Difference of Aesthetic
mp4...@albnyvms.bitnet
blown and over scored, with too much volume and too few actual melodic
ides. What he does capture is the hurly burly fremetic-ness and
relentless optimism of early modernism.
As for arguing aesthetics with you, it is not really going to\
be productive. The reason the hyper-romantics did not prgram much in the
way of modernist music was :
1. they did not like it (with good reason, it is opposed to what
classicism and romanticism mean, and try to evoke)
2. because they did not like they felt no need to bend technique in
order to play it. In order to play modernist music, you have to think
like one, and play like one.
3. their audiences did not like it (for both of reasons)
Now the reverse is becoming true Blomstedt,Barneboim,Ozawa can't
conduct Beethoven and Haydn (and have precious little to say about Brahms,
Wagner and Mahler). And so:
1. Less classical and romantic rep is finding its way onto the programs
2. Musicinas trained in music colleges are focused on proto-modern
and modernist rep have difficulty playing classical pieces (which is
why European orchestras of the fourth and fifth tier can turn in credible
performances of Beethoven and Brahms with marginal talent while the Boston
Symphony Orchestra has to struggle through Beethoven's 5th).
3. Modernism is the new conservatism. That is to say modernists
dominate most of the money (most of the fortunes around were built in and
by the centers of modernism, look at the archecture that bankers have
built, realize that gifts to culture are a habit of the first and
second generation wealthy. It is not the "littel old ladies" who are giving money
at this point (most of them are dead) but the real estate developers
and financers (The Wang Center in Boston, War Memorials restoration in SF)
and enterpeneurs of the last half of the 20th century. The see, and feel
in the disorganized, self-centered concepts of modern composition ideas
that are similar to their own. The modes of thought being
similar, there is a continued dirve towards the modern (even in smaller
orchestras). Peiople here are fond of quoting "conservative rep" as
part of the problem of symphony orchestras, look at the programs
people, there are more modernists than (small c) classicists on the
up coming BSO and CSO programs, and we will see more. The hyper-
romantics are dead or dying, and the current generation in charge is
modernist (though not as unbendingly and unyieldingly so as the extremists
would like). The recording industry does not reflect this
since the disk buying public is not part of this same social mileu, nor
are they as enamored of the heights of mdoernism as perhaps
the beneficiaries of it are (and I do not speak in the marxist or
classist sense here, but merely in the sense that people who feel well off
will in general like the products of their society, and people who feel
outraged or outcast will seek other modes of expression.).
I don't want to sound harsh, but from both sides on this
news group I am seeing alot of rehashing which is not reflective
of the actual state of affairs. This applies to both the modernists and
those opposed to modernist music to wit:
1. Modernism is not "newness for newness sake", and that is not
the problem with it anyway. There have been no new ideas in
modernist composition since microtonal (1970's) and none that
have become widespread since minimalism (1960's.. its almost as
old as rock and roll)
2. Repeat after me: there are no "little old ladies" dictating
culture or rep in most symphony orchestras. What gets on the rep
is a compromise between dynamics (say what you like about
it B's 9th still packs them in and gives'em chills of ecstasy)
conductors personal taste (which in this day and age runs to jazz
hense harbison's resurgance and modernist music) and the taste
of the musicians (hense the proliferation of concerti type works
and how J Tower has made acareer out of playing a half finished work
which still has no title) and of patrons (who regard calssical
music as boring (partially because it has been badly played and used as
pap.))
3. The debate is not between tonality and atonality nor between
good musica nd bad. It is about what sort of music you want
incorporated into your life and existance and what effect this
will have on you.
4. The people composing classical music are conservatives.
Actually the reverse is true. Modernsim has dominated academia for
70 years (even in the soviet union it was the doctrine, prokofiev
was nearly thrown out for being "too tonal" and his professors
complained that his graduation concerto used "to many consonances")
John Williams is regularly eviserated by the modernists yet there
is atonal chromaticism (spider cave in Raiders,Close Encounters)
serial technique (Close encounters,starwars,Jaws), interval based
composition (used by scriabin,harbison and neo-classicists like strav)
(in Jaws,Empire,Schindler's list). It is his aesethetic that is
criticized really, and the aestehtic of the others who are not
modernist.
5.Modernism is a fraud or a sham. No actually modernists have
more or less taken over the world and are in earnest (sometimes
deadly earnest) about what they do and how they do it, if you
don't like modernist music, realize that teh same modes of thought
organize your economic and social lives, television, business and
pop culture are not built by people in a vacume (though often
they are consumed by people who possess one internally).
6. The standards have slipped in orcehstras (this is hardly ture and
does not even need to be graced with a reply). Modern SO's are
trying to do different things, just as the hyper romantics had
endless probelms with the Baroque, so too will the modnerists
have problems with ideas to far outside of their experience.
This list could go on. People, stop fighting the battles of the
1950's. Modernism is in control, the avante-garde is dead and now the
opponents of the modernists look forward, not backwards.
Margaret-Mary Petit Internet: MP4...@uacsc1.albany.edu
Rockefeller College Bitnet: MP4...@albnyvms.bitnet
SUNY Albany, NY
----`---,---{@
Roger Lustig
> Sessions is hardly challenging music, it is simply over
>blown and over scored, with too much volume and too few actual melodic
>ides. What he does capture is the hurly burly fremetic-ness and
>relentless optimism of early modernism.
a) Early modernism wasn't optimistic. Baudelaire was an optimist? Wilde?
Schoenberg?
b) Sessions had nothing to do with early modernism. The 1930's were
hardly "early."
> As for arguing aesthetics with you, it is not really going to\
>be productive.
Especially if we don't know who "you" is.
>The reason the hyper-romantics did not prgram much in the
>way of modernist music was :
Who were the "Hyper-Romantics" again?
> 1. they did not like it (with good reason, it is opposed to what
> classicism and romanticism mean, and try to evoke)
What *do* they try to evoke? You still haven't told us.
> 2. because they did not like they felt no need to bend technique in
> order to play it. In order to play modernist music, you have to think
> like one, and play like one.
Think like what?
Also, Romantic music required a fair amount of new technique, too.
Think of Liszt's piano music, or Schumann's. Think of th Romantic
violin. Think of new instruments, such as valved brass.
Think.
> 3. their audiences did not like it (for both of reasons)
> Now the reverse is becoming true Blomstedt,Barneboim,Ozawa can't
>conduct Beethoven and Haydn (and have precious little to say about Brahms,
>Wagner and Mahler). And so:
As though they were all the conductors out there. How about Levine,
Abbado, Kleiber, Boulez, Inbal, Harnoncourt?
> 1. Less classical and romantic rep is finding its way onto the programs
Utter nonsense. The concert halls are overflowing with Mozart and Brahms.
Besides, if the repertoire is so stagnant, why would a little innovation be
bad?
> 2. Musicinas trained in music colleges are focused on proto-modern
>and modernist rep have difficulty playing classical pieces (which is
>why European orchestras of the fourth and fifth tier can turn in credible
>performances of Beethoven and Brahms with marginal talent while the Boston
>Symphony Orchestra has to struggle through Beethoven's 5th).
More nonsense. European conservatories do at least as much 20thC
training. Could it be that they're playing European music, and that
American musical traditions just aren't as strong on the European
side? Or that you just like a certain style?
> 3. Modernism is the new conservatism. That is to say modernists
>dominate most of the money (most of the fortunes around were built in and
>by the centers of modernism, look at the archecture that bankers have
>built, realize that gifts to culture are a habit of the first and
>second generation wealthy. It is not the "littel old ladies" who are giving money
>at this point (most of them are dead) but the real estate developers
>and financers (The Wang Center in Boston, War Memorials restoration in SF)
>and enterpeneurs of the last half of the 20th century. The see, and feel
>in the disorganized, self-centered concepts of modern composition ideas
>that are similar to their own. The modes of thought being
>similar, there is a continued dirve towards the modern (even in smaller
>orchestras).
Architecture is frozen music, but to say that modernist music
is funded by the same people who build modern buildings is nonsense
again. Those who do fund both also fund Mozart and Handel.
And, yes, "little old ladies" do still fund a lot. Alice Tully
just died this year.
>Peiople here are fond of quoting "conservative rep" as
>part of the problem of symphony orchestras, look at the programs
>people, there are more modernists than (small c) classicists on the
>up coming BSO and CSO programs, and we will see more. The hyper-
>romantics are dead or dying, and the current generation in charge is
>modernist (though not as unbendingly and unyieldingly so as the extremists
>would like). The recording industry does not reflect this
>since the disk buying public is not part of this same social mileu, nor
>are they as enamored of the heights of mdoernism as perhaps
>the beneficiaries of it are (and I do not speak in the marxist or
>classist sense here, but merely in the sense that people who feel well off
>will in general like the products of their society, and people who feel
>outraged or outcast will seek other modes of expression.).
So who's buyng the 20 commercially available recordings of _Pierrot_?
And as for the death of the hyperromantics, the flood of Mahler
recordings and performances continues unabated. Likewise Strauss.
(Some orchestras are cutting back because this stuff is expensive,
given the large forces required.)
> I don't want to sound harsh,
But sounding misinformed doesn't seem to bother you.
>but from both sides on this
>news group I am seeing alot of rehashing which is not reflective
>of the actual state of affairs.
What makes you think you know this state of affairs? So far you've
shown your unfamiliarity with music history, with the meanings of "modernism,"
with definitions of "tonality," with the history of dissonance treatment,
with aesthetics, with Schoenberg's theory of harmony, with the history
or the orchestral (and other) repertoire, and with logical argument and
presentation of evidence.
>This applies to both the modernists and
>those opposed to modernist music to wit:
> 1. Modernism is not "newness for newness sake", and that is not
> the problem with it anyway. There have been no new ideas in
> modernist composition since microtonal (1970's)
1920's. Alois Haba. Ives was doing it before then.
And there have been plenty of new ideas; that you haven't seen fit to learn
about them is not my fault.
>and none that
> have become widespread since minimalism (1960's.. its almost as
> old as rock and roll)
So what? Tonality was around for centuries, and still is. Who cares
if certain styles become widespread? Widespreadness isn't a measure of
quality, just of fashion. Lots of modernists and others are composing
good music.
> 2. Repeat after me: there are no "little old ladies" dictating
> culture or rep in most symphony orchestras.
Why should we repeat *anything* you say?
>What gets on the rep
> is a compromise between dynamics (say what you like about
> it B's 9th still packs them in and gives'em chills of ecstasy)
> conductors personal taste (which in this day and age runs to jazz
> hense harbison's resurgance and modernist music) and the taste
> of the musicians (hense the proliferation of concerti type works
> and how J Tower has made acareer out of playing a half finished work
> which still has no title) and of patrons (who regard calssical
> music as boring (partially because it has been badly played and used as
> pap.))
Anda variety of other things. But all this doesn't do much for your
claims above.
> 3. The debate is not between tonality and atonality nor between
> good musica nd bad. It is about what sort of music you want
> incorporated into your life and existance and what effect this
> will have on you.
Right, and people are busy making those decisions. However, informed
decisions are better than uninformed ones.
> 4. The people composing classical music are conservatives.
> Actually the reverse is true. Modernsim has dominated academia for
> 70 years (even in the soviet union it was the doctrine, prokofiev
> was nearly thrown out for being "too tonal" and his professors
> complained that his graduation concerto used "to many consonances")
Prokofiev did not study in the Soviet Union. Learn some basic history.
Modernism has hardly dominated academia, either. How do you explain
the prevalence of Schenker?
> John Williams is regularly eviserated by the modernists yet there
> is atonal chromaticism (spider cave in Raiders,Close Encounters)
> serial technique (Close encounters,starwars,Jaws), interval based
> composition (used by scriabin,harbison and neo-classicists like strav)
> (in Jaws,Empire,Schindler's list). It is his aesethetic that is
> criticized really, and the aestehtic of the others who are not
> modernist.
He's criticized for sounding rather too much like other composers.
Epigones have rarely been valued highly.
> 5.Modernism is a fraud or a sham. No actually modernists have
> more or less taken over the world and are in earnest (sometimes
> deadly earnest) about what they do and how they do it, if you
> don't like modernist music, realize that teh same modes of thought
> organize your economic and social lives, television, business and
> pop culture are not built by people in a vacume (though often
> they are consumed by people who possess one internally).
Why should I realize something that is so palpably untrue? Even if
you ever get around to defining who these "modernists" are, and
distinguishing between them and the vast majority of people who
have a hand in cultural and social and economic matters, your
Bozo-Adornoism won't make sense.
> 6. The standards have slipped in orcehstras (this is hardly ture and
> does not even need to be graced with a reply). Modern SO's are
> trying to do different things, just as the hyper romantics had
> endless probelms with the Baroque, so too will the modnerists
> have problems with ideas to far outside of their experience.
And yet diversity of styles *is* part of their experience.
> This list could go on. People, stop fighting the battles of the
>1950's. Modernism is in control, the avante-garde is dead and now the
>opponents of the modernists look forward, not backwards.
"Modernism is in control" has got to be the funniest thing I've read
here in a while.
Why should we worry about the battles of the 1950's? You seem to have
trouble even identifying them. Your "subversive history" is only
subversive in that it reinvents facts.
>Margaret-Mary Petit Internet: MP4...@uacsc1.albany.edu
Really?
Roger
Mario Taboada
<<Sessions is hardly challenging music, it is simply over
blown and over scored, with too much volume and too few actual melodic
ides. What he does capture is the hurly burly fremetic-ness and
relentless optimism of early modernism.
As for arguing aesthetics with you, it is not really going to\
be productive. The reason the hyper-romantics did not prgram much in the
way of modernist music was :
1. they did not like it (with good reason, it is opposed to what
classicism and romanticism mean, and try to evoke)
2. because they did not like they felt no need to bend technique in
order to play it. In order to play modernist music, you have to think
like one, and play like one.
3. their audiences did not like it (for both of reasons) >>
1. If you consider that Sessions' music is not challenging, you must be
superhuman. Some time ago, in a radio program (I think it was a Library of
Congress historical broadcast), Robert Mann (who, though only human, has
dealt with some of the most difficult music), specifically pointed out that
Sessions' music was very difficult).
2.<< As for arguing aesthetics with you, it is not really going to\
be productive.>>
Thanks.
3.<< 2. because they did not like they felt no need to bend technique in
order to play it. In order to play modernist music, you have to think
like one, and play like one.>>
What does this mean? Air, please, I'm suffocating!!
As for the rest of your essay, I cannot answer it in full detail,
but I am quite surprised to hear that the Boston Symphony cannot play
Beethoven's Fifth or Haydn's symphonies. What exactly has happened?
Maybe a mysterious epidemic?
Best regards
Mario Taboada
Los Angeles
Margaret Mikulska
>Margaret says:
[deleted]
Mario, I believe you refer to the poster signing her/himself as
Margaret-Mary Petit from albany.edu. *Please* include the correct
attribution: heaven forbid my name should even be associated with that
mindless, contentless drivel, made completely incomprehensible by the
most outrageous syntax and grammar (if there is anything to comprehend
in those postings). Thank you for your understanding.
-(The Real) Margaret
miku...@faust.princeton.edu
Mario Taboada
>-(The Real) Margaret
>miku...@faust.princeton.edu
Dear Margaret: I am sorry about the confusion. From now on I
shall refer to our resident music theorist simply as "mp4089@albnyvms".
I am slightly concerned about somebody allowing another to post from their
e-mail address, especially at a university. Here at the University of
Southern California this is explicitly prohibited. I wonder if
"mp4089@albnyvms" can tell us who s(h)e is, what kind of weather they
are having, etc.
Best regards,
Mario Taboada
Los Angeles
Robert W. Fink
with a reference.
Margaret has made the argument that "modernism" is not
about being new and innovative, but is actually the new
academicism, the new conservatism--the totally safe
way to write music. (I hope this quick paraphrase is
accurate!)
Before everyone jumps in with the flamethrowers and the
multi-hundred line posts refuting her paragraph by
paragraph, may I point out that there is a terrifyingly
apposite article by Theodore Adorno that might well
be referenced here. Way back in the 50s, Adorno, the
arch-modernist, the student of Berg, the apologist
of Schoenberg and scourge of Stravinsky, wrote an
article about post-war total serialism. The title?
"Modern Music is Growing Old."
["Das Altern der neuen Musik." in Dissonanzen (Goettingen, 1956)
translated in The Score (December 1956). I think it has also
been reprinted in a collection of aesthetics, but no ref, I'm
afraid.]
Back in 1955, Adorno was already seeing and decrying the
arteriosclerosis of what he valued in musical (12-tone)
modernism: the corrosive, unassimilable critique of
society. He tells the story (am I am paraphrasing from
memory here) that in the 19th-century, people would get
a thrill from leaning out the window as their train
passed safely over a bridge where earlier trains had
plunged, killing their predecessors. The frisson of
previous danger, recollected by repetition of the same
action in total safety: this is his image for post-
war serial music.
Think about it. (rec.Adorno.depressing anyone?)
(Actually rec.adorno is already oxymoronic, isn't it...)
robert fink
eastman school of music
Gregory Taylor
>Let me jump in here, not with an opinion of my own, but
>with a reference.
Shame, Shame! :-)
>Margaret has made the argument that "modernism" is not
>about being new and innovative, but is actually the new
>academicism, the new conservatism--the totally safe
>way to write music. (I hope this quick paraphrase is
>accurate!)
That seems to me a bit of charitable restatement on your part,
Robert. If think that if Ms. Petit had been a bit more ah...
clear on what she means by using the term [it seems like the
Swiss Army Knife in her rhetorical toolkit rather than the
use of the term that I'm more familiar with], this would be
rather an easier point to address...although we'd probably have
to do some real talking about how the tenets of early modernism
in music might compare with the work of, say, Charles Wuorinen
and how that historical difference [if any] would account for his
elevation to Oberkommandant of the conservative musical police.
>Before everyone jumps in with the flamethrowers and the
>multi-hundred line posts refuting her paragraph by
>paragraph, may I point out that there is a terrifyingly
>apposite article by Theodore Adorno that might well
>be referenced here. Way back in the 50s, Adorno, the
>arch-modernist, the student of Berg, the apologist
>of Schoenberg and scourge of Stravinsky, wrote an
>article about post-war total serialism. The title?
>
>"Modern Music is Growing Old."
>
>["Das Altern der neuen Musik." in Dissonanzen (Goettingen, 1956)
>translated in The Score (December 1956). I think it has also
>been reprinted in a collection of aesthetics, but no ref, I'm
>afraid.]
If I'm not mistaken, it may be included in that 4-volume collection
of primary material from the Pendragon Press "Musical Aesthetics"
At least I *think* that's where my copy of it is....
>Back in 1955, Adorno was already seeing and decrying the
>arteriosclerosis of what he valued in musical (12-tone)
>modernism: the corrosive, unassimilable critique of
>society. He tells the story (am I am paraphrasing from
>memory here) that in the 19th-century, people would get
>a thrill from leaning out the window as their train
>passed safely over a bridge where earlier trains had
>plunged, killing their predecessors. The frisson of
>previous danger, recollected by repetition of the same
>action in total safety: this is his image for post-
>war serial music.
Yeah, but add in his comments on *jazz*, and yikes - what
a lethal cocktail it becomes! I was just thinking of being at this
Glenn Branca gig on Navy Pier in Chicago in 197[4?] and having
John Cage walk out of one of Branca's guitar symphonies, finding
it "fascist". If Adorno is right, would Branca's "fascism" have
interested him?
--
I could be happy now. From my seat in the airplane/I could imagine the full
enclosures of people/contented and with no needs beyond/private moments
walking the fenceline/before joining the others in the night enclosure
/that is the final shape of countries/Gregory Taylor/gta...@fullfeed.com
Jeff Harrington
: Yeah, but add in his comments on *jazz*, and yikes - what
: a lethal cocktail it becomes! I was just thinking of being at this
: Glenn Branca gig on Navy Pier in Chicago in 197[4?] and having
: John Cage walk out of one of Branca's guitar symphonies, finding
: it "fascist". If Adorno is right, would Branca's "fascism" have
: interested him?
Waitaminute - you were there? Did you ever see those postcards Branca
sent out with the swastikas after the concert (I think it was for his 2nd
Symphony?)... All in commentary to Cage's remark, please...
Jeff Harrington
idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org
--
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
(*) IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org For more info ftp(*)
(*) quartz.rutgers.edu /pub/subgenius/Ideal-Order(*) Elsie Russell GIF's(*)
(*)(*)sunsite.unc.edu /pub/multimedia/pictures/OTIS/pAINTINGS/er*.gif(*)(*)
Christopher K. Koenigsberg
John Cage later apologized for his "fascist" remarks, which were
prompted by Glenn Branca's rigidly controlled style of conducting his
ensemble in live performance. I believe some of Cage's comments about
this are in Kostelantz's book "Conversations with Cage", or maybe the
other similar book of Kostelantz/Cage (? I forget the name, maybe
"Cage on Music"?).
Chris Koenigsberg
c...@uchicago.edu, cko...@midway.uchicago.edu
DMB5561719
>Chris Koenigsberg
>c...@uchicago.edu, cko...@midway.uchicago.edu
See also "Sonic Transports - New Frontiers in Our Music" by Cole
Gagne
The book has a section on Glen Branca and mentions the encounter with
Cage.
David Beardsley
dmb55...@aol.com
Mark Gresham
}es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Robert W. Fink) writes:
}>Margaret has made the argument that "modernism" is not
}>about being new and innovative, but is actually the new
}>academicism, the new conservatism--the totally safe
}>way to write music. (I hope this quick paraphrase is
}>accurate!)
}
}That seems to me a bit of charitable restatement on your part,
}Robert. If think that if Ms. Petit had been a bit more ah...
}clear on what she means by using the term [it seems like the
}Swiss Army Knife in her rhetorical toolkit rather than the
}use of the term that I'm more familiar with], this would be
}rather an easier point to address...although we'd probably have
}to do some real talking about how the tenets of early modernism
}in music might compare with the work of, say, Charles Wuorinen
}and how that historical difference [if any] would account for his
}elevation to Oberkommandant of the conservative musical police.
If it's so, I'd suspect it would have much less to do with any
historical difference than with Charles' determined personality
and ability to forcefully argue his position within a group of
colleagues. Believe me, I served on a panel once with Charles and
frankly like and admire him for his abilities even though we
don't agree on every point. I would not, however, like to be in a
formal debate against him. (!) (Even though I did discover that he
enjoys being challenged if it's done well -- I think I scored
points defending a small town in Georgia in a discussion.)
There is, somewhat, an "establishment" these days among
"serialists"--but only in *certain* corners of academia,
not out in force among the "real world" of the concert hall. It
is still difficult for a Wourinen to get much play (especially
with adequate rehearsal) among the big symphonic organizations who
have the skills to play his music. (I can think of performances
of "Genesis" (chorus & orchestra) by the San Francisco and
Minnesota symphony orchestras in recent years, but not much else.
Certainly performances of Wourinen's music are not rampant.)
Cheers,
Mark
=====
Mark Gresham
Norcross, Georgia
USA
mgre...@dscatl.atl.ga.us
dscatl!mgre...@gatech.edu
=====
Robert W. Fink
[disagreement over MMP deleted...]
>>Back in 1955, Adorno was already seeing and decrying the
>>arteriosclerosis of what he valued in musical (12-tone)
>>modernism: the corrosive, unassimilable critique of
>>society. He tells the story (am I am paraphrasing from
>>memory here) that in the 19th-century, people would get
>>a thrill from leaning out the window as their train
>>passed safely over a bridge where earlier trains had
>>plunged, killing their predecessors. The frisson of
>>previous danger, recollected by repetition of the same
>>action in total safety: this is his image for post-
>>war serial music.
>Yeah, but add in his comments on *jazz*, and yikes - what
>a lethal cocktail it becomes! I was just thinking of being at this
>Glenn Branca gig on Navy Pier in Chicago in 197[4?] and having
>John Cage walk out of one of Branca's guitar symphonies, finding
>it "fascist". If Adorno is right, would Branca's "fascism" have
>interested him?
Whoa--Adorno on jazz will probably spawn a flame war the size of
Dresden! This is the guy who said that the smooth 'emasculated'
sound of the big band saxes and trombones was saying "Come on,
let yourself be castrated, and then you can have pleasure..."
(cf. 'The Fetish-Character of Music and the Regression of Hearing')
But seriously, the jury is still out on Adorno, until we can figure
exactly *what* music he understood as 'jazz.' If it was Miles and
Duke, we've got a problem. But, as seems more likely to me, it was
Glenn Miller and Guy Lombardo, the critique doesn't seem quite so
paranoid.
As for Branca, I haven't heard his music. I must say, if he got
Cage riled up enough to make a scene, I would really like to hear
the stuff. It's probably cool beyond belief. (Anyone point me
to recordings in print?)
"The whole is the untrue" (Adorno)
bob fink
eastman school of music
Vance Maverick
> As for Branca, I haven't heard his music. I must say, if he got
> Cage riled up enough to make a scene, I would really like to hear
> the stuff. It's probably cool beyond belief. (Anyone point me
> to recordings in print?)
I bought the Symphony #2 on a net.recommendation -- it's in print, on
a fairly obscure label which I unfortunately can't remember -- and
found it pretty bland, standard minimalist stuff. The sound was
pretty; lots of loud homebrew electric guitars. But its stasis was
not one I enjoyed.
Vance
William Hsu
>
> I bought the Symphony #2 on a net.recommendation -- it's in print, on
> a fairly obscure label which I unfortunately can't remember -- and
> found it pretty bland, standard minimalist stuff.
It's on Atavistic, out of Chicago.
Vance, if you found it pretty bland, you probably weren't
listening to it loud enough :-) (Seriously, Branca is
about timbre and texture and overtones.)
By the way, if you found it to be "standard minimalist stuff",
what *do* you consider standard minimalist stuff? I can't
think of any Glass, Reich, Riley etc that's like it.
Bill
Vance Maverick
> Vance, if you found it pretty bland, you probably weren't
> listening to it loud enough :-) (Seriously, Branca is
> about timbre and texture and overtones.)
I was hoping that adjective would get a rise out of *somebody*! It's
true, I didn't have it up to wallshattering volume, but I did try it
with headphones. Basically, I felt that sound-world was just a weaker
version of one I knew from e.g. Quicksilver Messenger Service.
> By the way, if you found it to be "standard minimalist stuff",
> what *do* you consider standard minimalist stuff? I can't
> think of any Glass, Reich, Riley etc that's like it.
Hmm, can one issue retroactive glibness disclaimers, or am I now honor
bound to try to make that make sense? I was thinking more of the
drone people like Oliveros and Young. Not identical, but I think the
aesthetic of _II of IV_ or Young's more cacophonous stuff is close,
and more interesting.
Vance
Ed Price
Bill is right!!! The first time I heard Symphony #6 I wasn't too thrilled
with it, and maybe would have even called it minimalist. But after reading
"Sonic Transports: New Frontiers in Our Music" by Cole Gagne I knew much
better what to listen for *and* -- yes, seriously, it *is* important!! -- I
cranked up the volume up much higher than I would ordinarily (using a good
pair of headphones so as not to disturb anyone else...). Gagne discusses
Cage's remarks about Branca in that book BTW.
At least Symphony #1, 2, 3, 6 are available on CD. If you can't find them
try the Downtown Music Gallery in NYC @ (212) 473-0043.
Branca has recently been working with more "traditional" instrumentation
but he still manages to produce some distinctive and weird-sounding music.
I think maybe there's something else (??) since "The World Upside Down"
(Les Disque du Crepescule) but I'm not sure... He also did some music for
the Peter Greenaway film "The Belly of an Architect", and for David Mamet's
play "Edmond" (which is available on an obscure LP).
Also, a couple months ago I saw a brief (~15min) video, a public-access
style documentary, rented from Kim's Video here in NYC, about Branca, with
footage of performance of Symphony #5 I think it was.
-Ed
William Tsun-Yuk Hsu
>
>>... may I point out that there is a terrifyingly
>>apposite article by Theodore Adorno that might well
>>be referenced here. Way back in the 50s, Adorno, the
>>arch-modernist, the student of Berg, the apologist
>>of Schoenberg and scourge of Stravinsky, wrote an
>>article about post-war total serialism. The title?
>>
>>"Modern Music is Growing Old."
I dunno, every time I listen to Ligeti's Horn Trio, or Magnus
Lindberg's Kraft, or Klas Torstensson's Licks and Brains, or
Salvatore Sciarrino's Lohengrin, or Michael Finnissy's Catana,
or Brian Ferneyhough's La Chute d'Icare, or a number of other
pieces written in the past 15 years, I keep thinking, damn,
this sure sounds different from anything I've heard from the
'50s. And it's arguably just as "modernist" (whatever that means)
as late Webern.
Would Adorno have appreciated life after post-war total
serialism (that popular punching bag)? I'm really too busy
listening to music to read any Adorno.
Bill
Gregory Taylor
>[disagreement over MMP deleted...]
And you know what, Robert? I find it *so* much easier to deal with someone
who spells correctly. There - I've said it.
>>Yeah, but add in his comments on *jazz*, and yikes - what
>>a lethal cocktail it becomes! I was just thinking of being at this
>>Glenn Branca gig on Navy Pier in Chicago in 197[4?] and having
>>John Cage walk out of one of Branca's guitar symphonies, finding
>>it "fascist". If Adorno is right, would Branca's "fascism" have
>>interested him?
>
>Whoa--Adorno on jazz will probably spawn a flame war the size of
>Dresden! This is the guy who said that the smooth 'emasculated'
>sound of the big band saxes and trombones was saying "Come on,
>let yourself be castrated, and then you can have pleasure..."
Actually, I was just being waggish by mentioning Adorno's amazing jazz
screeds. But have you read some of the prevailing euroleft line on Miminalism
[say, Wim Mertins from "American Repetitive Music"]? It's remarkably similar,
though the references are more to redecorating [the audio wallpaper of the
modern fascist state, etc.] than to re-dock-erating.
But seriously, I am curious about whether or not we've got a clear notion
of just who TA's talking about; Given the extent to which he seems to be
talking about the widely available music of the time [instead of those
"designer opiates"], I've always assumed that he *meant* the Duke and was
prepared to part company with that analytical manure posthaste. But perhaps
I'm being hasty.
Accordingly, some number of us have wound up wondering in MMP's posts about
just who the shadowy cabal writing and programming episiarchial modernist
might be for similar reasons; I'm inclined to think that perhaps Adorno
may have been mum for different reasons.
>As for Branca, I haven't heard his music. I must say, if he got
>Cage riled up enough to make a scene, I would really like to hear
>the stuff. It's probably cool beyond belief. (Anyone point me
>to recordings in print?)
I prefer his symphony #3 "Gloria" [for the first 128 bits of the harmonic
series], but your mileage may vary widely; There's a recent disc for more
traditional instruments out on the Belgian Disques du Crepuscule which seems
to fall for me into the same bin as, say Arnold Dreyblatt's writing for string
ensemble - I think that original materials make more interesting noises, and
the semiotics of using an orchestral mass for a similar effect don't really
impress me one way or the other [I think I look to Scelsi or Saariaho or
sometimes Murail for that].
>"The whole is the untrue" (Adorno)
This isn't a Lustig quote from the recent MMP history lessons, then ;-) ?
Seriously, you're certainly helping to rescue this thread for me.