Jim Tobin wrote:

>Thanks to Dave Lewis for his very informative poset on Milhaud.

You're welcome!

>Since Judith Zaimont brought this name up a couple of days ago I managed
>to listen to all the recordings of Milhaud I have: five pieces from the
>thirties, four from 1919-1929 and two from 1953. Supposing that these are
>representative, I would characterize his music as lithe, lyrical or perky,
>besides jazz-influenced, and quite different from the Hindemith I know,
>although it is clear that both composers are neoclassical.  Hindemith's
>textures are less clear, and I find him ponderous in comparison with
>Milhaud and thus less likable, although I am open to the possibility of
>changing my mind.

Jim, don't do so merely as a result of reading the post.  I had planned
to add something to it, and this is the right time.  I didn't want to come
off as though I was knocking Milhaud in favor of Hindemith- I agree with
you in that I enjoy Milhaud's music a great deal more than Hindemith's.
But Milhaud doesn't hold up very well under scrutiny or analysis, especially
in light of the high level of expectation held by the listmembers.  His
work is highly imatative of the music around him, both that of his
fellow composers and of the pop music of his era.  His work habits were
unpredictable, and this did affect the quality of the music.  Late in life
Milhaud would never let a mere deadline come between him and meeting a
commission, whatever the circumstance!  Hindemith holds up a great deal
better under such standards.

But Milhaud's music is passionate, generous and emotionally strongly
responsive.  Hindemith's music, while white-hot in the expressionist 20s,
tended to grow somewhat cold as he went along.  There are parts of Ludus
which are terribly, terribly dry.  But he was far more professional and
accomplished technically than Milhaud.

So, six of one, a half-dozen of the other.  Personally I DO prefer emotion
and expressiveness over seamlessness and surety of construction.  As much
as I enjoy Sessions' Third, I'd rather listen to Thomson's "Symphony on a
Hymn Tune" even though I know the former work has a lot more to it.  Many,
I'm sure, will not agree.  I love "Nobilssima Visione", especially in
Klemperer's transparent and luscious reading, and several other Hindemith
works.  But I would gladly give them up in favor of "L'Homme et son Desir".
It's a matter of personal taste, and i'm glad I don't have to give up
anything- I want to know it all.  That's why I don't have a "favorite"
composer, though Mussorgsky and Ives are strong contenders for the top
spot.

So it is best to take Milhaud as he is, without trying to understand why
he is or what he's up to.  Some things are better than others, as Steve
Schwartz said.  And with Milhaud there are truly a LOT of "things".

Finally, I just want to pass along a Milhaud anecdote I picked up
just yesterday from a 78 collector named Frank Powers.  Dave Brubeck has
acknowledged, in print and elsewhere, a debt to Milhaud's classes in which
he was a student, although more by Milhaud's *example* than by any specific
techniques Milhaud may have taught.  In the early 50s Frank was contacted
by Milhaud as he wanted to play a record he no longer had for the class.
This was an early Gennett side by Ladd's Black Aces (later known as The
Memphis Five) in a version of W.  C.  Handy's "Aunt Hagar's Blues" which
was released as "Aunt Hagar's Children".  Frank had the disc and played it
over the phone line to the class in California.  Brubeck, amazed, responded
that it was "all there" (i.e.  in "La Creation du Monde") and promptly
requested a copy of the recording.

This story is repeated as it represents how well Milhaud was able to
synthesize external elements into his own style, so that you would think
of HIM and not Ladd's Black Aces or anyone else.

Uncle Dave Lewis
[log in to unmask]