Translation of the 1948 Central Committee Decree on Soviet Music
Gary Goldberg
Cde. = Comrade
My thanks to Per Skans for locating the original Russian documents and
sending them to me//
The Opera "The Great Friendship" of V. Muradeli
Decree of the CC VKP (b) of 10 February 1948
The CC VKP(b) considers the opera "Velikaya Druzhba [The Great Friendship]"
(music by V. Muradeli and libretto by G. Mdivani) staged by the USSR
Bolshoi Theater
during the 30th anniversary of the October Revolution to be faulty, both in a
musical sense and with regard to the subject matter, and an inartistic work.
The main faults of the opera are primarily rooted in its music. The opera's
music is inexpressive and insipid. It contains no memorable melodies or arias.
It is confused and discordant, built on continuous dissonances and harsh
combinations
of sounds. Individual lines and scenes aspiring to melodiousness are suddenly
cut off by scrambled noise completely foreign to normal human hearing and
oppressive
to the audience. There is no organic connection between the musical
accompaniment
and the development of the action on the stage. The vocal part of the opera
- the
choral, solo, and ensemble singing - makes an awful impression. As a result, the
capabilities of the orchestra and singers remain unused.
The composer has not used the richness of folk melodies, the songs, the
tunes, and dance and folk dance motifs which the creativity of the peoples
of the
USSR has in such rich profusion and, in particular, the creativity of the
peoples
who inhabit the North Caucasus, where the action reflected in the opera
develops.
In chasing after a false "originality" of music, composer Muradeli
disregards the
best traditions and experience of classic opera in general and Russian
classical opera
in particular, which is distinguished by an inner profundity, a richness of
melody, and a
breadth of folk characteristics, and elegant, beautiful, and clear music
form which has
made Russian opera the best in the world, a genre of music beloved and
accessible
to broad sectors of the people.
The plot of the opera, which pretends to describe the struggle to establish
Soviet power and the friendship of peoples in the North Caucasus in 1918-1920
is historically false and artificial. An incorrect impression is created
from the opera
that such Caucasian peoples as the Georgians and Ossetians were
antagonistic toward the
Russian people at that time, which is historically false, since it was the
Ingush and Chechens
who were the obstacle to the establishment of friendship of the peoples of
the North
Caucasus at that time.
The CC VKP(b) thinks that the failure of Muradeli's opera is the result of
the false and pernicious formalistic path for the creativity of a Soviet
composer
which Cde. Muradeli has embarked upon.
As the conference of prominent figures of Soviet music which was held
at the VKP(b) has shown, the failure of Muradeli's opera is not a chance
occurrence
but is closely associated with the troubled situation of contemporary
Soviet music
and the spread of a formalist tendency among Soviet composers.
Back in 1936, in connection with the appearance of D. Shostakovich's opera
"Lady Macbeth of Mtensk District", the anti-people, formalist distortions
in the creative
output of D. Shostakovich were subjected to sharp criticism in the CC
VKP(b) publication
"Pravda" and the harm and danger of this tendency for the fate of the
development of
Soviet music was exposed.
In spite of these warnings, and also in the face of the instructions
which were
given by the CC VKP(b) in its decisions about the magazines "Zvezda" and
"Leningrad",
about the film "Velikaya Zhizn' [A Great Life]", the repertoire of dramatic
theaters,
and measures for its improvement, no readjustment has taken place in Soviet
music.
The individual successes of Soviet composers in the area of the creation of
new songs
which were accepted and widely circulated among the people, in the area of
creating
music for films, etc. do not change the overall picture of the situation.
This tendency
has found its fullest expression in the works of such composers as Cdes.
D. Shostakovich, S. Prokof'yev, A. Khachaturian, V. Shebalin, G. Popov, N.
Myaskovsky,
and others in whose creativity the formalist distortions, anti-democratic
tendencies
in music which are foreign to the Soviet people and their artistic tastes
are most
dramatically displayed. The characteristic signs of such music are the
negation of
the basic principles of classical music; the propagation of atonality,
dissonance, and
disharmony, being a sort of expression of "progress" and "innovation" in
the development
of musical form; a rejection of such very important fundamentals of musical
works as
melody; and an enthusiasm for confused, neuropathic combinations turning
the music into
cacophony and a chaotic conglomeration of sounds. This music is strongly
indebted to
the spirit of the contemporary bourgeois modernistic music of Europe and America
reflective of the decay of bourgeois culture, the complete negation of the
art of music, and its impasse.
An intrinsic sign of the formalist tendency is also the rejection of
polyphonic
music and singing based on the simultaneous combination and development of
a number
of independent melodic lines and an enthusiasm for monotonous, unison music and
singing, often without words, which violates the multi-voice music and song
structure
characteristic of our people and leads to an impoverishment and decay in music.
Flouting the better traditions of Russian and Western classical music
and rejecting
these traditions as supposedly "outmoded", "old thinking", and
"conservative", haughtily
slighting composers who try to conscientiously master and develop the methods of
classical music as supporters of "primitive traditionalism" and
"imitation", many Soviet
composers in pursuit of a false understanding of innovation have divorced
themselves
from the demands and artistic tastes of the Soviet people in their music,
closed themselves
off in a narrow circle of specialists and musical gourmands, lowered the
high social role of
music, and narrowed its importance, having limited it to the satisfaction
of the distorted
tastes of individualistic aesthetes.
The formalist distortions in Soviet music have engendered a one-sided
enthusiasm
among some Soviet composers for complex forms of instrumental symphonic music
without texts and a neglectful attitude toward such musical genres as
opera, choral
music, popular music for small orchestras, folk instruments, vocal
ensembles, etc.
All this unavoidably leads to forfeiting the foundations of vocal
culture and dramatic
mastery and composers forgetting how to write for the people; the fact that not
one Soviet opera has recently been written on a par with Russian classical
opera is evidence
of this.
The alienation of several leading figures of Soviet music from the
people has led to
the spread of a corrupt "theory" among them by force of which the failure
of the people
to understand the music of many contemporary Soviet composers is explained
as the
people not having supposedly "matured" to an understanding of complex music
and that
they will understand it in another 100 years and that one ought not be
disturbed if some
musical works do not find listeners. This thoroughly individualistic,
fundamentally anti-
people theory has to an even greater degree helped some composers and
musicologists
shut themselves off from the people, from criticism by the Soviet public,
and close
themselves off in their own shell.
The cultivation of all these and similar views has inflicted enormous
harm on Soviet
musical culture. A patient attitude toward these views means the spread
among the leading
figures of Soviet musical culture of tendencies which are foreign to it,
leading to a dead end
in the development of music and the elimination of the art of music.
The ruinous, anti-people, formalistic trend in Soviet music is also
exerting such a
pernicious influence on the training and education of young composers in
our conservatories,
primarily in the Moscow Conservatory (whose Director is Cde. Shebalin),
where the
formalistic trend is predominant. Students are not instilled with respect
for the best
traditions of Russian and Western music, and are not instilled with love
for folk art, and
democratic musical forms. The creativity of many conservatory pupils is a
blind imitation
of the music of D. Shostakovich, S. Prokof'yev, and others.
The CC VKP(b) notes the absolutely intolerable condition of Soviet
musical criticism.
Enemies of Russian realistic music and supporters of decadent, formalist
music occupy
the leading positions among critics. These critics declare each new work
of Prokof'yev,
Shostakovich, Myaskovsky, and Shebalin "a new achievement of Soviet music"
and praise
the subjectivism, constructivism, extreme individualism, and professional
complexity of
the language, that is, the same things which ought to be subjected to
criticism. Instead
of demolishing harmful views and theories foreign to socialist realism,
musical criticism is
itself facilitating their dissemination, exalting and declaring those
composers who
share their false creative ideas "the leaders".
Musical criticism has ceased to express the opinion of the Soviet public, the
opinion of the people, and has turned into a mouthpiece of individual
composers. Several
music critics, instead of principled, objective criticism, have begun to
play up to and
fawn on one or another of the musical leaders because of friendly
relations, extolling
their creativity in every way.
All this means that the vestiges of bourgeois ideology fed by the
influence of
decadent contemporary West European and American music have still not been
eliminated among some Soviet composers.
The CC VKP(b) thinks that this unfavorable situation at the forefront of
Soviet
music was created as a result of the incorrect policy in the area of Soviet
music which
was pursued by the USSR Council of Ministers' Committee for Artistic Affairs and
the Organizing Committee of the Union of Soviet Composers.
The USSR Council of Ministers' Committee for Artistic Affairs ([chaired by]
Cde. Khrapchenko] and the Organizing Committee of the Union of Soviet Composers
(Cde. Khachaturyan), instead of developing a realistic direction in Soviet
music whose
foundations are the recognition of the enormous progressive role of the
classical heritage,
in particular the traditions of Russian classical musical school, the use
of this heritage and
its further development, the combination in music of great interest with
artistic perfection
of musical form, truth, and a realistic approach to the music, its deep
organic connection
to the people, its creativity of music and song, and a high professional
craftmanship of
musical works with simultaneous simplicity and accessibility, essentially
encouraged a
formalistic trend foreign to Soviet music.
The Organizing Committee of the Union of Soviet Composers has turned
into a tool
of formalist composers and become the primary breeding ground for
formalistic distortions.
A stuffy atmosphere has been created in the Organizing Committee and
creative discussion
is lacking. The leaders of the Organizing Committee and the musicologists
who have grouped
themselves around them extol anti-realistic, modernistic works which are
not deserving of
support, but works which are distinguished by their realistic character and
a striving to
continue and develop the classical heritage are declared second-class,
remain unnoticed,
and are slighted. Composers who are inordinately proud of their
"innovativeness" and
"arch-revolutionary spirit" in the field of music in their activity in the
Organizing
Committee behave like champions of outmoded and stuffy conservatism,
revealing an
arrogant intolerance with the slightest display of criticism.
The CC VKP(b) think that such a situation and such an attitude toward
the mission
of Soviet music as has developed in the USSR Council of Ministers'
Committee for Artistic
Affairs and the Organizing Committee of the Union of Soviet Composers can
no longer be
tolerated, for it has inflicted the greatest harm on the development of
Soviet music. In
recent years the cultural demands and level of artistic tastes of the
Soviet people have
grown extraordinarily. The Soviet people expect works in all genres - in
the area of opera
and symphonic music, the creation of songs, choral and dance music - to be
idealistic
and of high quality. In our country composers have been afforded unlimited
creative opportunities
and all the necessary conditions have been created for a genuine flowering
of musical culture.
Soviet composers have an audience which no composer in the past ever had.
It would be
inexcusable not to use all these very rich opportunities and not direct
their creative efforts
along a correct realistic path.
The CC VKP(b) resolves:
1. To condemn the formalist direction in Soviet music as being
anti-people and leading
in fact to the elimination of music.
2. To suggest that the CC Directorate of Propaganda and Agitation and
the Committee for
Artistic Affairs try to correct the situation in Soviet music, eliminate
the shortcomings
indicated in this CC resolution and ensure the development of Soviet music
in a realistic direction.
3. To call upon Soviet composers to be imbued with a sense of the high
demands which the
Soviet people place on musical creativity and, throwing everything from
their path which
weakens our music and interferes with its development, ensure a growth of
creative
work which would move Soviet musical culture forward quickly and lead to
the creation
of valuable works of high quality in all areas of musical creativity worthy
of the Soviet people.
4. To approve the organizational steps of the corresponding Party and
government
bodies directed at improving musical affairs.
--
Illiterate? Write for free help!
(Remove "X" from address to reply)
ARTIFICIAL intelligence? What we need is the real thing!!!
Dr.Matt
Gary Goldberg <XGa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>//CC VKP(b) = Central Committee, All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)
>
>Cde. = Comrade
>
>My thanks to Per Skans for locating the original Russian documents and
>sending them to me//
>
> The Opera "The Great Friendship" of V. Muradeli
>
> Decree of the CC VKP (b) of 10 February 1948
>
>
> The CC VKP(b) considers the opera "Velikaya Druzhba [The Great Friendship]"
>(music by V. Muradeli and libretto by G. Mdivani) staged by the USSR
>Bolshoi Theater
>during the 30th anniversary of the October Revolution to be faulty, both in a
>musical sense and with regard to the subject matter, and an inartistic work.
>
The scary thing about this document is not so much that it was written,
that it set its sights on Prokoffiev and Katchaturian as "the enemy", but
rather that it sounds so terribly similar to manifestos still coming out of
New York and California today.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a trip to the bathroom."
Jerry Kohl
> //CC VKP(b) = Central Committee, All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)
>
> Cde. = Comrade
>
> My thanks to Per Skans for locating the original Russian documents and
> sending them to me//
>
> The Opera "The Great Friendship" of V. Muradeli
>
> Decree of the CC VKP (b) of 10 February 1948
>
>
> The CC VKP(b) considers the opera "Velikaya Druzhba [The Great Friendship]"
> (music by V. Muradeli and libretto by G. Mdivani) staged by the USSR
> Bolshoi Theater
> during the 30th anniversary of the October Revolution to be faulty, both in a
> musical sense and with regard to the subject matter, and an inartistic work.
>
> [snip]
Am I missing something, or is the 1978 translation deficient in some way?
I refer to:
The Central Committee resolution and Zhdanov's speech on the journals Zvezda
and Leningrad =
Doklad t. Zhanova & Zhurnalakh Zvezda i Leningrad / English translation by
Felicity Ashbee and
Irina Tidmarsh (Royal Oak, Mich.: Strathcona, 1978)
Jerry
Gary Goldberg
wrote:
I was unaware of this translation, having been unable to find one on
the Internet. Thanks!
Gary Goldberg
fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> The scary thing about this document is not so much that it was written,
> that it set its sights on Prokoffiev and Katchaturian as "the enemy", but
> rather that it sounds so terribly similar to manifestos still coming out of
> New York and California today.
If by "NY and California" you mean music for the theater and film, it's
only natural that producers don't want atonal music.
What the document says about (then-)trendy ideologues repressing
those who wanted to continue to develop the classical tradition
(whether true or not) is true of many conservatories in the West in more
recent decades.
Dr.Matt
>fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>> The scary thing about this document is not so much that it was written,
>> that it set its sights on Prokoffiev and Katchaturian as "the enemy", but
>> rather that it sounds so terribly similar to manifestos still coming out of
>> New York and California today.
>
>And yet omits Kabalevsky.
>
>If by "NY and California" you mean music for the theater and film, it's
>only natural that producers don't want atonal music.
Nah, producers don't usually throw around technical terms like that,
usually it's critics or student composers trying to demand that filmscore
exercises be taken seriously as concert music---when they're really quite
different things altogether...
>What the document says about (then-)trendy ideologues repressing
>those who wanted to continue to develop the classical tradition
>(whether true or not) is true of many conservatories in the West in more
>recent decades.
Hmmm. Name one?
>--
>Illiterate? Write for free help!
>(Remove "X" from address to reply)
>ARTIFICIAL intelligence? What we need is the real thing!!!
Gary Goldberg
> Gary Goldberg wrote:
> Am I missing something, or is the 1978 translation deficient in some way?
> I refer to:
>
> The Central Committee resolution and Zhdanov's speech on the journals
Zvezda
> and Leningrad =
> Doklad t. Zhanova & Zhurnalakh Zvezda i Leningrad / English translation by
> Felicity Ashbee and
> Irina Tidmarsh (Royal Oak, Mich.: Strathcona, 1978)
I'm told this is a completely different, if roughly contemporaneous, document:
...he would have discovered, already by comparing titles, that he is
speaking about two totally different postanovlenies: "The Great
Friendship" (1948), and
the one "o zhurnalakh Zvezda i Leningrad", which was published in 1946 (and
indeed followed by or preceded by, I don't remember which, a further one on
a film 'The Great Life' or something to that effect). It is correct that
Zhdanov delivered one of his usual doklads on that occasion, too, but we
are, in sum, speaking of two totally different things
Gary Goldberg
fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> >If by "NY and California" you mean music for the theater and film, it's
> >only natural that producers don't want atonal music.
>
> Nah, producers don't usually throw around technical terms like that,
> usually it's critics or student composers trying to demand that filmscore
> exercises be taken seriously as concert music---when they're really quite
> different things altogether...
>
> >What the document says about (then-)trendy ideologues repressing
> >those who wanted to continue to develop the classical tradition
> >(whether true or not) is true of many conservatories in the West in more
> >recent decades.
>
> Hmmm. Name one?
conservatory student in recent decades.
Dr.Matt
>fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>> >If by "NY and California" you mean music for the theater and film, it's
>> >only natural that producers don't want atonal music.
>>
>> Nah, producers don't usually throw around technical terms like that,
>> usually it's critics or student composers trying to demand that filmscore
>> exercises be taken seriously as concert music---when they're really quite
>> different things altogether...
>>
>> >What the document says about (then-)trendy ideologues repressing
>> >those who wanted to continue to develop the classical tradition
>> >(whether true or not) is true of many conservatories in the West in more
>> >recent decades.
>>
>> Hmmm. Name one?
>
>It'd be easier to name the exceptions. Ask any musicologist or
>conservatory student in recent decades.
No. Name one. Any one. I have been a conservatory student of music
composition in recent decades.
>
>--
>Illiterate? Write for free help!
>(Remove "X" from address to reply)
>ARTIFICIAL intelligence? What we need is the real thing!!!
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt <fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <XGaryG-ya02408000...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Gary Goldberg <XGa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <tmLha.2570$XR3....@news.itd.umich.edu>,
>>fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>>
>>> >If by "NY and California" you mean music for the theater and film, it's
>>> >only natural that producers don't want atonal music.
>>>
>>> Nah, producers don't usually throw around technical terms like that,
>>> usually it's critics or student composers trying to demand that filmscore
>>> exercises be taken seriously as concert music---when they're really quite
>>> different things altogether...
>>>
>>> >What the document says about (then-)trendy ideologues repressing
>>> >those who wanted to continue to develop the classical tradition
>>> >(whether true or not) is true of many conservatories in the West in more
>>> >recent decades.
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Name one?
>>
>>It'd be easier to name the exceptions. Ask any musicologist or
>>conservatory student in recent decades.
>
>No. Name one. Any one. I have been a conservatory student of music
>composition in recent decades.
To which I must add that your suggestion that we ask a MUSICOLOGIST
about the alleged existence of idealogues suppressing those who wish
to forward the classical tradition (only performers and composers can
do that, musicologists can only study music as a humanities field)
suggests that you are rather confused.
D.G. Porter
>
> In article <XGaryG-ya02408000...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> Gary Goldberg <XGa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In article <tmLha.2570$XR3....@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> >fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> >
> >> >What the document says about (then-)trendy ideologues repressing
> >> >those who wanted to continue to develop the classical tradition
> >> >(whether true or not) is true of many conservatories in the West in more
> >> >recent decades.
> >>
> >> Hmmm. Name one?
> >
> >It'd be easier to name the exceptions. Ask any musicologist or
> >conservatory student in recent decades.
>
> No. Name one. Any one. I have been a conservatory student of music
> composition in recent decades.
We used to say that Michalski got his PhD from Midas because all he knew
about was "muffling."
--
Now on the Porter-Niekum menu:
FRENCH fries (from Idaho probably)
FRENCH-roast coffee (from South America most likely)
FRENCH'S mustard (pretty lame-n-tame but WTF)
FRENCH dip sandwiches at the corner greasyspoon
NO "Freedom ticklers," NO "Freedom kissing," and NO "Mr. Freedom" on
reruns of "Family Affair"!
D.G. Porter
>
> To which I must add that your suggestion that we ask a MUSICOLOGIST
> about the alleged existence of idealogues suppressing those who wish
> to forward the classical tradition (only performers and composers can
> do that, musicologists can only study music as a humanities field)
> suggests that you are rather confused.
I take exception to this limited definition. I am a musicologist and I
do more than study a "humanities" field.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Dr.Matt wrote:
> >
> > To which I must add that your suggestion that we ask a MUSICOLOGIST
> > about the alleged existence of idealogues suppressing those who wish
> > to forward the classical tradition (only performers and composers can
> > do that, musicologists can only study music as a humanities field)
> > suggests that you are rather confused.
>
> I take exception to this limited definition. I am a musicologist and I
> do more than study a "humanities" field.
Blackwell is one of the leading linguistics publishers these days. I was
very surprised to discover that at their website, linguistics is under
"Humanities" rather than "Social Sciences." Musicology would presumably
straddle "Humanities" and "Fine Arts"? At both Cornell and Chicago, the
musicologists are performers as well.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Dr.Matt
D.G. Porter <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote:
>Dr.Matt wrote:
>>
>> To which I must add that your suggestion that we ask a MUSICOLOGIST
>> about the alleged existence of idealogues suppressing those who wish
>> to forward the classical tradition (only performers and composers can
>> do that, musicologists can only study music as a humanities field)
>> suggests that you are rather confused.
>
>I take exception to this limited definition. I am a musicologist and I
>do more than study a "humanities" field.
You're a composer, knucklehead!
>--
>Now on the Porter-Niekum menu:
>
>FRENCH fries (from Idaho probably)
>FRENCH-roast coffee (from South America most likely)
>FRENCH'S mustard (pretty lame-n-tame but WTF)
>FRENCH dip sandwiches at the corner greasyspoon
>
>NO "Freedom ticklers," NO "Freedom kissing," and NO "Mr. Freedom" on
>reruns of "Family Affair"!
Dr.Matt
Right, that's because neither university has a music school, so all
the faculty do double or triple duty. Musicology is humanities ABOUT a
field of the fine arts, it's not a fine art itself. It's solidly in the
humanities, just focussing an a particular aspect of human culture.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt <fie...@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <3E88D3...@worldnet.att.net>,
>Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>D.G. Porter wrote:
>>>
>>> Dr.Matt wrote:
>>> >
>>> > To which I must add that your suggestion that we ask a MUSICOLOGIST
>>> > about the alleged existence of idealogues suppressing those who wish
>>> > to forward the classical tradition (only performers and composers can
>>> > do that, musicologists can only study music as a humanities field)
>>> > suggests that you are rather confused.
>>>
>>> I take exception to this limited definition. I am a musicologist and I
>>> do more than study a "humanities" field.
>>
>>Blackwell is one of the leading linguistics publishers these days. I was
>>very surprised to discover that at their website, linguistics is under
>>"Humanities" rather than "Social Sciences." Musicology would presumably
>>straddle "Humanities" and "Fine Arts"? At both Cornell and Chicago, the
>>musicologists are performers as well.
>
>Right, that's because neither university has a music school, so all
>the faculty do double or triple duty. Musicology is humanities ABOUT a
>field of the fine arts, it's not a fine art itself. It's solidly in the
>humanities, just focussing an a particular aspect of human culture.
To which I should, of course, add that the notion of the musicologists
at Cornell and Chicago suppressing the classical tradition is one of the
funnier ironies I've heard of in a long time.
Peter T. Daniels
Eh? You mean, there's some sort of tradition that musicologists aren't
performers?
As for "classical," they put Charles Rosen on the faculty for a few
years (he showed up for a few weeks once in a while and occasionally
gave a public lecture) and borrowed(?) John Eaton from Bloomington
(briefly?).
Dr.Matt
They're performers in the same way that medical providers are performers.
And quite a few medical providers play in orchestras.
>As for "classical," they put Charles Rosen on the faculty for a few
>years (he showed up for a few weeks once in a while and occasionally
>gave a public lecture) and borrowed(?) John Eaton from Bloomington
>(briefly?).
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
So you're claiming that musicologists are pushing the avant garde to
the detriment of the classical tradition? What exactly are you talking
about?
D.G. Porter
>
> In article <3E88C6...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught>,
> D.G. Porter <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote:
> >Dr.Matt wrote:
> >>
> >> To which I must add that your suggestion that we ask a MUSICOLOGIST
> >> about the alleged existence of idealogues suppressing those who wish
> >> to forward the classical tradition (only performers and composers can
> >> do that, musicologists can only study music as a humanities field)
> >> suggests that you are rather confused.
> >
> >I take exception to this limited definition. I am a musicologist and I
> >do more than study a "humanities" field.
>
> You're a composer, knucklehead!
Yeah, but I haven't been "composing" whilest working on these 6 Ives
papers.
Ironic, the more fun paper was when I had the less sources to go on.
Gary Goldberg
fie...@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
Ever read Harold Schonberg?
Dr.Matt
Sure... and your point is...?
Ben Heneghan
best wishes
D.G. Porter
>
> I always thought "Zhdanov Decree" would be a great pretentious name for a pop group.
>
> best wishes
I always liked Jello Biafra's suggestion "MONDALE!" for a band, "with 5
identical Mondales kicking ass on stage..."
Gary Goldberg
BenHe...@hotmail.com (Ben Heneghan) wrote:
> I always thought "Zhdanov Decree" would be a great pretentious name for a
pop group.
You're obviously a Dave Barry fan, too! :-)
Gary Goldberg
Look, Matt, since you're a conservatory student you haven't been
aware of the situation in classical music as long as most of us here.
It would greatly simplify matters if you would look around and
draw the proper conclusions from the fact that concert audiences
hate atonal music (research project: read about Boulez and the
NY Philharmonic a generation ago; if NY won't buy it it ain't
going to play in New Haven or Peoria!). Professional musicians
and classical radio station employees also hate it, from my
admittedly unscientific sampling over the years.
etc. etc.
Conclusion? This sort of music is being kept on life support
by academics.
Jerry Kohl
>
> Look, Matt, since you're a conservatory student you haven't been
> aware of the situation in classical music as long as most of us here.
>
> It would greatly simplify matters if you would look around and
> draw the proper conclusions from the fact that concert audiences
> hate atonal music (research project: read about Boulez and the
> NY Philharmonic a generation ago; if NY won't buy it it ain't
> going to play in New Haven or Peoria!). Professional musicians
> and classical radio station employees also hate it, from my
> admittedly unscientific sampling over the years.
>
> etc. etc.
>
> Conclusion? This sort of music is being kept on life support
> by academics.
>
And what conclusion do you draw from the fact that only 3-4%
of US, and up to 10% of European (Germany and Holland, Spain
is at about 6%) record sales are in the "Classical" category, which
includes movie soundtracks and broadway musicals? Presumably
not all of the remaining 90-97% of the population actively *hates*
"Classical" music, but what sort of life-support system is it *all*
on?
Jerry
Dr.Matt
>aware of the situation in classical music as long as most of us here.
Are you talking about me? I'm 41 and graduated conservatory in 1985,
1987, and 1991.
>It would greatly simplify matters if you would look around and
>draw the proper conclusions from the fact that concert audiences
>hate atonal music (research project: read about Boulez and the
>NY Philharmonic a generation ago; if NY won't buy it it ain't
>going to play in New Haven or Peoria!). Professional musicians
>and classical radio station employees also hate it, from my
>admittedly unscientific sampling over the years.
It would greatly simplify matters if you would take in a concert
in Europe, or consult the classical musicians who actually recorded
all that literature, as well as the classical musicians who recorded
my first album.
>etc. etc.
>
>Conclusion? This sort of music is being kept on life support
>by academics.
Conclusion: you have insufficient information to draw this conclusion
and you have introduced academics into the scene ad hoc, exactly the
same way you brought conservatories into the scene ad hoc before and
then suddenly threw them away when you discovered that you were
talking to somebody who had been to conservatory.
The most exciting and excitement-stirring concerts in the US in the
last 25 years have been concerts of new music, often atonal music:
concerts in which Lutoslawsky directed performances of his own works,
concerts by Tilson Thomas and Salinon and Boulez... Nobody wants to go
hear another season of 19th-century warhorses when they can get 'em all
on CD, and if we're going to keep orchestras alive, we NEED to push new
music of all sorts, and we need to set aside nonsense prejudices like
Gary Goldberg Doesn't Like It Therefore Nobody Likes It.
>
>--
>Illiterate? Write for free help!
>(Remove "X" from address to reply)
>ARTIFICIAL intelligence? What we need is the real thing!!!
D.G. Porter
>
>
> Look, Matt, since you're a conservatory student you haven't been
> aware of the situation in classical music as long as most of us here.
>
> It would greatly simplify matters if you would look around and
> draw the proper conclusions from the fact that concert audiences
> hate atonal music (research project: read about Boulez and the
> NY Philharmonic a generation ago; if NY won't buy it it ain't
> going to play in New Haven or Peoria!). Professional musicians
> and classical radio station employees also hate it, from my
> admittedly unscientific sampling over the years.
>
> etc. etc.
>
> Conclusion? This sort of music is being kept on life support
> by academics.
Well, Ives's "St. Gaudens" is atonal music (albeit music that flirts
with tonal centres), yet I heard it on KUSC last night and the world
didn't end (altho' it was Slatkin's stinky recording -- you can tell
Slatkin hates Ives).
Atonal music can be fun -- and what the Peoria rubes don't like is a
lack of fun in a lot of atonal music. OtOH, who the fuck cares about
Peoria? ;-) Drop a nook on it!
GCapitalG
pp. 624-27.
Music didn't start when you were born
Dr.Matt
And that is supposed to be a POINT! Wow, Gary, you really give it
the good old try. Dumbass pundits have been lashing out at musicians
since writing was invented. Some of the best stuff comes from classical
Greece.
Ben Heneghan
> In article <85de824.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> BenHe...@hotmail.com (Ben Heneghan) wrote:
>
> > I always thought "Zhdanov Decree" would be a great pretentious name for a
> pop group.
>
> You're obviously a Dave Barry fan, too! :-)
Dave Barry?
best wishes
John Harrington
news:ZI1ka.2828$XR3....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> The most exciting and excitement-stirring concerts in the US in the
> last 25 years have been concerts of new music, often atonal music:
> concerts in which Lutoslawsky directed performances of his own works,
> concerts by Tilson Thomas and Salinon and Boulez... Nobody wants to go
> hear another season of 19th-century warhorses when they can get 'em all
> on CD, and if we're going to keep orchestras alive, we NEED to push new
> music of all sorts, and we need to set aside nonsense prejudices like
> Gary Goldberg Doesn't Like It Therefore Nobody Likes It.
Why "all sorts"? Do you mean we should "push" video game music, commercial
jingles, muzak, and military trumpet tatoos in orchestral concerts? And why
is it necessary even to include music of a particular time (such as the 20th
century)? Orchestras that specialize exclusively in pre-20th century music
thrive quite well. Gardiner's Orchestre R&R, Hogwood's Academy of Ancient
Music, Pinnock's English Concert, etc. all do great business without playing
a lick of 20th century music.
J
Gary Goldberg
> >It would greatly simplify matters if you would look around and
> >draw the proper conclusions from the fact that concert audiences
> >hate atonal music (research project: read about Boulez and the
> >NY Philharmonic a generation ago; if NY won't buy it it ain't
> >going to play in New Haven or Peoria!). Professional musicians
> >and classical radio station employees also hate it, from my
> >admittedly unscientific sampling over the years.
>
> It would greatly simplify matters if you would take in a concert
> in Europe
Been there, done that. Are you aware that there's a much greater
degree of public funding in Europe...meaning that the govt can
program things regardless of what the public wants.
Nobody wants to go
> hear another season of 19th-century warhorses when they can get 'em all
> on CD
Funny, people go to all kinds of concerts even though the is publicly available,
and not just for the pyrotechnicals.
> and if we're going to keep orchestras alive, we NEED to push new
> music of all sorts, and we need to set aside nonsense prejudices like
> Gary Goldberg Doesn't Like It Therefore Nobody Likes It.
I have nothing against new music, but how "new" is serialism in 2003?
I know any number of people with large LP and CD collections who have
absolutely no curiosity in living composers simply because it's a fair
assumption that they're writing atonal music. And using scarce funds
for major orchestrals is what threatens the continued existence
of orchestral music performances. The Boulez example is a case in point.
Dr.Matt
Gary Goldberg <ga...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>fie...@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote in message
>news:<ZI1ka.2828$XR3....@news.itd.umich.edu>...
>
>> >It would greatly simplify matters if you would look around and
>> >draw the proper conclusions from the fact that concert audiences
>> >hate atonal music (research project: read about Boulez and the
>> >NY Philharmonic a generation ago; if NY won't buy it it ain't
>> >going to play in New Haven or Peoria!). Professional musicians
>> >and classical radio station employees also hate it, from my
>> >admittedly unscientific sampling over the years.
>>
>> It would greatly simplify matters if you would take in a concert
>> in Europe
>
>Been there, done that. Are you aware that there's a much greater
>degree of public funding in Europe...meaning that the govt can
>program things regardless of what the public wants.
Are you aware that in smaller countries there's nowhere for a government
to hide from its public?
>
>Nobody wants to go
>> hear another season of 19th-century warhorses when they can get 'em all
>> on CD
>
>Funny, people go to all kinds of concerts even though the is publicly available,
>and not just for the pyrotechnicals.
Now you're off the wall here. Check facts and figures and get back to us.
Classical music currently accounts for what percent of the market, again?
>> and if we're going to keep orchestras alive, we NEED to push new
>> music of all sorts, and we need to set aside nonsense prejudices like
>> Gary Goldberg Doesn't Like It Therefore Nobody Likes It.
>I have nothing against new music, but how "new" is serialism in 2003?
-isms are not music. Don't confuse the two.
>I know any number of people with large LP and CD collections who have
>absolutely no curiosity in living composers simply because it's a fair
>assumption that they're writing atonal music.
Maybe, maybe not. Again, you've confused newness with several barely-related
techniques.
> And using scarce funds
>for major orchestrals is what threatens the continued existence
>of orchestral music performances. The Boulez example is a case in point.
Nonsense.
Gary Goldberg
are in the contradictory position of advocating public
performances of such music while eschewing popularity
(among those who like classical music). Schoenberg
famously expressed concern that he'd have done
something wrong if his music attained popularity, but
later generations of serialists see no contradiction
in seeking public performances, even to the point of
complaining about the dearth of such performances.
Yet serialism throws out two of the basic elements of
music - melody and harmony. I think it would be better,
as the 1948 Central Committee recommended, to develop
the classical heritage. I'm not especially fond of minimalism
and am not sure how creative neo-romanticism is - to cite
two non-serial trends in music - but at least they're not
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't like most other genres of music but the
difference is that they pay their way; serialism doesn't.
Their proponents didn't need to constantly whine for more
exposure for a nearly-century-old style. It would take the
sort of system under which the Central Committee
operated to significanty expand performances of
serial music because 70-80 years of serialism has
conclusively demonstrated that only a tiny minority
of listeners of classical music, insufficient to support
listener-supported public performance, like it.
However, the dictate of the Central Committee is
not unreasonable - development of the classical
heritage has not been pursued by many otherwise
talented composers. Think how many 20th century
composers won an audience by imposing their
personality on the classical heritage, avoiding
the creative dead-end that is serialism. Although I would
imagine that advocates of serialism consider themselves
"progressive", their continuing advocacy of a style as old
as serialism is really a manifestation of conservatism
and thus impeds the development of classical music.
Granted, classical music is a small niche of the
spectrum of musical tastes and has trouble paying
its way. Those who attend concerts off-campus will
find that "modern music" has developed such a bad
reputation that those who do go to concerts will
often leave before a contemporary composition is
played. Even 20th century "standards" are tarred
by this brush because often concertgoers balk at
a piece by someone who wrote so recently.
Thus the push for serialism is making it hard for
any new classical music to be heard, even if it's good.
Where have all the non-serialists gone? Probably to
Hollywood, where tonal music is not sneered at.
And that's all I have to say about this subject.
Jerry Kohl
> Proponents of atonality/serialism (call it what you want)
> are in the contradictory position of advocating public
> performances of such music while eschewing popularity
> (among those who like classical music).
I most certainly am not! Where have you ever heard me
make such a preposterous statement?!!
> Schoenberg
> famously expressed concern that he'd have done
> something wrong if his music attained popularity, but
> later generations of serialists see no contradiction
> in seeking public performances, even to the point of
> complaining about the dearth of such performances.
What *are* you talking about? No, on second thought,
don't bother ...
> Yet serialism throws out two of the basic elements of
> music - melody and harmony.
You must have read this in a book somewhere--you certainly
couldn't draw this conclusion from listening to any serial--
or even 12-note--music. Maybe you're confusing serialism
with rap? :-)
> I think it would be better,
> as the 1948 Central Committee recommended, to develop
> the classical heritage. I'm not especially fond of minimalism
> and am not sure how creative neo-romanticism is - to cite
> two non-serial trends in music
Neo-romanticism, as a style, is quite capable of using serial
techniques, as is minimalism (unless you make a "special
definition" excluding it!).
> - but at least they're not
> throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Are they not? Which baby? Whose bathwater?
> I don't like most other genres of music
That covers a very broad field, my friend! But it's probably
true for most of us. Shall we start another of thiose lists,
"My 500 leas favourite genres of music". BTW, up to hear
you have equated as least three separate things (1) technique
(i.e., serialism), (2) style (i.e., neo-romanticism), and now
(3) genre (e.g., opera, piano solo, Noh-drama).
> but the
> difference is that they pay their way;
Some do, some don't. But what does commercial potential
have to do with it?
> serialism doesn't.
Does too!
>
> Their proponents didn't need to constantly whine for more
> exposure for a nearly-century-old style.
I thought you said they did.
> It would take the
> sort of system under which the Central Committee
> operated to significanty expand performances of
> serial music because 70-80 years of serialism has
> conclusively demonstrated that only a tiny minority
> of listeners of classical music, insufficient to support
> listener-supported public performance, like it.
Show me some statistics. I've already presented some of
my own.
>
> However, the dictate of the Central Committee is
> not unreasonable - development of the classical
> heritage has not been pursued by many otherwise
> talented composers.
A truly interesting point. Why do you suppose it is that
no talented composer has "pursued development of the
classical heritage" (whatever that means)?
> Think how many 20th century
> composers won an audience by imposing their
> personality on the classical heritage,
but only the untalented ones, according to your statement.
Probably explains all that shlock that plays in elevators
and bank lobbies.
> avoiding
> the creative dead-end that is serialism.
By all means, let's keep the untalented away from serial
technique. Doesn't do its reputation any good at all.
> Although I would
> imagine that advocates of serialism consider themselves
> "progressive", their continuing advocacy of a style as old
> as serialism
But serialism is not a style. It is merely a technique. Where
have you read this drivel?
> is really a manifestation of conservatism
> and thus impeds the development of classical music.
"Classical" music can't be developed--that's a tautology. A music
becomes "classical" through enduring qualities which can
only be recognised after passage of a considerable amount of
time, and you can't go back in time to carry on whatever style
you wish in the way you think it should have continued, instead
of the way in fact it did. Either that, or we are talking about European
(chiefly Viennese) music of ca. 1750-1800. Or do you mean
something else by "classical"
> Granted, classical music is a small niche of the
> spectrum of musical tastes and has trouble paying
> its way.
I thought you said whole swaths of this style--oops, I
mean "genre"--are vindicated on the grounds that they
*do* pay their way. You can't have it both ways.
> Those who attend concerts off-campus will
> find that "modern music" has developed such a bad
> reputation that those who do go to concerts will
> often leave before a contemporary composition is
> played.
Ah! The "university egghead" argument. Why don't you
just come right out and say, "Only people with a Ph.D. in
Music Theory could like this music"? You may be interested
to know that the "genre" of chamber music is widely regarded
(in the USA, at least) as "only of interest to university-edicated
eggheads."
> Even 20th century "standards" are tarred
> by this brush because often concertgoers balk at
> a piece by someone who wrote so recently.
Yes, I've noticed how bad attendance is at concerts featuring
works like Orff's Carmina Burana, Stravinsky's Petrushka,
and John Adams's Shaker Loops, and operas like Turandot
and Peter Grimes. (Now where did I put that "heavy irony"
emoticon? ;-)
> Thus the push for serialism is making it hard for
> any new classical music to be heard, even if it's good.
Look, nobody is "pushing" serialism. It's a technique. If a
composer finds it useful for what she's doing, she uses it.
If not, not.
> Where have all the non-serialists gone?
All died ca. 1951, I expect.
> Probably to
> Hollywood,
Which is about the same thing. (Apologies to residents
of Hpollywood, present and past, such as Schönberg and
Stravinsky.)
> where tonal music is not sneered at.
Are you saying tonal music is sneered at somewhere? Where
would that be, pray tell? Paris? Istanbul? Peoria? Anywhere
but Hollywood? (Downtown L.A., perhaps?)
And now comes the very best part:
>
> And that's all I have to say about this subject.
We all look forward to a little peace and quiet, thank you for
your cooperation! :-)
Jerry
Dr.Matt
Kinda like German/Korean (call it what you want)
>are in the contradictory position of advocating public
>performances of such music while eschewing popularity
>(among those who like classical music).
Such as?
> Schoenberg
>famously expressed concern that he'd have done
>something wrong if his music attained popularity, but
Oh, so when he said that he expected kids to be whistling
his melodies on the street in a few years, THAT's what he meant?
I happen to know that I'm not the only person who actually
DID whistle Schoenberg melodies to myself when I was a teenager....
>later generations of serialists see no contradiction
>in seeking public performances, even to the point of
>complaining about the dearth of such performances.
What dearth of such performances? Who and what are
you talking about?
>Yet serialism throws out two of the basic elements of
>music - melody and harmony.
Oh, yeah, but that was done by Beethoven, haven't you
been following along?
> I think it would be better,
>as the 1948 Central Committee recommended, to develop
>the classical heritage.
Instead of promoting Rachmanninov. Hm, Rocky made some
pretty good stuff there, but you might have a point...
>I'm not especially fond of minimalism
>and am not sure how creative neo-romanticism is - to cite
>two non-serial trends in music - but at least they're not
>throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
As opposed to those anti-melodic anti-harmonic composers,
like Beethoven. And Berlioz, that purveyor of sterile algebra!
>I don't like most other genres of music but the
>difference is that they pay their way; serialism doesn't.
Ah, so for instance, other areas of classical music pay their
way? Interesting....
>Their proponents didn't need to constantly whine for more
>exposure for a nearly-century-old style. It would take the
>sort of system under which the Central Committee
>operated to significanty expand performances of
>serial music because 70-80 years of serialism has
>conclusively demonstrated that only a tiny minority
>of listeners of classical music, insufficient to support
>listener-supported public performance, like it.
Wait, a minute, you think there's such a thing as classical
music which is listener-supported?
>However, the dictate of the Central Committee is
>not unreasonable - development of the classical
>heritage has not been pursued by many otherwise
>talented composers.
And you know that they're otherwise talented because of what
they didn't do? This is confused thinking to say the least.
> Think how many 20th century
>composers won an audience by imposing their
>personality on the classical heritage, avoiding
>the creative dead-end that is serialism.
Think how many composers won an audience by imposing
their personality on the classical heritage through
the toolkit of serialism.
>Although I would
>imagine that advocates of serialism consider themselves
>"progressive",
Why would you suppose that?
>their continuing advocacy of a style as old
>as serialism is really a manifestation of conservatism
>and thus impeds the development of classical music.
Why not call a spade a spade: serial music is one of several
continually evolving streams in the development of classical
music, which is ALL both conservative and progressive at the
same time.
>Granted, classical music is a small niche of the
>spectrum of musical tastes and has trouble paying
>its way.
As in, it doesn't in the US, and it does in the UK.
>Those who attend concerts off-campus will
>find that "modern music" has developed such a bad
>reputation that those who do go to concerts will
>often leave before a contemporary composition is
>played.
What a lot of hooey!
> Even 20th century "standards" are tarred
>by this brush because often concertgoers balk at
>a piece by someone who wrote so recently.
What a lot of hooey!
>Thus the push for serialism is making it hard for
>any new classical music to be heard, even if it's good.
What a lot of hooey!
>Where have all the non-serialists gone? Probably to
>Hollywood, where tonal music is not sneered at.
And that explains Bernard Hermann and other serial composers
of Hollywood...
>And that's all I have to say about this subject.
To which I will simply add that those of us who truly love
music don't care which technical category it falls in, so long
as its stuff we enjoy hearing. Classifying stuff by "serial",
"fugal", "isomelic", etc. is important to the composition process
for the composer, and has implications for the effect on the listener,
but is not part of the listener's process. However, it is occasionally
part of the process of the program-note-reader who wants to look
impressive without actually listening. If you like a music, don't
let some usenet troll talk you out of it!
>--
>Illiterate? Write for free help!
>(Remove "X" from address to reply)
>ARTIFICIAL intelligence? What we need is the real thing!!!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"If it's not addressed to my address proper, it may be counted as spam"
Dr.Matt
>It would greatly simplify matters if you would look around and
>draw the proper conclusions from the fact that concert audiences
>hate atonal music
Gary. You really need to review critical thinking if you want to be
pursuasive. Basing an argument on a "fact" and then demanding that I
form "the proper conclusions" rather than my own is a combination of
argument by lying with argument by the authority of Gary. Personally,
I resent being told what "proper" conclusions to draw from my own
observations and being told what I should think are "facts" rather
than your opinion. I've seen a totally non-university audience give
Lutoslawsky standing ovations, and the same for Leslie Bassett, George
Crumb, Olivier Messaien, etc.
Perhaps, Gary, you could find a niche in an ultra-orthodox religious
ministry by telling people what they should think--if so, geh gesinter
hin. But out here in the rest of the world, people form their own
conclusions, thank you very much.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
logic user group
Goldberg at XGa...@ix.netcom.com wrote on 14/4/03 12:26 am:
> Proponents of atonality/serialism (call it what you want)
-completely different things-
> Yet serialism throws out two of the basic elements of
> music - melody and harmony.
-Very ignorant statement. To say for example the works of Webern lack
melodic line is quite frankly laughable nonsense! It is of course possible
to write completely tonal tertian harmonic (triad based) serial music. Your
statement shows you actually do not know how tone row composition works.
I think it would be better,
> as the 1948 Central Committee recommended, to develop
> the classical heritage.
-Which was exactly what serialism was, one of the direct direct historical
continuations for developing and controlling the extreme chromaticism of
Wagner & Mahler.
I'm not especially fond of minimalism
> and am not sure how creative neo-romanticism is - to cite
> two non-serial trends in music - but at least they're not
> throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Go and listen to some Berg.
>
I don't understand why you are attacking serialism in particular, it is just
one of many tools that a modern composer has at his disposal to use if
he/she so wishes.
elm