among the minority of the minority who even encounter new
music.  The past should be listened to, and I and my best buddy Aaron are
talking about degree.  The interest is abnormal in that in just about every
"natural" or untutored enthusiasm for art, the desire is to hear or see
something new.  Movie houses, for example, are not bastions of classic
repertory.  It's been years since I've been able to see a Carne film,
for example.  I call the situation unhealthy because it has helped split
artist and audience.  The broad classical audience is ignorant (though not
necessarily dumb), and composers, knowing they can make neither fortune
nor fame by appealing to this audience, end up writing what they please for
a tiny, tiny group.  Communication to a broad audience has even become a
suspect goal.  I'm not necessarily talking about composers "way out there."
On the other side, the audience seems to expect to hear pieces they
immediately understand, to put in almost no work whatsoever.  The reasoning
goes, "I'm an intelligent, experienced listener.  I experience this piece
as a mis-shapen mess.  Therefore, it's a mis-shapen mess, and composers
don't know how to write any more." As a concertgoer in the city of New
Orleans, I can assure you that people walk out on Nielsen, Prokofiev,
Mahler, Copland, Barber, and Bernstein, many of whom are praised as "good"
moderns.  I've even seen people walk out on Beethoven's Missa Solemnis as
too far out.  Copland wrote his last work decades ago, his last really
popular work over forty years ago.  In the meantime, generations of
composers have written, mostly unknown, building on work the general
classical public hasn't ever heard and probably wouldn't like.

Classical music is marginal in this culture anyway, even among the
so-called educated.  People embarrassed to admit that they hadn't read the
latest Paul Auster novel couldn't even name the last three winners of the
Pulitzer for music.  I speculate it's at least partly because classical
audiences seem stuck in the not-even-recent past.  In other words, nothing
new's happening, so why get interested? It's probably also partly because
the premises of many new composers are based on music few have heard.  Even
the neo-classicals, condemned as conservatives by the official New Music
Mafia, write music probably too weird for most of the classical-music
audience today.

It will only get worse before it gets better.

Steve Schwartz

ATOM RSS1 RSS2