Johns Adams [Finally] Wins the Pulitzer
Marcus Maroney
Souls," by John Adams, a tribute to victims, survivors and heroes of
the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that was premiered by the New York
Philharmonic on Sept. 19, 2002. Adams, 56, is best known for his
Grammy-winning 1987 opera "Nixon in China."
Much deserved and overdue.
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus dot maroney at yale dot edu
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in
news:75e776be.03040...@posting.google.com:
> The 2003 Pulitzer Prize for music went to "On the Transmigration of
> Souls," by John Adams, a tribute to victims, survivors and heroes of
> the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that was premiered by the New York
> Philharmonic on Sept. 19, 2002. Adams, 56, is best known for his
> Grammy-winning 1987 opera "Nixon in China."
>
> Much deserved and overdue.
Are there dumplings floating around?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
RMCR's most pointless, dumb and laughable chowderhead: Mark Coy.
Terrymelin
>Souls," by John Adams, a tribute to victims, survivors and heroes of
>the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that was premiered by the New York
>Philharmonic on Sept. 19, 2002. Adams, 56, is best known for his
>Grammy-winning 1987 opera "Nixon in China."
>
>Much deserved and overdue.
>
Am I the only one who finds much of John Adams' output banal?
Terry Ellsworth
JRsnfld
Terry Ellsworth >>
Repeat this 100 times in subtly varying time signatures: "No."
--Jeff
August Helmbright
> The 2003 Pulitzer Prize for music went to "On the Transmigration of
> Souls," by John Adams, a tribute to victims, survivors and heroes of
> the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that was premiered by the New York
> Philharmonic on Sept. 19, 2002. Adams, 56, is best known for his
> Grammy-winning 1987 opera "Nixon in China."
>
> Much deserved and overdue.
>
Klinghofer." I don't question his right to free speech, but he's not
going to benefit from my sponsorship.
Politics and art are inseparable when the artist chooses to mix them.
Of course, Adams and his leftist friends (particularly those who are
probably in mourning today over the likely death of one of history's
worst mass murderers in Baghdad) will no doubt denigrate me for not
being "sophisticated" enough to appreciate an opera that celebrates
the murder of a "wealthy Jewish oppressor." Hmm ... where was it that
ideas like lead the world not all that long ago?
Mike Painter
augusthe...@msn.com (August Helmbright) wrote:
Nowhere in "The Death of Klinghoffer" is that murder celebrated.
Mike
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in news:mjp4spam-0804031005280001@sdn-ar-
007casfrmp095.dialsprint.net:
Any story or other work of art which treats an elderly invalid confined to
a wheelchair, and a machine-gun-wielding terrorist, as equal combatants on
a level playing field is by definition wrongheaded and perverted.
To portray the murder of the former, by shooting and pushing him overboard
wheelchair and all, and to make any attempt whatsoever "justifying" it, is
(to my mind) "celebrating" it.
The scenes with the kvetching American Jews are straight out of "Jud Suss."
August Helmbright
my other post regarding Adams' new left anti-Semitic diatribe, The
Death of Klinghofer.
Todd A
>
> Terry Ellsworth
No.
Mike Painter
> mjp4...@mindspringspam.comspam (Mike Painter) appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in news:mjp4spam-0804031005280001@sdn-ar-
> 007casfrmp095.dialsprint.net:
> > Nowhere in "The Death of Klinghoffer" is that murder celebrated.
In article <Xns93577F0AFDB...@129.250.170.81>,
"Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)" <oyþ@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Any story or other work of art which treats an elderly invalid confined to
> a wheelchair, and a machine-gun-wielding terrorist, as equal combatants on
> a level playing field is by definition wrongheaded and perverted.
They aren't portrayed as equals by any means. Klinghoffer has one aria
that is a strong denunciation of the Palestinian terrorists. And there is
"The Aria of the Falling Body" which is somewhat of a meditation looking
back on some aspects of a life. Klinghoffer is someone caught in the
middle of events, but not an equal, and not a combatant by any means.
> To portray the murder of the former, by shooting and pushing him overboard
> wheelchair and all, and to make any attempt whatsoever "justifying" it, is
> (to my mind) "celebrating" it.
The murder of Klinghoffer is never justified in the opera. The anger of
the Palestinians is explained, but that is different from being justified.
Marilyn Klinghoffer has the last aria in the piece, and it is a very
moving one. One is left with her sorrow, which can't help but translate
into symathy for Klinghoffer himself.
> The scenes with the kvetching American Jews are straight out of "Jud Suss."
Having seen the opera, I don't recall any such scenes, and looking through
the libretto, I don't find any now. What exactly are you referring to
here? The only American Jews -- indeed the only Jews at all -- in the
opera are the 2 Klinghoffers, and they never kvetch.
Mike
Slavoj Ken-Lum
earlier works, from Shaker Loops to Grand pianola Music, to Phrygian
Gates and even some parts of Nixon in China I find uninspired...
but, top drawer Adams is simply stunning, invigorating, beautiful, and
sensitive these works in my mind are
El Nino, (without a doubt, the operatic score of the decade)
Violin Concerto,
The Wound Dresser,
The Death of Klinghoffer,
Naive and Sentimental Music (less of you out there may agree with this
one)
August Helmbright
any way impugn your motives. I myself find little if any anti-Semitism
in Parsifal, for example, even though some do, and I'd hate to be
accused of anti-Semitism just because I don't share their views. But I
will say that I certainly sense a degree of gloating over the murder
in Adams' opera along with a general world view that "rich Jews" are
oppressors.
Slavoj Ken-Lum
>
> Mike
Yes, read the Klinghoffer libretto.
If anything, Arabs have much more reason to find the text offensive-
looks at how it conflates terrorism with Islam, or listen to the first
scene with the Captain (track 3 4"02) especially to the way 'Allah' is
evoked. A big deal is made of the 'giving voice' to the terrorists in
the klinghoffer choruses, but whatever, as a Brooklyn resident who
was at the premiere at Klinghoffer, the dramatic and moral perogrative
remains squarely against the murder of klinghoffer. And if you still
think the opera is condoning murder, just remember that the
belligerent and backwards rage in the closing pages of the opera, the
scene with mariyln Klinghoffer, condemnd not so much her, America, or
whatever you think she represents, but instead, Adams, and Peter
sellars and Alice goodman are condemning the ubbridled and blind anger
and utter hate of Marilyn which is no more productive to peaceful
resolution than more murder
Mike Painter
> mjp4...@mindspringspam.comspam (Mike Painter) wrote in message
news:<mjp4spam-080...@sdn-ar-007casfrmp095.dialsprint.net>...
> > Nowhere in "The Death of Klinghoffer" is that murder celebrated.
I'm honestly curious where you find a sense of gloating. I don't see any
at all. Not even the terrorists gloat themselves after the deed is done.
The fact that the opera ends with Marilyn Klinghoffer's lament indicates
to me exactly the opposite.
As for "rich Jews" the only time in the opera where those stereotypes are
mentioned is in the "Rambo's" response to Klinghoffer's denunication of
the terrorists. That is one of the characters (the most brutal of the
terrorists) saying it. But that's not the same as the opera (or its
composer or librettist) taking that attitude itself. Again, I just don't
see it there.
Mike
Slavoj Ken-Lum
Lincoln Center, nyc
Film: The Death of Klinghoffer
Tuesday May 13, 2003
Walter Reade Theater 8:00pm
Steve M.
"Slavoj Ken-Lum" <eye...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c606e407.03040...@posting.google.com...
> Naive and Sentimental Music (less of you out there may agree with this
> one)
Out of curiosity, what is this about? I assume it has something to do with
Schiller's aesthetics, but what is Adams trying to accomplish? (I ask this
as someone completely unfamiliar with Adams and most 1950s+ music in
general)
Jim Paul
I have chosen to boycot the composer of "The Death of
> Klinghofer." I don't question his right to free speech, but he's not
> going to benefit from my sponsorship.
>
> Politics and art are inseparable when the artist chooses to mix them.
> Of course, Adams and his leftist friends (particularly those who are
> probably in mourning today over the likely death of one of history's
> worst mass murderers in Baghdad) will no doubt denigrate me for not
> being "sophisticated" enough to appreciate an opera that celebrates
> the murder of a "wealthy Jewish oppressor." Hmm ... where was it that
> ideas like lead the world not all that long ago?
Judging by your description of the opera, it seems that you took the
precaution of starting your boycott without seeing or hearing it.
Pierre Paquin
for it.
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030408101901...@mb-cc.aol.com...
August Helmbright
> > mjp4...@mindspringspam.comspam (Mike Painter) wrote in message
>
> at all. Not even the terrorists gloat themselves after the deed is done.
> The fact that the opera ends with Marilyn Klinghoffer's lament indicates
> to me exactly the opposite.
>
> As for "rich Jews" the only time in the opera where those stereotypes are
> mentioned is in the "Rambo's" response to Klinghoffer's denunication of
> the terrorists. That is one of the characters (the most brutal of the
> terrorists) saying it. But that's not the same as the opera (or its
> composer or librettist) taking that attitude itself. Again, I just don't
> see it there.
>
have, and his comparison to Jud Suss is spot on in my opinion.
Reichsführer Goebbels might not have seen eye-to-eye with Adams on
many issues, but I can well imagine him being delighted with
Klinghofer in the same way that Hitler was delighted at the forged
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion," even though it was the work of the
hated "subhuman" Russians.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in
> Having seen the opera, I don't recall any such scenes, and looking
> through the libretto, I don't find any now. What exactly are you
> referring to here? The only American Jews -- indeed the only Jews at all
> -- in the opera are the 2 Klinghoffers, and they never kvetch.
This is the scene which was reportedly in the original version of the
opera, but was cut.
August Helmbright
> sellars and Alice goodman are condemning the ubbridled and blind anger
> and utter hate of Marilyn which is no more productive to peaceful
> resolution than more murder
I guess you and Richard Gere would get along famously, but I wouldn't
judge the woman harshly at all for feeling hatred for people who
dumped her wheelchair bound elderly husband into the ocean to drown.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in
Actually, didn't they shoot him first? These are the sort of people we're
expected to feel sympathy for, and to forgive!
Larry Rinkel
news:12cbb4d6.03040...@posting.google.com...
Ironically, considering that some of you are condemning The Death of
Klinghoffer for its pro-terrorist politics, the piece for which he won the
Pulitzer is a commemoration of the victims of terrorism.
I heard that piece when the Philharmonic broadcast it earlier this season,
and did not find it particularly interesting musically - not really worthy
of a prize for its musical values, if that's what the prize was awarded for.
I also saw Klinghoffer many years ago when it was performed at the Brooklyn
Academy, and I remember again objecting more to the musical banality of some
passages than to the libretto per se. I was, however, considerably more
impressed with his recent Naive and Sentimental Music when Salonen brought
it to New York a couple of year ago (he brought it back last month, but I
missed that performance). Based on the performance I heard and the CD, I'd
say that piece is at least as deserving of an award as the "Transmigration
of Souls."
Mike Painter
> mjp4...@mindspringspam.comspam (Mike Painter) wrote in message
news:<mjp4spam-080...@sdn-ar-017casfrmp031.dialsprint.net>...
> > > mjp4...@mindspringspam.comspam (Mike Painter) wrote in message
> >
> > I'm honestly curious where you find a sense of gloating. I don't see any
> > at all. Not even the terrorists gloat themselves after the deed is done.
> > The fact that the opera ends with Marilyn Klinghoffer's lament indicates
> > to me exactly the opposite.
> >
> > As for "rich Jews" the only time in the opera where those stereotypes are
> > mentioned is in the "Rambo's" response to Klinghoffer's denunication of
> > the terrorists. That is one of the characters (the most brutal of the
> > terrorists) saying it. But that's not the same as the opera (or its
> > composer or librettist) taking that attitude itself. Again, I just don't
> > see it there.
> >
> Matthew Tepper has already responded more eloquently than I would
> have, and his comparison to Jud Suss is spot on in my opinion.
As I said before, there are no kvetching Jewish characters, whether that
scene was cut or not. So Mr. Tepper's response cannot be "spot on" by
definition.
Mike
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in
> As I said before, there are no kvetching Jewish characters, whether that
> scene was cut or not. So Mr. Tepper's response cannot be "spot on" by
> definition.
The characters of Harry, Alma, and Jonathan Rumor, who were cut after the
premiere, because they were offensive caricatures. Imagine if the opera
had an obnoxiously mincing gay character; that wouldn't go over very well
in San Francisco, would it?
I'm willing to consider that this was the fault of Alice Goodman. I won't
go into detail on the subject of the "self-hating Jew," but it might be
worthwhile to note what Alan Rich says about her: "In the years since
Klinghoffer’s early travails, Alice Goodman has abandoned her Jewish
upbringing, been ordained as an Anglican minister and now preaches to a
largely Palestinian congregation at a church in London’s outskirts."
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/11/a-rich.php
Res ipso loquitor.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in
> Ironically, considering that some of you are condemning The Death of
> Klinghoffer for its pro-terrorist politics, the piece for which he won
> the Pulitzer is a commemoration of the victims of terrorism.
Isn't it possible that he finally wised up? (Or at least appeared to?)
Christopher Webber
>In the years since Klinghoffer’s early travails, Alice Goodman has
>abandoned her Jewish upbringing, been ordained as an Anglican minister
>and now preaches to a largely Palestinian congregation at a church in
>London’s outskirts.
Once we're past the crusades a whole congregation of Palestinian
Christians in England sounds like somebody's fantasy. That aside, how
does this have a bearing on her libretto for the Adams opera? The
Christians in the ship's crew come across no better than anybody.
What does come across here is not anti-semitism, but anti-Zionism -
which many people - here in Europe at least - would view as a very
different proposition. At least it is an arguable one. Maybe that's why
she feels more at home here than in the USA?
For myself, having only very recently heard the work for the first time,
now the controversy over it has largely died down (9.99 GBP in HMV,
Oxford Street) .... I hear a musically uneven, but gripping piece, of
which the unlikely "hero" and most moving character is indeed Mr
Klinghofer himself. The choruses are superbly varied and powerful.
I liked the way the libretto gave a voice to recognisable, imperfect
human beings, with mixed ideals, virtues, vices and prejudices - just
like all of us.
There are no good or bad people. There are good and bad actions, and
double-edged ideals. Another European attitude?
Congratulations to Mr Adams on a well-deserved prize.
--
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK
http://www.zarzuela.net
"ZARZUELA!" The Spanish Music Site
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Once we're past the crusades a whole congregation of Palestinian
: Christians in England sounds like somebody's fantasy.
I do not know whether or not this particular congregation exists, but your
calling a "fantasy" reveals just how little you know about what has been
going on. There has been a major exodus of Palestinian Christians for
many years, partially due to a deliberate policy on the part of the
Palestinian Authority to do what it can to disenfranchise them. I'm not
even sure if Bethlehem has a majority of Christians any more. And it's
not a coincidence that the PA sent people (not locals, mind you) into
Beit Jala to shoot at the Jewish neighborhood of Gilo -- as far as the PA
is concerned, if the mostly Christian residents of Beit Jala left, that
would be just peachy. Yet another reason that I cannot understand how
Hanan Ashrawi manages to sleep at night.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
XYZ XYZ
relevance of the Pulitzer from John Adams is pretty interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/arts/music/09ADAM.html
I quote from the article:
"I am astonished to receive the Pulitzer Prize," Mr. Adams said in an e-mail
message from his home in California after the award was announced on Monday
afternoon. "Among musicians that I know, the Pulitzer has over the years lost
much of the prestige it still carries in other fields like literature and
journalism."
But of course, I'm not saying that the prize doesn't mean anything -- I just
found it interesting to read Adams's own comments on his winning the prize.
newhav...@aol.com (Marcus Maroney) wrote in message news:<75e776be.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> The 2003 Pulitzer Prize for music went to "On the Transmigration of
> Souls," by John Adams, a tribute to victims, survivors and heroes of
> the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that was premiered by the New York
> Philharmonic on Sept. 19, 2002. Adams, 56, is best known for his
> Grammy-winning 1987 opera "Nixon in China."
>
> Much deserved and overdue.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marcus Maroney
> marcus dot maroney at yale dot edu
August Helmbright
> augusthe...@msn.com (August Helmbright) appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:12cbb4d6.03040...@posting.google.com:
>
> > eye...@aol.com (Slavoj Ken-Lum) wrote in message
> > news:<c606e407.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >> sellars and Alice goodman are condemning the ubbridled and blind anger
> >> and utter hate of Marilyn which is no more productive to peaceful
> >> resolution than more murder
> >
> > I guess you and Richard Gere would get along famously, but I wouldn't
> > judge the woman harshly at all for feeling hatred for people who
> > dumped her wheelchair bound elderly husband into the ocean to drown.
>
> Actually, didn't they shoot him first? These are the sort of people we're
> expected to feel sympathy for, and to forgive!
You're right, they did shoot him first. I guess someone lurking about
here will view that as some sort of "act of mercy," and say that those
thugs (and their friends in Europe) are merely "anti-Zionists" to
differentiate them from the so unsophisticated anti-Semites of old.
By way of perspective, I'm not Jewish (though I am a member of the
same "race" - the human race), and I don't believe every action taken
by the Israeli government vis a vis the settlements has been
productive, but I find myself more in sympathy with the "Zionists" (if
you want to call them that) every day. At least they're not out
rioting in the streets trying to support a psychopath who has murdered
hundreds of thousands if not millions of their neighbors.
Mike Painter
cc1...@hotmail.com (XYZ XYZ) wrote:
> Not that I know much about this at all, but this NYT article about the
> relevance of the Pulitzer from John Adams is pretty interesting:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/arts/music/09ADAM.html
>
> I quote from the article:
>
> "I am astonished to receive the Pulitzer Prize," Mr. Adams said in an e-mail
> message from his home in California after the award was announced on Monday
> afternoon. "Among musicians that I know, the Pulitzer has over the years lost
> much of the prestige it still carries in other fields like literature and
> journalism."
>
> But of course, I'm not saying that the prize doesn't mean anything -- I just
> found it interesting to read Adams's own comments on his winning the prize.
It's probably worthwhile to post the rest of his comments as quoted in the
artcile, lest he sound too much like an ingrate.
"Anyone perusing the list of past winners cannot help noticing that many
if not most of the country's greatest musical minds are conspicuously
missing," he continued. "Be they mavericks" like John Cage, Morton
Feldman, Harry Partch or Conlon Nancarrow; "or be they
composer-performers" like Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Terry Riley, "Monk
(Meredith or Thelonious) or Laurie Anderson, or especially be they our
great jazz composers . . . most if not all of these genuinely creative
spirits have been passed over year after year, often in favor of academy
composers who have won a disproportionate number of prizes."
"In a country as profoundly musical as ours, it is regrettable that the
Pulitzer Prize, our most `visible' cultural honor, should be so limited in
its stylistic bandwidth," Mr. Adams wrote. "But perhaps that is beginning
to change."
cheers,
Mike
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in news:GPLAg7G9...@nashwan.demon.co.uk:
> "Matthew B. Tepper quotes:
>> In the years since Klinghoffer's early travails, Alice Goodman has
>> abandoned her Jewish upbringing, been ordained as an Anglican minister
>> and now preaches to a largely Palestinian congregation at a church in
>> London's outskirts.
>
> Once we're past the crusades a whole congregation of Palestinian
> Christians in England sounds like somebody's fantasy. That aside, how
> does this have a bearing on her libretto for the Adams opera? The
> Christians in the ship's crew come across no better than anybody.
It goes to an essential point, which is to say, the attitude of the
librettist towards Jews.
> What does come across here is not anti-semitism, but anti-Zionism -
> which many people - here in Europe at least - would view as a very
> different proposition. At least it is an arguable one. Maybe that's why
> she feels more at home here than in the USA?
Sorry, but making fun of American Jews standing around in their living room
(one of the things for which Goodman was responsible) has nothing to do
with Zionism, everything to do with anti-Semitism.
> For myself, having only very recently heard the work for the first time,
> now the controversy over it has largely died down (9.99 GBP in HMV,
> Oxford Street) .... I hear a musically uneven, but gripping piece, of
> which the unlikely "hero" and most moving character is indeed Mr
> Klinghofer himself. The choruses are superbly varied and powerful.
>
> I liked the way the libretto gave a voice to recognisable, imperfect
> human beings, with mixed ideals, virtues, vices and prejudices - just
> like all of us.
Yes, and portrays as equals in combat an invalid in a wheelchair and
fanatics waving machine guns. Imagine if a soccer hoodlum had accosted the
late Queen Mum in her 99th year and commenced beating her up; would that
also have been a fair combat?
> There are no good or bad people.
Bullshit!
> There are good and bad actions, and double-edged ideals. Another European
> attitude?
>
> Congratulations to Mr Adams on a well-deserved prize.
As I said earlier, at least perhaps by now he has finally wised up.
Grammarian
> > The 2003 Pulitzer Prize for music went to "On the Transmigration of
> > Souls," by John Adams, a tribute to victims, survivors and heroes of
> > the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that was premiered by the New York
> > Philharmonic on Sept. 19, 2002. Adams, 56, is best known for his
> > Grammy-winning 1987 opera "Nixon in China."
> >
> > Much deserved and overdue.
> >
> Klinghofer." I don't question his right to free speech, but he's not
> going to benefit from my sponsorship.
>
> Politics and art are inseparable when the artist chooses to mix them.
> Of course, Adams and his leftist friends (particularly those who are
> probably in mourning today over the likely death of one of history's
> worst mass murderers in Baghdad) will no doubt denigrate me for not
> being "sophisticated" enough to appreciate an opera that celebrates
> the murder of a "wealthy Jewish oppressor." Hmm ... where was it that
> ideas like lead the world not all that long ago?
I agree with you about the opera, which really should have been titled
"The Murder of Klinghoffer," but why do you call it leftist? Judging
from "Nixon in China," Adams and Goodman are quite sympathetic to the
right.
Marcus Maroney
> It is amazing what one can do with a tape loop and even garnish a Pulitzer
> for it.er
When did a piece using a tape loop ever garnish a Pulitzer? Further,
when was the last time Adams used a substantial tape part in a piece?
Finally, which of those compositions by Adams actually employed "tape
loops"?
Thanks,
August Helmbright
>
> It's probably worthwhile to post the rest of his comments as quoted in the
> artcile, lest he sound too much like an ingrate.
>
> "Anyone perusing the list of past winners cannot help noticing that many
> if not most of the country's greatest musical minds are conspicuously
> missing," he continued. "Be they mavericks" like John Cage, Morton
> Feldman, Harry Partch or Conlon Nancarrow; "or be they
> composer-performers" like Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Terry Riley, "Monk
> (Meredith or Thelonious) or Laurie Anderson, or especially be they our
> great jazz composers . . . most if not all of these genuinely creative
> spirits have been passed over year after year, often in favor of academy
> composers who have won a disproportionate number of prizes."
>
than Adams, IMO.
August Helmbright
>
> I agree with you about the opera, which really should have been titled
> "The Murder of Klinghoffer," but why do you call it leftist? Judging
> from "Nixon in China," Adams and Goodman are quite sympathetic to the
> right.
I never got that sense from Nixon in China, but to be honest, I found
both the music and the libretto to be so dreadfully banal that I've
done my best to put them out of my mind.
MIFrost
means) that disdains popular-sounding music as opposed to more
academic and erudite works that are less pleasing to general
listeners. The public has long rejected serial and atonal music yet
these forms were for a long time extolled in certain quarters as the
apex of modern music-composition. Does this elitism still exist? Did
it ever? Is that what Mr. Adams was talking about (below)?
MIFrost
mjp4...@mindspringspam.comspam (Mike Painter) wrote in message news:<mjp4spam-090...@sdn-ar-002casfrmp031.dialsprint.net>...
>
James Kahn
>
> It's probably worthwhile to post the rest of his comments as quoted in the
> artcile, lest he sound too much like an ingrate.
>
> "Anyone perusing the list of past winners cannot help noticing that many
> if not most of the country's greatest musical minds are conspicuously
> missing," he continued. "Be they mavericks" like John Cage, Morton
> Feldman, Harry Partch or Conlon Nancarrow; "or be they
> composer-performers" like Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Terry Riley, "Monk
> (Meredith or Thelonious) or Laurie Anderson, or especially be they our
> great jazz composers . . . most if not all of these genuinely creative
> spirits have been passed over year after year, often in favor of academy
> composers who have won a disproportionate number of prizes."
>
> "In a country as profoundly musical as ours, it is regrettable that the
> Pulitzer Prize, our most `visible' cultural honor, should be so limited in
> its stylistic bandwidth," Mr. Adams wrote. "But perhaps that is beginning
> to change."
Whether one agrees with him or not, this seems a rather ungracious
response to winning an award, not to mention immodest. He might have
been better served if he'd let someone else make the points he makes
above.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in
> "Pierre Paquin" <ppa...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> It is amazing what one can do with a tape loop and even garnish a
>> Pulitzer for it.
>
> When did a piece using a tape loop ever garnish a Pulitzer? Further,
> when was the last time Adams used a substantial tape part in a piece?
> Finally, which of those compositions by Adams actually employed "tape
> loops"?
You mean "Shaker Loops," don't you? ;--)
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in
> I agree with you about the opera, which really should have been titled
> "The Murder of Klinghoffer," but why do you call it leftist? Judging from
> "Nixon in China," Adams and Goodman are quite sympathetic to the right.
You mean in the same way that Verdi is quite sympathetic to Iago?
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
the following letters to be typed in
> It's probably worthwhile to post the rest of his comments as quoted in
> the artcile, lest he sound too much like an ingrate.
>
> "Anyone perusing the list of past winners cannot help noticing that many
> if not most of the country's greatest musical minds are conspicuously
> missing," he continued. "Be they mavericks" like John Cage, Morton
> Feldman, Harry Partch or Conlon Nancarrow; "or be they composer-
> performers" like Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Terry Riley, "Monk (Meredith
> or Thelonious) or Laurie Anderson, or especially be they our great jazz
> composers . . . most if not all of these genuinely creative spirits have
> been passed over year after year, often in favor of academy composers who
> have won a disproportionate number of prizes."
>
> "In a country as profoundly musical as ours, it is regrettable that the
> Pulitzer Prize, our most `visible' cultural honor, should be so limited
> in its stylistic bandwidth," Mr. Adams wrote. "But perhaps that is
> beginning to change."
One item you didn't quote was yet another tiresome and gratuitous bash of
Wayne Peterson, who may not be the best composer around, but is/was a hell
of a fine educator and musician.
Thomas Muething
>
> When did a piece using a tape loop ever garnish a Pulitzer? Further,
> when was the last time Adams used a substantial tape part in a piece?
When was the last time Adams did anything substantial?
Thomas
--
"There's just two things in this world that I can't stand. It's people
who are intolerant of other people's culture ... and the Dutch!"
(Michael Caine, in "Austin Powers: Goldmember")
Bob Lombard
Kahn) wrote:
>Whether one agrees with him or not, this seems a rather ungracious
>response to winning an award, not to mention immodest. He might have
>been better served if he'd let someone else make the points he makes
>above.
This "someone else" didn't have the stump to stand on. BTW what is
"immodest" here? He seems to me to be saying that the award would be
more impressive, and so his receiving it, if it weren't so insular.
bl
Mike Painter
> mjp4...@mindspringspam.comspam (Mike Painter) appears to have caused
> the following letters to be typed in
> news:mjp4spam-090...@sdn-ar-002casfrmp031.dialsprint.net:
>
>
> > It's probably worthwhile to post the rest of his comments as quoted in
> > the artcile, lest he sound too much like an ingrate.
> >
> > "Anyone perusing the list of past winners cannot help noticing that many
> > if not most of the country's greatest musical minds are conspicuously
> > missing," he continued. "Be they mavericks" like John Cage, Morton
> > Feldman, Harry Partch or Conlon Nancarrow; "or be they composer-
> > performers" like Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Terry Riley, "Monk (Meredith
> > or Thelonious) or Laurie Anderson, or especially be they our great jazz
> > composers . . . most if not all of these genuinely creative spirits have
> > been passed over year after year, often in favor of academy composers who
> > have won a disproportionate number of prizes."
> >
> > "In a country as profoundly musical as ours, it is regrettable that the
> > Pulitzer Prize, our most `visible' cultural honor, should be so limited
> > in its stylistic bandwidth," Mr. Adams wrote. "But perhaps that is
> > beginning to change."
>
> One item you didn't quote was yet another tiresome and gratuitous bash of
> Wayne Peterson, who may not be the best composer around, but is/was a hell
> of a fine educator and musician.
That "bash" did not come from John Adams, and I was providing the quotes
attributed to Adams. That comment was made by the reporter, which is why I
didn't include it in my post.
I hardly thought it was a bash, more simple atatement of fact. Here's what
the article said:
<<<
Mr. Adams is not alone in his view that there is a certain arbitrary
quality to the prize, awarded since 1943 for "distinguished musical
composition of significant dimension by an American that had its first
performance in the United States during the year." While in its early days
it was given for major works by major composers ‹ like Aaron Copland's
"Appalachian Spring" (1945) ‹ recent years have seen the people Mr. Adams
mentioned overlooked in favor of less-known artists like Wayne Peterson
and Roger Reynolds.
<<<
Mike
David Sternlicht
But you don't have to read between the lines to understand Adams'
pretension. He is saying that only "academic" (a silly word since
there are several composers of different aesthetics in the academy)
composers who are _not_ "the country's greatest musical minds" have
won the prize, so Adams is surprised that he did. So I guess that
makes Adams (in his own mind) a great composer. Now, with him as an
example, perhaps worthy composers will win the prize. Adams is an
ingrate with an agenda to boot. There are plenty of better composers
in the United States than this self-important whiner.
Terrymelin
>a wheelchair, and a machine-gun-wielding terrorist, as equal combatants on
>a level playing field is by definition wrongheaded and perverted.
>
>To portray the murder of the former, by shooting and pushing him overboard
>wheelchair and all, and to make any attempt whatsoever "justifying" it, is
>(to my mind) "celebrating" it.
>
>The scenes with the kvetching American Jews are straight out of "Jud Suss."
>
It's hard to disagree with this although I am sure there will be people who do
so while at the same time claiming that this portrayal is not anti-Semitic.
I know that's just my attempt to "shut down" debate.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
I thought that was an oratorio?
Terry Ellsworth
Edward Waffle
David Sternlicht wrote in message <
>But you don't have to read between the lines to understand Adams'
>pretension. He is saying that only "academic" (a silly word since
>there are several composers of different aesthetics in the academy)
>composers who are _not_ "the country's greatest musical minds" have
>won the prize, so Adams is surprised that he did. So I guess that
>makes Adams (in his own mind) a great composer.
Cool. I haven't won the Pultizer Prize for Composition either. Does that
mean I am a great composer??
That was a lot easier than I thought--much more than writing out all those
notes on all that staff paper, for example.
Pullet Surprise--what gets served at a chicken resturant when the chef is
drunk.
Samir Golescu
> Any story or other work of art which treats an elderly invalid confined to
> a wheelchair, and a machine-gun-wielding terrorist, as equal combatants on
> a level playing field is by definition wrongheaded and perverted.
Now wait a minute, that might apply to human beings, but it doesn't apply
when Jews are involved. At that moment, every other human being on the
planet, including self-righteous Jews in the sweet security of a home
elsewhere -- in wondrous places where a parent doesn't kiss each morning
the kid good-bye thinking that it might receive a little coffin with
pieces of ashed bones back in the afternoon --, is entitled to think that
that Jew, wheelchair or not, only got what he deserved.
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
> What does come across here is not anti-semitism, but anti-Zionism -
> which many people - here in Europe at least - would view as a very
> different proposition. At least it is an arguable one.
Of course. Europe loves subtlety. I am absolutely sure that the 80 years
old Holocaust survivor who has been blown up on purpose, while he was
doing his Passover prayers, appreciated enormously with his last breath
the kindness of the subtle Europeans who implicitly endorse his having
been murdered as a "Zionist" -- not as a mere Jew.
> Maybe that's why she feels more at home here than in the USA?
Or maybe because in USA there is no history of organized killing of the
Jews, with the goal of sending all of them to Heavens in gasified form.
regards,
SG
James Kahn
To condense what he said (not unfairly, I think):
". . . most if not all of these genuinely creative
spirits have been passed over year after year, often in favor of academy
composers who have won a disproportionate number of prizes. . .
But perhaps that is beginning to change."
He certainly seems to regard himself as one of those "*genuinely* creative
spirits" [my emphasis], I guess unlike those phony ones that have won
prizes in the past.
Ray Hall
message news:3E94803C...@t-online.de...
| Marcus Maroney wrote:
|
| >
| > When did a piece using a tape loop ever garnish a Pulitzer? Further,
| > when was the last time Adams used a substantial tape part in a piece?
|
|
| When was the last time Adams did anything substantial?
Nixon in China is well worth a listen. I was quite impressed by his use of
the text, in conjunction with the music. Atmospheric too.
Haven't kept up with his later developments though.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
David7Gable
>for it.
I think Mr. Adams has a genuine if rather modest talent. Never, to my
knowledge, has he every used a tape loop in composing a piece of music,
although I do believe he entitled a piece Shaker Loops. (Or is that by Reich?)
-david gable
David Wake
> "Thomas Muething" <tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de> wrote in
> message news:3E94803C...@t-online.de...
> | Marcus Maroney wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > When did a piece using a tape loop ever garnish a Pulitzer? Further,
> | > when was the last time Adams used a substantial tape part in a piece?
> |
> |
> | When was the last time Adams did anything substantial?
I'd like to put in a word for Harmonium.
david
David7Gable
>means) that disdains popular-sounding music as opposed to more
>academic and erudite works that are less pleasing to general
>listeners.
I am a musicologist, although I don't like that word, and one of my areas of
specialization is 19th century Italian opera, a popular art form in many ways
analogous to the movies. I also love a tremendous amount of difficult atonal
music including particularly a lot of music by Schoenberg, Berg, Boulez, and
Carter. Prejudice doesn't enter into it. Understanding does. Many people
dislike this repertory because, through no fault of their own, they don't grasp
it. When it was new, impressionist art seemed like a fraud perpetrated by
charlatans because most of the viewing public could not grasp the patterns
inscribed with the blotches of paint on the surface of impressionist canvases
as pictures, so different was the visual-conceptual framework of impressionist
art from the framework exploited by the painters the public was familiar with.
One advantage that musicologists have over the "general listener" is that they
have more time to listen, although you would be mistaken if you believed that
all musicologists love this repertory. Moreover, it took a very long time for
the atonal repertory to become a field of study sanctioned by the academy,
after which the academy was blamed for it. But the academy is not responsible
for what orchestras, string quartets, and pianists play. Personally, I am
extremely eager for complex music and the rewards it brings, which is what has
lead me to explore Renaissance polyphony, Bach, the Late Beethoven Quartets,
Chopin (easily the greatest master of counterpoint of his generation), Mahler's
7th and 9th symphonies, and Elliott Carter. It's a thirst for rich musical
experiences that lead me to study music. (That and a fascination with trying
to explain the effects that constitute music.)
But whether or not the public loves something has very little impact on
artistic developments. The music that gets performed is the music that
performers want to play. Elliott Carter will never be as popular as
Puccini--Beethoven's Late Quartets will never be as popular as Beethoven's
symphonies either--but there are pianists and conductors and string quartets
who find Carter's music fascinating, with the result that they are willing to
spend time with his music. And any music that some performers find
fascinating, some listeners will like. The problem that music with a small
public has is purely economic: it's relatively inexpensive to print a book of
Emily Dickinson's poetry, despite the miniscule audience for it, while a
painter like Kandinsky only needs a tiny handful of wealthy collectors to
survive, but it costs a lot of money to rehearse and record and publish an
orchestral score by Elliott Carter.
It should also be born in mind how long a time much of the standard repertory
has taken to become truly standard. The late works of Beethoven have only been
truly popular for about half a century, the late works of Verdi have only
become more or less as popular as earlier Verdi in the last fifty years, it was
not until the 1970's, sixty years after Mahler's death, that all of the major
American orchestras had finally played all of Mahler's symphonies, and Berg's
Violin Concerto has finally become a fairly popular work.
-david gable
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in news:9nllyjg...@Turing.Stanford.EDU:
> I'd like to put in a word for Harmonium.
He did write a work that had "Quackie" in one of the movement titles.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in news:b71tkc$e2n$1...@reader1.panix.com:
Or maybe he'll just go with the crowd and bash Wayne Peterson some more.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in news:Pine.GSO.4.31.0304091609110.11576-100000
@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu:
I wonder if, say, Alice Goodman thinks so?
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu:
>> What does come across here is not anti-semitism, but anti-Zionism -
>> which many people - here in Europe at least - would view as a very
>> different proposition. At least it is an arguable one.
>
> Of course. Europe loves subtlety. I am absolutely sure that the 80 years
> old Holocaust survivor who has been blown up on purpose, while he was
> doing his Passover prayers, appreciated enormously with his last breath
> the kindness of the subtle Europeans who implicitly endorse his having
> been murdered as a "Zionist" -- not as a mere Jew.
In case anybody wonders about this reference, it is to the bombing of a
Seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya last year:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0le00
I'm not sure which one is the Holocaust survivors, but in that article one
can look upon their faces. I wonder if Alice Goodman has the strength of
character to do so? Ah, but she doesn't have to.
Whatever one might say about John Adams the composer, I think abandoning
this person as artistic collaborator is the best career move he ever made.
>> Maybe that's why she feels more at home here than in the USA?
>
> Or maybe because in USA there is no history of organized killing of the
> Jews, with the goal of sending all of them to Heavens in gasified form.
--
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in
> In article <Xns9358812E51...@129.250.170.99>,
> "Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)"
> <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> One item you didn't quote was yet another tiresome and gratuitous bash
>> of Wayne Peterson, who may not be the best composer around, but is/was
>> a hell of a fine educator and musician.
>
> That "bash" did not come from John Adams, and I was providing the quotes
> attributed to Adams. That comment was made by the reporter, which is why
> I didn't include it in my post.
Quite true; I merely stated that you didn't quote it. ;--)
> I hardly thought it was a bash, more simple atatement of fact. Here's
> what the article said:
>
><<<
> Mr. Adams is not alone in his view that there is a certain arbitrary
> quality to the prize, awarded since 1943 for "distinguished musical
> composition of significant dimension by an American that had its first
> performance in the United States during the year." While in its early
> days it was given for major works by major composers ‹ like Aaron
> Copland's "Appalachian Spring" (1945) ‹ recent years have seen the
> people Mr. Adams mentioned overlooked in favor of less-known artists
> like Wayne Peterson and Roger Reynolds.
><<<
Peterson came in for a lot of bashing when he won the Pulitzer. Evidently
it was taken as given that somebody else was going to get it that year, and
some people were very upset that the people who did the final selection
defied expectations. This sort of nonsense ought to be reserved for, say,
the "Best New Artist" Grammy Award; the depth and degree of inundation of
publicity beforehand generally indicates who's going to get that one. ;--)
Whatever the source, I say -- ENOUGH PETERSON BASHING!
(That includes you, Mr. Carlin!)
Marcus Maroney
> > When did a piece using a tape loop ever garnish a Pulitzer? Further,
> > when was the last time Adams used a substantial tape part in a piece?
>
>
> When was the last time Adams did anything substantial?
How is it possible for you or me to make that judgement? I am greatly
moved by many of his recent works (El Nino and Naive and Sentimental
Music, which I find extremely impressive in their combination and
layering of elements in a captivating dramatic profile) and not so
interested in others (Century Rolls and Slonimsky's Earbox, in which
there are many areas where I fell less engaged), whether or not
they're "substantial" to anyone else really doesn't concern me. I
fail to see what the motivation behind the recidivistic way people
express disaffection for a composer or performer on this newsgroup and
then continue to trash him/her without actually contributing some bit
of musical or interpretive insight to support their rants.
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus dot mareony at yale dot edu
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in news:75e776be.0304092013.5d96fad6
@posting.google.com:
I can't speak for anybody else, but I heard him conduct "Century Rolls"
with Manny Ax as soloist a couple of years ago, and rather enjoyed it.
Ray Hall
news:ie3la.10851$1s1.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
| "Thomas Muething" <tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de> wrote in
| message news:3E94803C...@t-online.de...
| | Marcus Maroney wrote:
| |
| | >
| | > When did a piece using a tape loop ever garnish a Pulitzer? Further,
| | > when was the last time Adams used a substantial tape part in a piece?
| |
| |
| | When was the last time Adams did anything substantial?
|
| Nixon in China is well worth a listen. I was quite impressed by his use of
| the text, in conjunction with the music. Atmospheric too.
|
| Haven't kept up with his later developments though.
Whoops !! Forgot about Adams Hoodoo Zephyr (1992) and Slonimsky's Earbox
(1996). Hoodoo Zephyr tends to meander a bit though, whilst Slonimsky's
Earbox is a far more cogent piece of writing, and quite exciting a la Le
Sacre. Nagano and the Hallé sound good in these pieces.
But for me, Nixon in China is at another level, albeit an operatic one.
Bob Lombard
"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
news:b72f6l$k4d$1...@reader1.panix.com...
there. I take it as contrasting composers working 'out in
the field' to 'academy' composers whose creations are
implicitly under the judges' noses. The "disproportionate
number of prizes" may be the result of this nose-rubbing.
Adams places himself in the 'out in the field' group of
genuinely creative spirits because he works there. If he
didn't consider himself genuinely creative, he would have to
consider himself a hack.
bl
Christopher Webber
>I do not know whether or not this particular congregation exists, but
>your calling a "fantasy" reveals just how little you know about what
>has been going on.
After a little research, I discover that my sense of fantasy is backed
by facts - at least from the tiny number of Palestinian Christians who
seem to have sought refuge in ENGLAND ... which was my point.
Of course, their situation is appalling, caught between the hammer and
the anvil - it says something maybe for Alice Goodman's sympathies that
she is working for and with them, rather than with either the Palestine
Authority or Israeli Government.
--
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK
http://www.zarzuela.net
"ZARZUELA!" The Spanish Music Site
Christopher Webber
>>That aside, how
>> does this have a bearing on her libretto for the Adams opera? The
>> Christians in the ship's crew come across no better than anybody.
>
>It goes to an essential point, which is to say, the attitude of the
>librettist towards Jews.
>
>> What does come across here is not anti-semitism, but anti-Zionism -
>> which many people - here in Europe at least - would view as a very
>> she feels more at home here than in the USA?
>
>(one of the things for which Goodman was responsible) has nothing to do
>with Zionism, everything to do with anti-Semitism.
I don't recall this scene. Was it cut from the piece? It didn't make it
onto the recorded version, for sure.
>> I liked the way the libretto gave a voice to recognisable, imperfect
>> human beings, with mixed ideals, virtues, vices and prejudices - just
>> like all of us.
>
>Yes, and portrays as equals in combat an invalid in a wheelchair and
>fanatics waving machine guns. Imagine if a soccer hoodlum had accosted the
>late Queen Mum in her 99th year and commenced beating her up; would that
>also have been a fair combat?
No, it would have been highly upsetting, just like the scene in the
opera. We don't see what happens to Klinghofer, either: we imagine it.
You have clearly studied it hard; but mimesis is not what the opera, by
my first impression at least, is up to at all. The idea of combat and
brutality itself is the chief evil, and in no way condoned. The
poignancy of the scene comes from its very inequalities. Klinghofer has
wealth but approaching the end of a fulfilled life. Rambo a gun and a
grievance. There is no moral "squaring up". Klinghofer's death is not
condoned, or excused.
Just because Richard III is given liberty to speak up for himself does
not mean that Shakespeare supports his cause.
>
>> There are no good or bad people.
>Bullshit!
>
>> There are good and bad actions, and double-edged ideals.
Well, there, we must part company. Your "bullshit" implies that some
people are completely irredeemable, an attractively simple article of
faith which I cannot share - for the reason which followed.
Grammarian
> Gramm...@mindspring.com (Grammarian) appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
>
> > I agree with you about the opera, which really should have been titled
> > "The Murder of Klinghoffer," but why do you call it leftist? Judging from
> > "Nixon in China," Adams and Goodman are quite sympathetic to the right.
>
> You mean in the same way that Verdi is quite sympathetic to Iago?
No, I mean in the way that Nixon is described as a man who wrote a
letter to his wife every day and set up a hamburger stand to give
burgers to servicemen, rather than as President who abused the power
of his office and persecuted his enemies illegally.
Alan Watkins
whether creating or performing deep down create (in my belief) in the
hope that other people like it......it doesn't have to be that two
million other people like it......a couple will do.
Perhaps if just ONE person likes what another has created that is, in
my opinion, a justification for the artist creating it.
Speaking purely personally, and not doing down either composer, I'd
far rather play Pli Selon Pli than the percussion part in Paganini's
1st Violin Concerto because in the former I feel that the composer
wrote specifically for me and in the latter I feel I was sort of
"added on" later when he had written the admittedly brilliant violin
part.
There are NO rules in music, only those strictures which either our
learning, understanding, geographic birthplace, technical ability or
ears impose. Music (like pottery) is a unique art: it is recreated
every time it is performed. There are finished paintings, there is
finished great poetry but neither paintings or hand thrown pottery are
recreated night after night.
I happen to like Mr Schoenberg, Mr Boulez, Mr Glass and Mr Carter (who
wrote wonderful etudes for the timpani, bless him) but who are WE to
say who is great and who is not? Presumably those who felt Mr
Dittersdorf was a greater composer than Mozart (and I believe they did
think that) felt they were right...we take a different view three
centuries on.
It is quite possible that three centuries on from now people will take
a different view of our ramblings as well.
I want people to be exposed to as much music as possible, to debate
it, to deride it (if they wish) and/or to love it. Provided that they
do all three and acknowledge that they can speak ONLY for themselves
and NOT for any other person I think that is a healthy situation.
Having said all that, I don't agree with Mr Adams who is falling into
the same trap (I think) and saying that academic music cannot be as
good as "freelance commercially composed music" if I read the thread
correctly. That is not for me to decide, nor Mr Adams, nor anyone
else save those listening to it.
I am a musical harlot. I am a paid musician. I play to the best of
my ability (sometimes with a bit of thought) what is stuck on the
stand in front of me. I basically keep my own thoughts to myself for
a very good reason: I may not like it but someone out there does and
it is possible I played a part in helping that person respond to
something someone wrote down on a score and, secondly, if it has a
part for MY instrument I will also try hard for my instrument.
For example, this post to which I respond specifically mentions Verdi
and Puccini. Verdi was (in my SECRET opinion) a lousy writer for
percussion while Mr Puccini was (also in my SECRET opinion) a
wonderful writer for percussion (along with Mr Giordano, for example).
But you just give all of them your best shot because someone out
there is not listening or is not interested in percussion......they
are interested in an aria or arias or the overall music.
I could say that with all the trumpets and pageantry of Aida I end up
with what is basically a rubbish part - it's a rough equivalent of
Yeomen of the Guard (Act Two of that is great because I don't play at
all) but I won't say that because there are plenty of people out there
who love Aida and/or Yeomen of the Guard and my job is to create it
for them whatever my personal thoughts.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Mike Painter
alanwa...@aol.com (Alan Watkins) wrote:
[SNIP]
> Having said all that, I don't agree with Mr Adams who is falling into
> the same trap (I think) and saying that academic music cannot be as
> good as "freelance commercially composed music" if I read the thread
> correctly. That is not for me to decide, nor Mr Adams, nor anyone
> else save those listening to it.
[SNIP]
My interpretation was that Adams was mostly speaking to the narrow range
of the Prize committee's selections across the whole of American music in
recent years -- that is that they had mostly picked from composers in
academia. I didn't take it as a criticism of the music itself.
Mike
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in news:mjp4spam-1004031628360001@sdn-ar-
006casfrmp187.dialsprint.net:
Then from milieu ought they to select it? From commercial pop music? The
first time that happens, the prize will become worthless.
August Helmbright
> No, I mean in the way that Nixon is described as a man who wrote a
> letter to his wife every day and set up a hamburger stand to give
> burgers to servicemen, rather than as President who abused the power
> of his office and persecuted his enemies illegally.
Actually, this is slightly OT, but since you brought it up ....
Nixon was both of the people you described and many more. He was also
brilliant, certainly ranking alongside Woodrow Wilson among our
presidents in terms of native intelligence. That helps to explain why
he continues to both fascinate and infuriate long after his term in
office and his death.
Ryan M. Hare
"Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)" <oy兀earthlink.net>
wrote in message news:Xns9358C9AB842...@129.250.170.82...
> Peterson came in for a lot of bashing when he won the Pulitzer. Evidently
> it was taken as given that somebody else was going to get it that year,
and
> some people were very upset that the people who did the final selection
> defied expectations.
Wasn't that the year Ralph Shapey was supposed to win it? That is to say,
the recomendation made by the committe was to give it to him, but the
Pulitzer board (or whomever) heard third-hand about the negative response
which the piece recevied from the audience at its premiere, and gave thus
the prize instead to Wayne Peterson, who, academic or not, is somewhat more
conservative than Shapey.
I'm sure I'm getting some details wrong, for which I duly apologize.
What really gets me is Adams's bashing of "academic" composers in general.
How else is a composer supposed to make a living in this country if they
wish to write concert music? Precious few composers outside film and other
commercial realms can live purely from their own music, Adams being one of
the blessed few who can. Most of us have to find other means, and teaching
in academia is a pretty nice way to do so. I'd want to teach even if I could
live off my own music, which I presently cannot.
Or should the U.S. have only three or four composers, period, if needing
employment--beyond the income one can obtain from writing concert music--is
a disqualification?
AND, in any case, its not like Adams hasn't benefited himself from academic
associations!
His response to winning the Pulitzer was disgraceful, unseemly,
unprofessional. Sour grapes from someone who wins is an ugly thing.
Ryan
P.S. Duke Ellington is the greatest American composer of the 20th
century!!?!?!?!?!?
P.P.S. Why the hell did Roger Reynolds and Wayne Peterson have to get picked
on?
M. Ryan
faced with the central question raised by the NYTimes article.
How relevant is the Pulitzer prize when some of America's greatest
composers have never been recognized? Why have Feldman, Harrison,
Cowell, Rzewski, Cage, Nancarrow, Riley, Reich, Glass, etc. never won?
Would more experimental work being done by the likes of Ingram
Marshall, Laurie Anderson, Meredith Monk, etc. ever be considered?
Why (w/ the possible exception of a Marsalis crossover piece) has jazz
never been considered?
One could make good arguments for each of these composers, and all of
them certainly had eligible music during the time frame.
Certain excuses come to mind:
-The composer or their work is too politically controversial.
(Rzewski, Nancarrow)
-Too avant garde (Cage !!).
-The composer's seminal work wasn't recognized as significant until
later. (e.g., Riley's In C.) But this doesn't really hold water,
since the awards often cite a piece as an excuse to honor a career --
would anyone ever say that Morton Gould's Stringmusic (1995) is one of
his best pieces.
-The composer's work was spread too thin, rather than concentrating on
a few masterpieces. (Cowell, Harrison) But again this excuse fails
for the same reason the last one did.
But the only really viable reason seems that only a certain type of
music wins Pulitzers. And thus we're left with the point that the
Pulitzer doesn't come close to recognizing the breadth of American art
music -- just a particular slice of it.
Mike R.
Ryan M. Hare
se, but I do want to note that among the composers supposedly lumped
together as "academic" there is a quite wide diversity. From Ives to
Wuorinen, Copland to Matino, Husa to Bolcolm, Hanson to Crumb, Druckman to
Shulamit Ran, Rorem to Carter, Del Tredici to Roger Sessions, Marsalis to
Rouse, there is an extraordinarily diverse selection in terms of musical
style. Looking down the list of Pulitzer names, it could hardly be more
highly varied in style than it is. My only serious gripes are that few
compositions outside of orchestral compositions--and none for live
electronics or computer music--have won awards; also that it seems weighted
generally to mostly conservative composers, and that there is a dearth of
composers other than middle-aged to oldish white men.
Yes, I acknowledge there are some interesting composers who have been
neglected by the Pulitzer (Cage, Feldman, Nancarrow, etc.), but they have
been (and were) celebrated plenty in other ways, and no matter whom is
selected, SOMEONE with an axe to grind is going to make a diatribe against
it. With only one award per year, it will never be possible to give every
significant composer an award.
As for Jazz being excluded, you all know why it is, so stop trying to seem
hip and PC and let it go. Probably there should be another category for
Jazz, but lord knows if you go that way then there will have to be one for
pop music, then film scores, and THEN the music Pulitzers will be as
irrelevant as the Grammys.
Adams is a vastly celebrated composer, one of the very few in this country
who can make a living composing outside of the commercial music industry,
and without relying on teaching in a College or University, and to hear him
whine about the supposed narrowmindedness of the Pulitzer awards is annoying
and unseemly. It reveals HIS narrowmindedness.
Basically, Adams is full of shit about this and full of himself.
He's just about the most prominent living composer in America, and he needs
to get over it.
Ryan
Steve Emerson
david...@aol.com (David7Gable) wrote:
> >It is amazing what one can do with a tape loop and even garnish a Pulitzer
> >for it.
>
>
> I think Mr. Adams has a genuine if rather modest talent. Never, to my
> knowledge, has he ever used a tape loop in composing a piece of music,
Right. And even if he has, Adams has all the skills conventionally associated
with writing for an orchestra, so pot-shots like the one up top are misplaced.
SE.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
be typed in news:a59f1ca7.03041...@posting.google.com:
> Putting aside whatever feelings people have about Adams, one is still
> faced with the central question raised by the NYTimes article.
>
> How relevant is the Pulitzer prize when some of America's greatest
> composers have never been recognized? Why have Feldman, Harrison,
> Cowell, Rzewski, Cage, Nancarrow, Riley, Reich, Glass, etc. never won?
> Would more experimental work being done by the likes of Ingram
> Marshall, Laurie Anderson, Meredith Monk, etc. ever be considered?
> Why (w/ the possible exception of a Marsalis crossover piece) has jazz
> never been considered?
>
> One could make good arguments for each of these composers, and all of
> them certainly had eligible music during the time frame.
>
> Certain excuses come to mind:
>
> -The composer or their work is too politically controversial.
> (Rzewski, Nancarrow)
>
> -Too avant garde (Cage !!).
>
> -The composer's seminal work wasn't recognized as significant until
> later. (e.g., Riley's In C.) But this doesn't really hold water,
> since the awards often cite a piece as an excuse to honor a career --
> would anyone ever say that Morton Gould's Stringmusic (1995) is one of
> his best pieces.
>
> -The composer's work was spread too thin, rather than concentrating on
> a few masterpieces. (Cowell, Harrison) But again this excuse fails
> for the same reason the last one did.
The composer is a charlatan and a hack (Glass)? ;--)
> But the only really viable reason seems that only a certain type of
> music wins Pulitzers. And thus we're left with the point that the
> Pulitzer doesn't come close to recognizing the breadth of American art
> music -- just a particular slice of it.
Oh, I see, and that explains those Carter String Quartets.
As with any award, there are going to be some winners, and there are going
to be a whole lot of losers. This ain't the Macarthur Foundation, you
know. At least Copland and Ives and Schuman (just to give three examples
off the top of my head) also won the award. The fact that some angels of
the god incarnate Ralph Shapey keep protesting against giving the prize to
that embodiment of Satan, Wayne Peterson (a great educator and musician, of
whom I am proud to say I was a pupil) means to me that those angels should
probably get a life.
Grammarian
OK, I buy that. My impression of "Nixon in China" is that only one
side was presented, though.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
Well, yes; the other side would take a whole 'nother opera.
Lawrence Kart
Shapey went like this: All Pulitzers, including the arts prizes, are
awarded in a two-tier process. First, there's a so-called "expert"
panel, which at that time in the arts consisted of three supposedly
knowledgable figures from within the relevant community (since
expanded to five, I believe). These figures--for the music award they
are typically composers themselves (whence comes some of the
alledged incestuousness) --provide the Pulitzer Board (which consists
of newspaper executives of various stripes) with a list of three
nominees, typically ranking them in order of preference, and the Board
usually follows that lead. In the Peterson-Shapey year, though, the
expert panel was so convinced, for whatever reasons, that Shapey's
piece stood far above the competition that he was the only nominee
the panel passed on to the Pulitzer Board. Some members of the board
felt this to be a gross usurpation of the board's prerogatives and
demanded that the expert panel nominate works by two other composers
in addition to Shapey. With the board's collective nose already way
out of joint, this effectively doomed Shapey and left the Pulitzer in
Peterson's hands. None of this, of course, means that Peterson isn't
a worthy composer; it does mean, though, that the choice of Peterson
over Shapey was essentially an attempt to teach this expert panel (and
future ones) a lesson about who was in charge here. BTW, the
notorious decision not to award a Pulitzer to Duke Ellington was an
act of the Pulitzer Board, which overruled the recommendation of that
year's expert panel.
Lawrence Kart
"Ryan M. Hare" <rh...@NOSPAM.oz.net> wrote in message news:<b75s14$1hj$0...@216.39.146.218>...
> "Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)" <oy<thorn>@earthlink.net>
August Helmbright
> augusthe...@msn.com (August Helmbright) wrote in message news:<12cbb4d6.03041...@posting.google.com>...
> > Gramm...@mindspring.com (Grammarian) wrote in message news:<58d092e3.03041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > No, I mean in the way that Nixon is described as a man who wrote a
> > > letter to his wife every day and set up a hamburger stand to give
> > > burgers to servicemen, rather than as President who abused the power
> > > of his office and persecuted his enemies illegally.
> >
> > Actually, this is slightly OT, but since you brought it up ....
> >
> > Nixon was both of the people you described and many more. He was also
> > brilliant, certainly ranking alongside Woodrow Wilson among our
> > presidents in terms of native intelligence. That helps to explain why
> > he continues to both fascinate and infuriate long after his term in
> > office and his death.
>
> OK, I buy that. My impression of "Nixon in China" is that only one
> side was presented, though.
Might be. I'm certainly not in a position to refute what you say,
since I don't own the recording and long ago found what I heard of the
opera on the radio to be dreadfully dull, all politics aside.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in
> The politics of the Pulitzer award to Wayne Peterson instead of Ralph
> Shapey went like this: All Pulitzers, including the arts prizes, are
> awarded in a two-tier process. First, there's a so-called "expert" panel,
> which at that time in the arts consisted of three supposedly knowledgable
> figures from within the relevant community (since expanded to five, I
> believe). These figures--for the music award they are typically composers
> themselves (whence comes some of the alledged incestuousness) --provide
> the Pulitzer Board (which consists of newspaper executives of various
> stripes) with a list of three nominees, typically ranking them in order
> of preference, and the Board usually follows that lead. In the Peterson-
> Shapey year, though, the expert panel was so convinced, for whatever
> reasons, that Shapey's piece stood far above the competition that he was
> the only nominee the panel passed on to the Pulitzer Board. Some members
> of the board felt this to be a gross usurpation of the board's
> prerogatives and demanded that the expert panel nominate works by two
> other composers in addition to Shapey. With the board's collective nose
> already way out of joint, this effectively doomed Shapey and left the
> Pulitzer in Peterson's hands. None of this, of course, means that
> Peterson isn't a worthy composer; it does mean, though, that the choice
> of Peterson over Shapey was essentially an attempt to teach this expert
> panel (and future ones) a lesson about who was in charge here. BTW, the
> notorious decision not to award a Pulitzer to Duke Ellington was an act
> of the Pulitzer Board, which overruled the recommendation of that year's
> expert panel.
Thanks for a dispassionate narrative of what apparently went on these ten
years past. I remember the Shapeyites were hollering bloody murder for a
while; and while I can see how upset they might be that R.S. was thus
"deprived" of an award, by their voices they wound up putting an asterisk
next to that of the winner, which I think is no less unfair.
Grammarian
> Gramm...@mindspring.com (Grammarian) appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:58d092e3.03041...@posting.google.com:
>
> > augusthe...@msn.com (August Helmbright) wrote in message
> > news:<12cbb4d6.03041...@posting.google.com>...
> >> Gramm...@mindspring.com (Grammarian) wrote in message
> >> news:<58d092e3.03041...@posting.google.com>...
> >> > No, I mean in the way that Nixon is described as a man who wrote a
> >> > letter to his wife every day and set up a hamburger stand to give
> >> > burgers to servicemen, rather than as President who abused the
> >> > power of his office and persecuted his enemies illegally.
> >>
> >> Actually, this is slightly OT, but since you brought it up ....
> >>
> >> Nixon was both of the people you described and many more. He was also
> >> brilliant, certainly ranking alongside Woodrow Wilson among our
> >> presidents in terms of native intelligence. That helps to explain why
> >> he continues to both fascinate and infuriate long after his term in
> >> office and his death.
> >
> > OK, I buy that. My impression of "Nixon in China" is that only one
> > side was presented, though.
>
> Well, yes; the other side would take a whole 'nother opera.
It could, but it didn't have to. There certainly could be an opera
that presented a balanced portrait of Nixon. In any case, if Goodman
and Adams want to make Nixon a hero, they certainly have the right.
But I don't think they did it just because they felt it worked
dramatically, or because they flipped a coin. It sure looks like they
are sympathetic to Nixon and to some principles that I, at least,
think of as being rightish.
Come to think of it, a portrait of Nixon as devil would make a
teriffic opera. Maybe they could call it "Nixon in Hell."
Christopher Webber
>There certainly could be an opera that presented a balanced portrait of
>Nixon.
How? Music personalises and emotionalises drama. Opera is not political
dialectic or reportage, and can never be. That is why Brecht objected to
it.
>It sure looks like they are sympathetic to Nixon and to some principles
>that I, at least, think of as being rightish.
They are being sympathetic to human beings, whatever their political or
moral reputation as presented by journalism. Cho En Lai is at least as
sympathetically treated as Nixon in the Adams opera. Would you call him
right wing, too?
Of course, the fact that Adams and co. have been repeatedly and
vitriolically accused of political bias from *both* sides of the
political spectrum - in both "Nixon" and "Klinghofer" - tells us
something very interesting indeed.
Grammarian
> Grammarian <Gramm...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >There certainly could be an opera that presented a balanced portrait of
> >Nixon.
>
> How? Music personalises and emotionalises drama. Opera is not political
> dialectic or reportage, and can never be. That is why Brecht objected to
> it.
>
Why must drama, operatic or otherwise, have one-sided characters?
There is inherent drama in complex personalities, and in complex
politics. And didn't Verdi write operas that were overt political
commentaries?
> >It sure looks like they are sympathetic to Nixon and to some principles
> >that I, at least, think of as being rightish.
>
> They are being sympathetic to human beings, whatever their political or
> moral reputation as presented by journalism. Cho En Lai is at least as
> sympathetically treated as Nixon in the Adams opera. Would you call him
> right wing, too?
>
They don't seem to be too sympathetic to Mao. Deservedly so, of
course; I'm not sympathetic to him at all either. But they are not
simply being sympathetic to all human beings. They have chosen their
subjects and presented them the way they wanted.
> Of course, the fact that Adams and co. have been repeatedly and
> vitriolically accused of political bias from *both* sides of the
> political spectrum - in both "Nixon" and "Klinghofer" - tells us
> something very interesting indeed.
Maybe, although I'm not familiar with the criticism. In any case, I
wasn't calling Adams rightist. I brought this up in response to Adams
being called leftist, and said I didn't think that was appropriate.
Taken together, I think Nixon in China and The Death of Klinghoffer
show that Goodman and Adams have definite ideas about who is
sympathetic and who isn't. As the booklet in NiC says, they both
wanted that opera to have a heroic feeling, and the choices of Nixon
and the Palenstinians who killed Klinghoffer as the centers of heroic
operas is a political statement. I think to ignore the politics is,
for me at least, not only silly but practically impossible.
Ray Hall
news:WRMkX+Dr...@nashwan.demon.co.uk...
| >There certainly could be an opera that presented a balanced portrait of
| >Nixon.
|
| How? Music personalises and emotionalises drama. Opera is not political
| dialectic or reportage, and can never be. That is why Brecht objected to
| it.
|
| >It sure looks like they are sympathetic to Nixon and to some principles
| >that I, at least, think of as being rightish.
|
| They are being sympathetic to human beings, whatever their political or
| moral reputation as presented by journalism. Cho En Lai is at least as
| sympathetically treated as Nixon in the Adams opera. Would you call him
| right wing, too?
As regards Nixon in China, I also think Adams displays a very wry sense of
humour, especially in the scene after arriving in China, and Nixon is
parodied quite mercilessly with regard to his "being on the News ... the
News". An effective and quite funny episode.
In short, I believe modern opera, such as those by Adams, and even earlier
works such as Britten's Grimes, and several of Janacek's operas, achieve a
greater synthesis musically, with the libretto (text) and music melded into
a musical whole. Unlike the many earlier operas which were often used as
displays for vocal virtuosity. Having said that, I still love Puccini.
Christopher Webber
>Why must drama, operatic or otherwise, have one-sided characters?
That is the point. Drama *can't* have one-sided characters. Agit-prop
theatre meets this problem in its starkest form. Where the opposed
political position is given human form and desire, the favoured one
seems comparatively bland or one-dimensional. Humanising inevitably
blunts the political edge. The 'demons' in such pieces inevitably come
across so much vividly than the 'angels' because human appetites,
however debased, are naturally more attractive and immediate the than
cardboard ideals-masquerading-as-characters who tend to represent the
'good'.
This is the why Milton, in his great and essentially dramatic poem, made
such problems for himself: drama cannot be political lecture. It's even
more true of opera, given music's power to sweeten and charm the most
vitriolic verbal condemnation (c.f. Brecht or Dryden on this).
> There is inherent drama in complex personalities, and in complex
>politics. And didn't Verdi write operas that were overt political
>commentaries?
Agreed, there certainly *is* the stuff of drama in these things. But the
drama exits in the people themselves, the clashes in individuals' lives,
whether between Love and Duty, Politics and Personal, Self against
Altruism and the rest.
Verdi, like Shakespeare, patently did *not* write dramas that were overt
political commentaries. They comment on the people involved in the
politics, and what the politics do the people. They don't 'take sides'
on the policies themselves - the closest Verdi got to political
statement were the hidden Risorgimento codes in the earlier operas,
which of course had to be hidden if they weren't to be excised by the
censors (c.f. "Un Ballo in Maschera").
Condemning "Nixon in China" for showing us a more human side of Nixon as
well as his voracious "News, news ..." is a bit like condemning Verdi
for allowing Philip II ("Don Carlo") to sing "Dormiro sol", his
sympathetic uneasy-lies-the-head-that-wears-the-crown aria which opens
the 4th Act. How dare a mere composer allow this appalling tyrant, one
of the worst in world history, who presided over multiple genocides in
the Americas, his moment of sympathy!
Of course, distance is everything. Doubtless people in 100 years will be
as amused by the heated controversies over "Nixon in China" as we are by
the 19th c. agitation over such a tame squibs as "La Muette de Portici",
which in its day sparked a democratic revolution in Belgium!
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in news:IxhjPlEc...@nashwan.demon.co.uk:
> Condemning "Nixon in China" for showing us a more human side of Nixon as
> well as his voracious "News, news ..." is a bit like condemning Verdi for
> allowing Philip II ("Don Carlo") to sing "Dormiro sol", his sympathetic
> uneasy-lies-the-head-that-wears-the-crown aria which opens the 4th Act.
> How dare a mere composer allow this appalling tyrant, one of the worst in
> world history, who presided over multiple genocides in the Americas, his
> moment of sympathy!
Which is the point some of us are waving at, I think: Verdi shows Filippo
the tyrant *and* his more sympathetic side, while Adams just goes goshwow
over the East-Meets-West wonderment and ignores Nixon's failings.
Christopher Webber
>Adams just goes goshwow over the East-Meets-West wonderment and ignores
Nixon's failings.
I experience the character differently, largely due to that Act 1 "News"
aria I mentioned. Hardly an unqualified recommendation of Nixon's
mentality or morality, I would think!
However, you have a point. How on earth are composers, dramatists or
performers expected to *condemn* or *judge* their characters? Scarpia
for example does not see himself as evil - quite the reverse! When
played with horns and a tail, as some sort of Machiavellian pantomime
demon, it ain't half so effective. The same is true of Iago. They both
see their own cause as just, morally supportable according to their
world view. That is what makes them frightening.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
> "Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)"
><?@earthlink.net.invalid> writes:
>>Adams just goes goshwow over the East-Meets-West wonderment and ignores
> Nixon's failings.
>
> I experience the character differently, largely due to that Act 1 "News"
> aria I mentioned. Hardly an unqualified recommendation of Nixon's
> mentality or morality, I would think!
And yet I put it to you, even a more "benevolent" politician, one with a
few more scruples and less interest in settling scores, might well sing
such an aria himself. Compared to other things Nixon did, "News news
news" is quite trivial.
> However, you have a point. How on earth are composers, dramatists or
> performers expected to *condemn* or *judge* their characters? Scarpia
> for example does not see himself as evil - quite the reverse! When
> played with horns and a tail, as some sort of Machiavellian pantomime
> demon, it ain't half so effective. The same is true of Iago. They both
> see their own cause as just, morally supportable according to their
> world view. That is what makes them frightening.
As I've said before, a real Nixon opera might bear some resemblance to
_Boris Godunov_: A powerful but obsessed leader determines he has to rule
his country, his way, in order to "save" it, no matter what it takes.
Grammarian
> Grammarian <Gramm...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >Why must drama, operatic or otherwise, have one-sided characters?
>
> That is the point. Drama *can't* have one-sided characters. Agit-prop
> theatre meets this problem in its starkest form. Where the opposed
> political position is given human form and desire, the favoured one
> seems comparatively bland or one-dimensional. Humanising inevitably
> blunts the political edge. The 'demons' in such pieces inevitably come
> across so much vividly than the 'angels' because human appetites,
> however debased, are naturally more attractive and immediate the than
> cardboard ideals-masquerading-as-characters who tend to represent the
> 'good'.
>
I'm not sure I understand your position. When I said that Adams and
Goodman could have presented a balanced portrait of Nixon, you said
they couldn't because it wouldn't be dramatic. You also say drama
can't have one-sided characters. I can't wee what you're getting at.
> This is the why Milton, in his great and essentially dramatic poem, made
> such problems for himself: drama cannot be political lecture. It's even
> more true of opera, given music's power to sweeten and charm the most
> vitriolic verbal condemnation (c.f. Brecht or Dryden on this).
>
> > There is inherent drama in complex personalities, and in complex
> >politics. And didn't Verdi write operas that were overt political
> >commentaries?
>
> Agreed, there certainly *is* the stuff of drama in these things. But the
> drama exits in the people themselves, the clashes in individuals' lives,
> whether between Love and Duty, Politics and Personal, Self against
> Altruism and the rest.
>
> Verdi, like Shakespeare, patently did *not* write dramas that were overt
> political commentaries. They comment on the people involved in the
> politics, and what the politics do the people. They don't 'take sides'
> on the policies themselves - the closest Verdi got to political
> statement were the hidden Risorgimento codes in the earlier operas,
> which of course had to be hidden if they weren't to be excised by the
> censors (c.f. "Un Ballo in Maschera").
>
I'd have to disagree about Verdi. His operas certainly had a political
point, one that would have been obvious to his audience. That's why he
had trouble with the censors, and why Un Ballo had to be reset in
Boston. Frankly, I don't think you can comment on what politics do to
people without having a viewpoint on politics. And in general, not
having a viewpoint doesn't make for stories that much interest me.
> Condemning "Nixon in China" for showing us a more human side of Nixon as
> well as his voracious "News, news ..." is a bit like condemning Verdi
> for allowing Philip II ("Don Carlo") to sing "Dormiro sol", his
> sympathetic uneasy-lies-the-head-that-wears-the-crown aria which opens
> the 4th Act. How dare a mere composer allow this appalling tyrant, one
> of the worst in world history, who presided over multiple genocides in
> the Americas, his moment of sympathy!
>
Again, I'm not condemning Nixon in China and haven't anywhere in this
thread. Showing the hamburger-and-letters-home side of the man can be
a valuable look. But completely ignoring the paranoid-and-power-hungry
side does make a political statement, and I believe it's intentional
in this case. Ignoring it, saying that the opera is not political, is,
as far as I can see, wrong.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
> Again, I'm not condemning Nixon in China and haven't anywhere in this
> thread. Showing the hamburger-and-letters-home side of the man can be
> a valuable look. But completely ignoring the paranoid-and-power-hungry
> side does make a political statement, and I believe it's intentional
> in this case. Ignoring it, saying that the opera is not political, is,
> as far as I can see, wrong.
Bingo!
Grammarian
> Gramm...@mindspring.com (Grammarian) appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:58d092e3.0304...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Again, I'm not condemning Nixon in China and haven't anywhere in this
> > thread. Showing the hamburger-and-letters-home side of the man can be
> > a valuable look. But completely ignoring the paranoid-and-power-hungry
> > side does make a political statement, and I believe it's intentional
> > in this case. Ignoring it, saying that the opera is not political, is,
> > as far as I can see, wrong.
>
> Bingo!
Do I win a prize?
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
Christopher Webber
>I'm not sure I understand your position. When I said that Adams and
>Goodman could have presented a balanced portrait of Nixon, you said
>they couldn't because it wouldn't be dramatic. You also say drama
>can't have one-sided characters. I can't wee what you're getting at.
Apologies for any lack of clarify. I believe that Adams and Goodman *do*
provide a balanced portrait of Nixon - but crucially, in personal not
political terms. "Nixon in China" is certainly dramatic (if not, judging
from the London production, very theatrical - but then, what can we
expect from a first opera?). What "Nixon in China" patently is not, is a
balanced presentation of conflicting political opinions. The story is a
political one, but the piece is about the people, not the politics.
What you seem to be asking for is something rather different from that
ambiguity which is the stuff of drama. You seem to be asking for an
opera to dramatize political opinions and come down with some sort of
considered judgement on the politicians.
This difference - between presentation and overt judgement - is the
difference between drama and historical polemic.
>I'd have to disagree about Verdi. His operas certainly had a political
>point, one that would have been obvious to his audience. That's why he
>had trouble with the censors, and why Un Ballo had to be reset in
>Boston.
It's horribly easy to merge someone's political beliefs as an individual
with their work as a dramatist. If you can point to a political message
in "Rigoletto", "La Traviata", "Il Trovatore" or even the
politically-activated "La battaglia di Legnano" I'd be interested to
know what it is! Beyond of course the personal implications of political
activism - and such philosophical truisms as "power corrupts, absolute
power corrupts absolutely" etc. etc.
The censors stopped "Un ballo in maschera" in its tracks not for any
putative political content at all, but simply because it portrayed the
assassination of a ruling monarch. There's no evidence in the libretto
for that assassination being *judged* right or wrong, fortunate or
unfortunate: it is simply a plot device. Minor details apart, the
censors were quite happy to let the piece proceed once Gustavo became an
English Governor in the American colonies - much les controversial,
don't you know! For the same reason, Verdi was content to go along with
Piave's demotion of the King of France to a mere Italian Duke for
"Rigoletto". Hugo's plot survives unaltered.
This, then, had nothing to any politic "message" within the piece, and
everything to do with a rather simplified view of the likely effect of
drama ("if we let the audience witness the killing of a king, they might
go out and kill ours") by the politicians, who didn't understand drama
at all and - like most people - cared less.
>Frankly, I don't think you can comment on what politics do to
>people without having a viewpoint on politics. And in general, not
>having a viewpoint doesn't make for stories that much interest me.
Agreed, of course we can't escape having a personal view. People who
claim they are 'apolitical' are usually anything but! But what interests
the Shakespeares and Verdis of this world - in their work - is the
*effect* of political belief on character, not those beliefs themselves.
As far as political idealism is concerned (which is what I suspect
you're chiefly missing in Adams's opera??) the great dramatists tend to
be agnostic (Simon Boccanegra) , or cynical (Coriolanus) about the whole
business of politics and the fate of idealism and idealists.
Can you think of any example of a good opera where a political ideal is
presented as anything other than a pretext for personal tragedy? This is
true even of Schiller, or Brecht, those most purely "politically fired"
of dramatists. Most plays and operas are written squarely from within
the political mores of their time and place. We need to understand those
mores to get to grips with the pieces, certainly; and the most lasting
works are those which mirror most effectively something from within our
own times and places.
>But completely ignoring the paranoid-and-power-hungry
>side does make a political statement, and I believe it's intentional
>in this case. Ignoring it, saying that the opera is not political, is,
>as far as I can see, wrong.
"Nixon in China"'s attitude to both (a) the business of politics and
(b) political idealism is - in the Shakespearean or Verdian tradition -
agnostic at best. We see a group of rather little people, as you suggest
(with the possible exception of Cho En Lai) caught up in a web over
which they have no control. This *is* of course a philosophical
viewpoint about politics, the classic Tolstoyan position that
individuals have no control over history, despite their illusion that
they do.
Matthew Tepper - and maybe you, I don't know - seem to hanker after an
opera which shows us a "paranoid and power-hungry" monster ravening the
land and the people as well as a man who liked children and dogs. Is
this what you mean by 'balance'? Are we confusing politics and morality?
The great musical dramas, and even "Nixon in China" in its small way,
are content to leave the politics to the politicians. All of which does
*not* mean that we and they can't, through our lives and art, "do
something" about the state of the world (quite the contrary). The
difference is that stage writers and composers tend not to trust global
ideals, or articles of faith, in their art, preferring to work through
and on individuals.
Nor does Pushkin's consciously Shakesperean "Boris Godunov", cited by
Matthew, work through peddling a particular political stance. Why do you
think the Soviets cut the scene with the idiot at the end? Because of
its alleged "cynicism". Mussorgsky's deep sorrow at the fact than nobody
and nothing, not Boris's lot, not Dmitri's lot - nobody, ever - can hope
to change the suffering and tragedy of the Russian land and its people
worked clean against the Soviets' political idealism. This lack of
belief in the power of politics to change things is one reason why great
art can be seen as socially disruptive by tyrannies - and often is!
>
>> Of course, distance is everything.
Frankly, at this distance in time it's hard for many of us outside the
USA to get particularly hot under the collar about the rise and fall of
this particular, comedic Emperor of the West. Evidently many
contributors to the list still do; and whilst respecting their right to
passionate hatred of this denizen of the dark side, as they see him,
it's hard to join them in condemning "Nixon in China" for not sharing
that viewpoint as an article of faith!
Christopher Webber
<?@earthlink.net.invalid> writes:
>As I've said before, a real Nixon opera might bear some resemblance to
>_Boris Godunov_: A powerful but obsessed leader determines he has to
>rule his country, his way, in order to "save" it, no matter what it
>takes.
Well, it *might* .... but you can hardly blame John Adams for writing
something different again. That would be a bit like criticising Gore
Vidal for not making "Burr" more like "War and Peace"!
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in news:cppmJTQ+...@nashwan.demon.co.uk:
> "Nixon in China"'s attitude to both (a) the business of politics and
> (b) political idealism is - in the Shakespearean or Verdian tradition -
> agnostic at best. We see a group of rather little people, as you suggest
> (with the possible exception of Cho En Lai) caught up in a web over which
> they have no control. This *is* of course a philosophical viewpoint about
> politics, the classic Tolstoyan position that individuals have no control
> over history, despite their illusion that they do.
>
> Matthew Tepper - and maybe you, I don't know - seem to hanker after an
> opera which shows us a "paranoid and power-hungry" monster ravening the
> land and the people as well as a man who liked children and dogs. Is
> this what you mean by 'balance'? Are we confusing politics and morality?
[snip]
> Frankly, at this distance in time it's hard for many of us outside the
> USA to get particularly hot under the collar about the rise and fall of
> this particular, comedic Emperor of the West. Evidently many contributors
> to the list still do; and whilst respecting their right to passionate
> hatred of this denizen of the dark side, as they see him, it's hard to
> join them in condemning "Nixon in China" for not sharing that viewpoint
> as an article of faith!
Well, let me put it another way: It would be kind of like writing a book
about the achievements of the acting Booth family without mentioning the
tiny little peccadillo committed by one of them.
Christopher Webber
>Well, let me put it another way: It would be kind of like writing a
>book about the achievements of the acting Booth family without
>mentioning the tiny little peccadillo committed by one of them.
Very good! But say you were writing an opera about Mr Booth ... would
you *need* to mention said Unfortunate Incident?!? It might be more
interesting to assume that your audience knew that bit anyway without
needing to have it rammed down their throats!
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
> "Matthew B. Tepper writes:
>>Well, let me put it another way: It would be kind of like writing a
>>book about the achievements of the acting Booth family without
>>mentioning the tiny little peccadillo committed by one of them.
>
> Very good! But say you were writing an opera about Mr Booth ... would
> you *need* to mention said Unfortunate Incident?!? It might be more
> interesting to assume that your audience knew that bit anyway without
> needing to have it rammed down their throats!
It's kind of difficult to dance around it. Sondheim didn't, for example.
(And yes, I know this is the same Sondheim who wrote "Pacific Overtures,"
which is about relations between Japan and the USA but somehow doesn't
mention the unpleasantness between 1941 and 1945.)
Christopher Webber
>It's kind of difficult to dance around it. Sondheim didn't, for
>example. (And yes, I know this is the same Sondheim who wrote "Pacific
>Overtures," which is about relations between Japan and the USA but
>somehow doesn't mention the unpleasantness between 1941 and 1945.)
No indeed. And Sondheim's other "entertainment" was about the concept of
assassination rather than JWB per se. This is sheer prejudice speaking
here (no flames please!) but as a general rule of thumb I tend to feel
that if Sondheim did it, it must be wrong. My primary objection - one of
many - to his scented confections is that they leave absolutely no room
for audiences to think for themselves ... which was rather my point
about what might be desirable in a John Wilkes Booth play.
[ It's a synchronous world. I was chatting to a colleague today, who
told me he'd actually done a BBC Radio 4 play a year or so back about
the young JWB, which did indeed manage to fill three-quarters of an hour
with no more than a few veiled allusions to the Lamentable Misadventure
itself! ]