Best American Born and Raised Composer
ink...@yahoo.com
think. I'm thinking Ellington. Yes, I put him above Ives and Cage and
Crumb.
David Webber
<ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114143929....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ellington is definitely good, but I reckon he lost his way later in
his Sacred Music period.
Given that Ragtime, Jazz, and Blues, and the style of popular song
which followed from these
are the quintessentially American forms of music (and the forms
which had by far the greatest influence on people all over the world
throughout the 20th century) I would go for one of (in no particular
order)
Gershwin, Kern, Porter, Ellington, and IMHO the best ragtime
composer: Arty Matthews (whose "Pastime Rags" are the absolute
pinnacle of the genre).
Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Samuel Vriezen
Doesn't it all depend *entirely* on what you're looking for?
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html
Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that
was or will be, much less is.
- Charles Bernstein
ink...@yahoo.com
I agree with David that Jazz is America's biggest contribuition to the
world of music, and as I think Ellington was the best Jazz composer, in
my mind that makes him the most influential.
Dan McGarvey
> think. I'm thinking Ellington. Yes, I put him above Ives and Cage and
> Crumb.
Gee, I'd be hard pressed to name anyone other than Ives, but all I have is
my own experiences and aesthetic tastes. I'd go into it more, but I'm short
on time right now.
Dan
Jeffrey Quick
ink...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
Copland.
Biggest name. As for influence: John Adams and John Williams both owe
bigtime.
Matthew Fields
Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>In article <1114183726.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> ink...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
>
>Copland.
It's only 7 letters.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Melodious Thunk
> In article <jaq-38CE4D.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>,
> Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >In article <1114183726.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > ink...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
> >
> >Copland.
>
> It's only 7 letters.
Yeah, Bernstein's cleary bigger, and in this context, Ives, Cage, and Crumb are downright modest.
And then there's Thelonious...
David Sherman
> In article <1114183726.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> ink...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
>
> Copland.
Have to agree. Copeland.
You'd be hard pressed to find an orchestra on this planet that hasn't
regularly performed his works. Rodeo is one of the most beloved orchestral
works worldwide, and "Fanfare for the Common Man" seems to be morphing into
the "Anthem for the World."
Samuel Vriezen
> What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
Unless you're really interested in a purely quantitative
popularity poll, even here you would need additional
qualification. Biggest name in what scene? Influential on
what group?
And even the term 'influential' requires more qualification.
Who is the more influential artist - one whose superficial
stylistic qualities are widely imitated but not necessarily
developed, or one whose ideas evoke other, new ideas?
> I agree with David that Jazz is America's biggest contribuition to the
> world of music, and as I think Ellington was the best Jazz composer, in
> my mind that makes him the most influential.
Best and most influential is not nearly the same thing.
Often artists are thought great because they are 'inimitable'.
Samuel Vriezen
>>>>What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
>>>
>>>Copland.
>>
>>It's only 7 letters.
>
>
> Yeah, Bernstein's cleary bigger, and in this context, Ives, Cage, and Crumb are downright modest.
>
> And then there's Thelonious...
So who's the Johann Gambolputty... of American music? It
seems you guys tend to have short names over there... at
least in Holland we have "Bernhard van den Sigtenhorst
Meyer" and "Unico Wilhelm Graaf van Wassenaer", etc.
Melodious Thunk
wrote:
> Melodious Thunk wrote:
>
> >>>>What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
> >>>
> >>>Copland.
> >>
> >>It's only 7 letters.
> >
> > Yeah, Bernstein's cleary bigger, and in this context, Ives, Cage, and Crumb
> > are downright modest.
> >
> > And then there's Thelonious...
>
> So who's the Johann Gambolputty... of American music? It
> seems you guys tend to have short names over there... at
> least in Holland we have "Bernhard van den Sigtenhorst
> Meyer" and "Unico Wilhelm Graaf van Wassenaer", etc.
Well, there's Israel Ka'ano'i Kamakawiwo'ole.
Pete Thomas
> What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
That would have to be Hoyt Curtin.
Maybe not the *biggest* name but definitely the best name IMO.
One of the unsung heroes of composition - you are familiar with his work
but did you know the name of the composer of such influential
compositions as 'The Flintstones", "Topcat" and "The Jetsons".
It's a pity he was never credited with the latter as Danny Elfman's
influence for "The Simpsons".
Oh yes - I almost forgot: "Scooby Doo".
--
Pete Thomas - www.petethomas.co.uk
***********
On-line saxophone exercises, composition and jazz theory courses,
Saxophone Instruction DVD
***********
To reply privately please use the link on my site.
Melodious Thunk
Pete Thomas <inv...@reply-via-site.com> wrote:
> ink...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
>
> That would have to be Hoyt Curtin.
>
> Maybe not the *biggest* name but definitely the best name IMO.
>
> One of the unsung heroes of composition - you are familiar with his work
> but did you know the name of the composer of such influential
> compositions as 'The Flintstones", "Topcat" and "The Jetsons".
>
> It's a pity he was never credited with the latter as Danny Elfman's
> influence for "The Simpsons".
>
> Oh yes - I almost forgot: "Scooby Doo".
Heh. Good choice. I like Raymond Scott as another extremely influential, little-known composer.
David Sherman
> ink...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
>
> That would have to be Hoyt Curtin.
>
> Maybe not the *biggest* name but definitely the best name IMO.
>
> One of the unsung heroes of composition - you are familiar with his work
> but did you know the name of the composer of such influential
> compositions as 'The Flintstones", "Topcat" and "The Jetsons".
Ah, Hoyt Curtin!
Did you know that The Jetsons theme was the first use of an electric piano
on a recording session?
It was pretty revolutionary for it's time. Still a great theme.
Joachim Pense
> Permit me this wee bit of trollery. I really wonder what you folks
> think. I'm thinking Ellington. Yes, I put him above Ives and Cage and
> Crumb.
Morton Feldman
Matthew Fields
danny <comp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:09:21 +0100, Pete Thomas <inv...@reply-via-site.com>
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>It's a pity he was never credited with the latter as Danny Elfman's
>>influence for "The Simpsons".
>
>
>Furthermore, Oingo Boingo wasn't even a great band.
>
>
>-danny
>
Hi, Danny Elfman! Nice to see you reading the newsgroup.
Pete Thomas
An all-time low in snobbishness maybe?
Samuel Vriezen
>>> Did you know that The Jetsons theme was the first use of an electric
>>> piano
>>> on a recording session?
>>>
>>> It was pretty revolutionary for it's time. Still a great theme.
>>
>> God. This group has certainly hit an all-time low.
>
> An all-time low in snobbishness maybe?
I think it's great to see that the emblem of the positivist
hard-working all american capitalist family ideal, The
Jetsons is connected to the Revolution.
ink...@yahoo.com
This is really an honest question I really want to know the anwser to.
Mostly because I'm an American and, 1, I want to make sure I'm not
missing out on anything, and 2, I'd like something to make me feel
somewhat proud to be an American again.
If this is all so beneath you, why do you bother posting? Why insult
all the other posters who have given their honest anwsers? If this is
such a waste of time for you, than go away, and we can both stop
wasting eachothers time.
ink...@yahoo.com
>>Often artists are thought great because they are 'inimitable'.
Well, imitatable works. Yes, 'most copied' will do quite nicely.
Joe Roberts
ink...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
>
Lo, this group has certainly hit (upon) a couple of all-time gods: Ives,
Copland.
Really, "influential" depends on the genre. If it's blues, Handy. If it's
show, Rodgers, or maybe Kern, or maybe Herbert. If it's marches, Sousa. If
it's ragtime, Joplin. If Hollywood ... OK, enough. Where would you like to
go today?
Dudley Buck?
Joe
Samuel Vriezen
> Well, for the record, most people around here know I'm not a troll.
> This is really an honest question I really want to know the anwser to.
> Mostly because I'm an American and, 1, I want to make sure I'm not
> missing out on anything, and 2, I'd like something to make me feel
> somewhat proud to be an American again.
Well, if the greatest american music is the most influential
music, it would not be possible for you to have missed out
on it.
ink...@yahoo.com
danny wrote:
>
> There IS no answer to this question.
>
> The old saying about there never being a stupid question, if you
don't know
> the answer, is simply wrong.
>
Thanks for your immense words of wisdom. You've made quite an
invaluable contribuition to this thread.
Joe Roberts
Don't worry about the responses. There really isn't an accurate answer, but
there ought to be civil ones.
For "Big Name composers" ... if you're considering symphonic music,
you'll get Ives, Copland, Bernstein dropped right up front. That would be
the easy answer. If you then asked "but who influenced them?", and wanted
to maintain your focus on American (and not European) sources, then you'd
have a more problematical question.
For "Influential composers" ... if you're considering American roots in
music, you'd have multitudes of sources from people who had carried music
across the water to this land, and who in later generations made "our" music
from it. The jigs and reels, Child and broadside ballads that Appalachian
folk grew into native music; blues out of Memphis or
"floatin'-down-the-river, down-to-new-orleens"; african-american
spirituals; folks longing for home where the buffalo roam or of seeing a
dying cowboy while walking the streets of Laredo. Of course, more. Perhaps
the greatest native American sources "influencing" American composers are
unknown (but not unsung).
Hope it helps.
Joe
Matthew Fields
Ruth Crawford.
Check out her string quartet 1931.
ink...@yahoo.com
answer, but
>>there ought to be civil ones.
I'm not too worried, and actually, all but one of the posters were very
forthcoming and useful.
David Webber
<ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114299981.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>..... I'd like something to make me feel
> somewhat proud to be an American again.
I really wouldn't worry too much about deriving pride from the
achievements of others with the tenuous geographic link of having
been born on the same continent.
I am not an American but still get an enormous amount of pleasure
and satisfaction from the music of Duke Ellington and many other
American composers and (especially) jazz musicians. The fact that
I prefer it on the whole to Elgar does not upset me in the
slightest.
Revel rather in the immense variety of music coming from an immense
variety of humanity. The fact that we can enjoy so much of it just
emphasises our humanity. Whether we are American, British, German,
Cuban, ... is, in the end, just a question of who we have to pay our
taxes to :-(
Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Matthew Fields
David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1114299981.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>..... I'd like something to make me feel
>> somewhat proud to be an American again.
>
>I really wouldn't worry too much about deriving pride from the
>achievements of others with the tenuous geographic link of having
>been born on the same continent.
>
>I am not an American but still get an enormous amount of pleasure
>and satisfaction from the music of Duke Ellington and many other
>American composers and (especially) jazz musicians. The fact that
>I prefer it on the whole to Elgar does not upset me in the
>slightest.
>
>Revel rather in the immense variety of music coming from an immense
>variety of humanity. The fact that we can enjoy so much of it just
>emphasises our humanity. Whether we are American, British, German,
>Cuban, ... is, in the end, just a question of who we have to pay our
>taxes to :-(
Heh. I'm proud to pay my taxes and thus participate in a civilization
with widespread literacy, working roads, rule of law, artistic
culture, etc.
The government of the UK promised something on the order of a
million pounds to purchase units of a safe and effective preventative
immunization for malaria, once one is invented. Without civilized
moves like that, "free markets" will never produce such things--as the
people affected by the illness are poor and are kept poor by the
illness itself.
The government of the USA cut taxes while increasing military
expenditures in ways which were not supported by the military itself.
I'll be watching how this plays out. Right now, the USA is a really
tough place to be an artist, educator, or pretty much anything except
televangelist faith-healer.
David Webber
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:fzKbe.1059$II....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> Heh. I'm proud to pay my taxes and thus participate in a
> civilization
> with widespread literacy, working roads, rule of law, artistic
> culture, etc.
Not many of us are proud to pay taxes, but we *should* feel
priviledged to do so: countries in which you don't pay taxes either
have enormous intrinsic wealth, or the population is destitute, or
both :-(
> The government of the UK promised something on the order of a
> million pounds to purchase units of a safe and effective
> preventative
> immunization for malaria, once one is invented. Without civilized
> moves like that, "free markets" will never produce such things--as
> the
> people affected by the illness are poor and are kept poor by the
> illness itself.
The government of the UK also used my taxes in a completely
unnecessary and illegal invasion of Iraq, against the wishes of the
population in whose name it did it, and it lied to us about the
reasons. And so is is a bit of a mixed bag at best.
>....Right now, the USA is a really
> tough place to be an artist, educator, or pretty much anything
> except
> televangelist faith-healer.
I don't suppose Duke Ellington found it anything other than tough in
the thirties either. :-(
Jeffrey Quick
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
> Ruth Crawford.
>
> Check out her string quartet 1931.
So Matt, who'd she influence?
Yeah, decent piece, but her career was basically a dead end. I suspect
her opera omnia clocks in at slightly less than that of Carl Ruggles and
is of overall less consistent quality.
Jeffrey Quick
David Sherman <possi...@possible20.org> wrote:
> Jeffrey Quick wrote on 4/22/05 12:25 PM:
>
> > In article <1114183726.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > ink...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
> >
> > Copland.
>
> Have to agree. Copeland.
Nah, Copeland sucks. That opera he did for Cleveland Opera was a horror.
He should have stuck with drumming for the Police.
> You'd be hard pressed to find an orchestra on this planet that hasn't
> regularly performed his works. Rodeo is one of the most beloved orchestral
> works worldwide, and "Fanfare for the Common Man" seems to be morphing into
> the "Anthem for the World."
>
Jeffrey Quick
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
> In article <jaq-38CE4D.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>,
> Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >In article <1114183726.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > ink...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> What I'm looking for is the biggest name, and/or the most influential.
> >
> >Copland.
>
> It's only 7 letters.
OK, then Margaret Griebling-Haigh, or Lucia Dlugoszewski, or William
Thomas McKinley.
Matthew Fields
Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>In article <fdhbe.1027$II....@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> "Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>
>> Ruth Crawford.
>>
>> Check out her string quartet 1931.
>
>So Matt, who'd she influence?
Me, and Pete Seger, in different directions!
>Yeah, decent piece, but her career was basically a dead end. I suspect
>her opera omnia clocks in at slightly less than that of Carl Ruggles and
>is of overall less consistent quality.
hmmm....
David Sherman
Touche!
Afoklala
As a non-American I have to say that, while Copland is a very capable
composer and has done some great pieces, he isn't anything really special.
His style is not very different from many others.
To me, American composers that really did something that 'shook the world'
are John Cage, Elliot Carter and Steve Reich. Of these three, to me Cage is
the best, then Carter, and I don't care much for minimal music.
--
Jan Willem from Odijk, Netherlands
e-mail in From-field is wrong, real e-mail is:
jw point van point dormolen on hccnet point nl
(change point into dot, on into at)
And then there's this:
Documentation; The worst part of programming.
Charles Camilleri
I could never understand Copland success, but the 3 composers you
mentioned seem to me to be in contradiction Cage on one end and Carter on
the other with Reich in the middle. A conflict in Philosophy perhaps
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:47:23 +1000, Afoklala <afok...@afokla.la> wrote:
>>>>> Copland.
>
> As a non-American I have to say that, while Copland is a very capable
> composer and has done some great pieces, he isn't anything really
> special.
> His style is not very different from many others.
> To me, American composers that really did something that 'shook the
> world'
> are John Cage, Elliot Carter and Steve Reich. Of these three, to me Cage
> is
> the best, then Carter, and I don't care much for minimal music.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Matthew Fields
David Sherman
>>>>> Copland.
>
> As a non-American I have to say that, while Copland is a very capable
> composer and has done some great pieces, he isn't anything really special.
> His style is not very different from many others.
I see. And which composers are they?
> To me, American composers that really did something that 'shook the world'
> are John Cage, Elliot Carter and Steve Reich. Of these three, to me Cage is
> the best, then Carter, and I don't care much for minimal music.
Cage, Carter, and Reich "shook the world?" Never.
I'm curious to know which world you live in.
Samuel Vriezen
>>To me, American composers that really did something that 'shook the world'
>>are John Cage, Elliot Carter and Steve Reich. Of these three, to me Cage is
>>the best, then Carter, and I don't care much for minimal music.
>
>
> Cage, Carter, and Reich "shook the world?" Never.
>
> I'm curious to know which world you live in.
Or, what 'shaking the world' means.
It's quite arguable that Cage, or at least the larger
movement of ideas that he was part of, have been an
influence on contemporary culture, even on a reasonably
large scale - possibly not entirely directly, of course.
It's at least as arguable that Cage was of no importance for
today's pop culture at all.
What's more important, I think, is that he had a stunning
number of amazing musical ideas. Even if only a relatively
small group of people respond to that, those ideas are more
interesting and, yes, 'shaking', than lots of ideas that
people respond to by the billions. Many ultra popular
musical ideas are in fact not shaking anything at all.
I admit I'm much less shaken by Carter, though. And Reich -
mostly the early stuff.
Afoklala
> In article <hae5r0hmg743$.azvsguoj...@40tude.net>,
> Afoklala <afok...@afokla.la> wrote:
>>>>>> Copland.
>>
>>As a non-American I have to say that, while Copland is a very capable
>>composer and has done some great pieces, he isn't anything really special.
>>His style is not very different from many others.
>>To me, American composers that really did something that 'shook the world'
>>are John Cage, Elliot Carter and Steve Reich. Of these three, to me Cage is
>>the best, then Carter, and I don't care much for minimal music.
>>--
>>Jan Willem from Odijk, Netherlands
>>e-mail in From-field is wrong, real e-mail is:
>>jw point van point dormolen on hccnet point nl
>>(change point into dot, on into at)
>>
>>And then there's this:
>>Documentation; The worst part of programming.
>
> What about George Crumb?
Oops! Sorry, forgot about him. Of course, he's a great American composer
too. Cage is still my number one though.
--
Jan Willem from Odijk, Netherlands
e-mail in From-field is wrong, real e-mail is:
jw point van point dormolen on hccnet point nl
(change point into dot, on into at)
And then there's this:
Dogs crawl under gates, software crawls under Windows.
Afoklala
> Afoklala wrote on 4/29/05 2:47 AM:
>
>>>>>> Copland.
>>
>> As a non-American I have to say that, while Copland is a very capable
>> composer and has done some great pieces, he isn't anything really special.
>> His style is not very different from many others.
>
> I see. And which composers are they?
Neoclassicals.
>> To me, American composers that really did something that 'shook the world'
>> are John Cage, Elliot Carter and Steve Reich. Of these three, to me Cage is
>> the best, then Carter, and I don't care much for minimal music.
>
> Cage, Carter, and Reich "shook the world?" Never.
Well, I DID put "shook the world" between "", didn't I? These guys (plus
Crumb, I forgot about him) did contribute something to music that wasn't
there before.
> I'm curious to know which world you live in.
As you can see from my sig, I live in The Netherlands.
--
Jan Willem from Odijk, Netherlands
e-mail in From-field is wrong, real e-mail is:
jw point van point dormolen on hccnet point nl
(change point into dot, on into at)
And then there's this:
A modest man is usually admired; if people ever hear of him.
Richard Friedman
>
>
> What about George Crumb?
>
>
The cartoonist?
Richard Friedman
or maybe George Gershwin...?
Nah. Ellington.
Followed by Charles Ives
<R>
Matthew Fields
Jeffrey Quick
> >>>> Copland.
>
> As a non-American I have to say that, while Copland is a very capable
> composer and has done some great pieces, he isn't anything really special.
> His style is not very different from many others.
Hmmm? I don't see this. It seems to me that Copland's music is readily
identifiable as his. Yes, there are certain commonalities with other
Boulangerie products, a common lineage through Stravinsky. But nobody I
know of, not even say Shapero or early Foss, has quite the same
stylistic fingerprint. It's partly spacing and scoring, partly the
melodic vocabulary, which is basically traditional but with 3rds
substituted for 2nds.
> To me, American composers that really did something that 'shook the world'
> are John Cage, Elliot Carter and Steve Reich. Of these three, to me Cage is
> the best, then Carter, and I don't care much for minimal music.
One can't deny Cage's originality, though his influence could be
questioned. I don't see Carter being as original as you do. There's
nothing in Carter that doesn't come from Nancarrow, the 2nd movement of
Ives' 2nd quartet, and Viennese expressionism (and in the early work -
surprise!- Copland/Boulangerie again). The mix is definitely his own.
Influence again...well, who would you consider a successful composer who
has been influenced by Carter? As for Reich...has anyone done a study of
how minimalism developed? It's always seemed to me that it "just grew",
that a bunch of people were working on similar things at the same time.
It seems like questions of propagation and reception in '60s minimalism
would be a dandy subject for a thesis.
Jeffrey Quick
No, that's Robert. And while the Cheap Suit Serenaders were a fun band,
I don't think they rationally belong in this conversation.
As for George, his particular brand of neo-impressionism hasn't warn
that well. His chief lesson was in how to integrate extended techniques
into a cogent musical language (belying Ned Rorem's charge of "six
effects in search of an idea"). He certainly had a following; at his
alma mater in the 70s, one heard a number of "Crumby" (and sometimes
just crummy) student works. Again, is there a successful composer who
really owes Crumb? I hear a little bit in Vasks, but it's not a dominant
strain.
Jeffrey Quick
"Charles Camilleri" <fra...@dodo.com.au> wrote:
> I could never understand Copland success
Oh, I can, and I'm not a big Copland fan. It was a question of the right
product at the right time in the right quality. Like Monteverdi, Copland
embodied a certain approach to writing music, and if the results weren't
the most interesting of the age, they were representative and more
consistent than others. I think that Copland-the-composer was more than
a commodity, but that some of the music got commoditized (and some
didn't; when and where was the last performance of Inscape or
Connotations?)
Matthew Fields
As far as I'm concerned, Crumb's message has only passingly to do
with those things, and is really about the effectiveness of really
simple, clear gestures and forms amid otherwise unfamiliar sounds.
Charles Camilleri
actually Duke Ellington is underated in so many ways, he had a philosophy
on music making just as valid as Cages but coming from a totally different
background and place, i love Gershwins songs and the importance they had
as vehicles for so many great jazz improvisations, but for the life of me
i just dont like his orchestral music, i dont know why so many natural
songwriters have problems with orchestral music, maybe modern composers
because Schubert certainly had no problems.
On Mon, 02 May 2005 14:31:34 +1000, Richard Friedman <rc...@rchrd.com>
wrote:
--
David Sherman
> Matthew Fields wrote:
>>
>>
>> What about George Crumb?
>>
>>
>
> The cartoonist?
Now THERE'S a great American. Ex-patriot American actually - I understand
he's been living in France for many years now.
Also a great aficionado of 1920's jazz. He would probably say Jelly Roll
Morton is the best American Born Composer!
I've been reading all the arguments here - I still say Copland.
He was the one IMHO that did 'shake the world' by bringing American jazz,
hymns and fiddle tunes into the concert hall. He also made the statement
(both musically and in his writings and interviews,) that we have a culture
here in America that we can be proud of and not have to look to Europe for
our artistic models. Nor do we have to look to Europe for musical
validation. We have great American conductors, composers, performers,
teachers, and schools. And a native of a European country is not
necessarily a better musician (a statement that to this day is still lost on
the board of many American orchestras.)
Copland's First Piano Concerto was not one of his greatest works (even
though it's extraordinary for a man in his 20's,) but certainly one of the
very important pieces of the period. Not only did he incorporate jazz into
a serious classical work - music that only a few years previously was only
played on surplus band instruments - but he also started to consider how an
American sound should be orchestrated. If you listen to the concerto, the
beginning of this stylistic revolution is clear. Since it had some success,
it set the stage for a lot of other works that experimented with American
idioms in the same way. His later ballet scores practically codified the
sound. there is no mistaking his style, and countless composers have
emulated it since then.
At this point in time, American composition students (many of whom spent
considerable time studying abroad,) sounded like second rate Debusseys,
Mahlers and Ravels. When Copland studied with Nadia Boulanger, she noticed
that his compositions were not commensurate to his excellent musicianship.
Besides being a tyrannical pedant, she was a very good judge of her
students' musicianship. So she asked him if there was something in his
native sensibility that he could draw from. And with considerable
encouragement, the first Piano Concerto was born.
I studied with Boulanger in 1976 and she was *still* talking about Copland
and that piece. In fact, she talked about it at length with a young African
American composer who was studying with her that same summer. He was trying
to sound like Satie, and she felt he wasn't listening to an inner voice
(also, I'm sure she heard reports that he was a brilliant jazz pianist.) I
heard that she even trotted out the old phrase "native sensibility" again.
However I'm not sure if she meant it as purely as she did with Copland.
Some thought that she was simply reacting to his dark brown skin and was
saying something like, "shouldn't you be writing ugga-bugga music?"
But I digress.
If you want to look for an American-born musical revolution, you have to
look no further than Copland!
Samuel Vriezen
> Richard Friedman wrote on 5/2/05 12:29 AM:
>
>
>>Matthew Fields wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>What about George Crumb?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The cartoonist?
>
>
> Now THERE'S a great American. Ex-patriot American actually - I understand
> he's been living in France for many years now.
>
> Also a great aficionado of 1920's jazz. He would probably say Jelly Roll
> Morton is the best American Born Composer!
>
> I've been reading all the arguments here - I still say Copland.
>
> He was the one IMHO that did 'shake the world' by bringing American jazz,
> hymns and fiddle tunes into the concert hall. He also made the statement
> (both musically and in his writings and interviews,) that we have a culture
> here in America that we can be proud of and not have to look to Europe for
> our artistic models.
Yet he studied with Boulanger, wrote symponies and was quick
to jump on the serial bandwagon. Even the incorporation of
jazz into classical was done by Europeans prior to Copland.
In fact, I would say that your Boulanger story supports this
view - why would an American have to have a European tell
him how he should relate to his own musical culture? And
wasn't it Dvorak who made similar points before? The entire
idea of a national musical consciousness based in folksy
traditions is based on 19th century nationalism - which
again is a European invention.
It is my impression of him that he was a highly talented and
always had a good nose for fashion. I tend to enjoy his
music but have yet to find a single note in it that I would
call world-shaking.
But then, when I think about what American culture seems to
offer that you don't find in European culture to quite the
same extent, I think of very different sorts of things - I
think of, say, optimism, pioneer mentality, the inventor,
the melting pot, big business, or gross inequalities... What
musics fit with those?
David Webber
"Charles Camilleri" <fra...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:op.sp6a68twpbeli9@dynamic...
>....I. love Gershwins songs and the importance they had as
>vehicles for so many great jazz improvisations, but for the life of
>me i just dont like his orchestral music,....
I love his songs too, but extended works like "Rhapsody in Blue" and
"American In Paris" are also absolutely superb. Also "Porgy and
Bess" is great. And they all have a quintessentially American
flavour at least as strong as any one else created.
> i dont know why so many natural songwriters have problems with
> orchestral music,
Gershwin's problem (in his day) was that song writers regarded him
as a great classical composer and classical composers regarded him
as a great song writer. These days most people agree that they
were both right :-)
Matthew Fields
When he received the commission to write a piano concerto,
he ran to the library and began carrying around with him everywhere
some books on concerto form and orchestration.
David Webber
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:THOde.1211$II....@news.itd.umich.edu...
...Gershwin...
> When he received the commission to write a piano concerto,
> he ran to the library and began carrying around with him
> everywhere
> some books on concerto form and orchestration.
And why not?
Pete Thomas
> In article <d585bj$rm3$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Gershwin's problem (in his day) was that song writers regarded him
>>as a great classical composer and classical composers regarded him
>>as a great song writer. These days most people agree that they
>>were both right :-)
<snip>
> When he received the commission to write a piano concerto,
> he ran to the library and began carrying around with him everywhere
> some books on concerto form and orchestration.
>
If only everyone who gets a commission shows such commitment!
--
Pete Thomas - www.petethomas.co.uk
***********
On-line saxophone exercises, composition and jazz theory courses,
Saxophone Instruction DVD
***********
To reply privately please use the link on my site.
Matthew Fields
David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
>news:THOde.1211$II....@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
>...Gershwin...
>
>> When he received the commission to write a piano concerto,
>> he ran to the library and began carrying around with him
>> everywhere
>> some books on concerto form and orchestration.
>
>And why not?
>
>Dave
Now, if we could convince youngsters to do the same, we'd be overwhelmed.
But I'm frequently underwhelmed by people who take their midi meanderings
and switch them on the "string ensemble" patch and suddenly declare
themselves "classical composer".
Matthew Fields
Pete Thomas <inv...@reply-via-site.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Gershwin's problem (in his day) was that song writers regarded him
>>>as a great classical composer and classical composers regarded him
>>>as a great song writer. These days most people agree that they
>>>were both right :-)
>
><snip>
>
>> When he received the commission to write a piano concerto,
>> he ran to the library and began carrying around with him everywhere
>> some books on concerto form and orchestration.
>>
>
>If only everyone who gets a commission shows such commitment!
>
As my recorded music shows, I've got the commitment part down....
Pete Thomas
> In article <4277c8cf$0$57115$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
> Pete Thomas <inv...@reply-via-site.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Gershwin's problem (in his day) was that song writers regarded him
>>>>as a great classical composer and classical composers regarded him
>>>>as a great song writer. These days most people agree that they
>>>>were both right :-)
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>When he received the commission to write a piano concerto,
>>>he ran to the library and began carrying around with him everywhere
>>>some books on concerto form and orchestration.
>>>
>>
>>If only everyone who gets a commission shows such commitment!
>>
>
>
> As my recorded music shows, I've got the commitment part down....
Maybe, but my point was, if only *everyone* shows such commitment as
Gershwin
David Sherman
>
> Yet he studied with Boulanger, wrote symponies and was quick
> to jump on the serial bandwagon. Even the incorporation of
> jazz into classical was done by Europeans prior to Copland.
> In fact, I would say that your Boulanger story supports this
> view - why would an American have to have a European tell
> him how he should relate to his own musical culture?
Simply, Americans felt that they *had* to sound like their European
counterparts. Not to follow European trends, fashions, sounds, etc. was to
do "lesser" art. The only "valid" American composers studied abroad. The
only "valid" American music emulated European music, be it French, German,
or Slavic.
Copland was no different. Boulanger was the one who put the notion in his
head that there was something other than what he was doing that could make
him a first-rate Copland rather than a second rate Debussy.
As for Europeans/jazz - yes and no. They tried. But who did something on
the scale of the First Concerto? Honestly, I don't know. Give me some
examples.
> And wasn't it Dvorak who made similar points before? The entire idea of a
> national musical consciousness based in folksy traditions is based on 19th
> century nationalism - which again is a European invention.
Yes, there's the notion that Appalachian Spring, Billy The Kid and Rodeo
were simply taking the European idea of using folk idioms and putting them
in an orchestral context. Again, I agree and disagree.
If you didn't know there were folk melodies in, say Beethoven, Brahms, and
Tchaikovsky would you know the difference? The classical and folk
traditions of Europe go so far back and are so intertwined it's hard to
distinguish sometimes. A classical theme becomes a folk melody. An old
folk melody becomes a classical theme and then becomes a fold melody again.
It's so mixed up.
It's even valid to say that the fiddle tunes and Appalachian tunes were
nothing more than European tunes. But when Copland put them in his context,
he didn't try to make them something they weren't. They came from the soil,
and simple people. And that's how he depicted them. I feel he was saying,
"This is ours. This is what we sound like. There's nothing to be ashamed
of." And let me tell you, American musicians had a big inferiority complex
back then.
> It is my impression of him that he was a highly talented and
> always had a good nose for fashion. I tend to enjoy his
> music but have yet to find a single note in it that I would
> call world-shaking.
Yes, I know what you mean. I don't agree, of course. His ballets were very
attention grabbing - but I don't think he was trying to be fashionable. If
he was he would have written like Schoenberg or Berg or someone like that.
That was the "fashion."
But anyway, you can't deny that he defined an American orchestral sound,
reached every corner of the planet with his music, and influenced a
generation of composers and film composers.
Maybe not earth shaking, but pretty damned important!
> But then, when I think about what American culture seems to
> offer that you don't find in European culture to quite the
> same extent, I think of very different sorts of things - I
> think of, say, optimism, pioneer mentality, the inventor,
> the melting pot, big business, or gross inequalities
Huh? Europe came out of feudalism and went right into monarchies. American
democracy predates any of the true parliamentary systems in Europe. It
seems to me that "gross inequalities" are almost hard wired into European
culture, not American culture.
But that's another discussion.
Samuel Vriezen
>
>>It is my impression of him that he was a highly talented and
>>always had a good nose for fashion. I tend to enjoy his
>>music but have yet to find a single note in it that I would
>>call world-shaking.
>
>
> Yes, I know what you mean. I don't agree, of course. His ballets were very
> attention grabbing - but I don't think he was trying to be fashionable. If
> he was he would have written like Schoenberg or Berg or someone like that.
> That was the "fashion."
Well, he had his serial spell. And in the 30s, the dissonant
spell.
> But anyway, you can't deny that he defined an American orchestral sound,
> reached every corner of the planet with his music, and influenced a
> generation of composers and film composers.
>
> Maybe not earth shaking, but pretty damned important!
>
At the very least, a real accomplishment.
>>But then, when I think about what American culture seems to
>>offer that you don't find in European culture to quite the
>>same extent, I think of very different sorts of things - I
>>think of, say, optimism, pioneer mentality, the inventor,
>>the melting pot, big business, or gross inequalities
>
>
> Huh? Europe came out of feudalism and went right into monarchies. American
> democracy predates any of the true parliamentary systems in Europe. It
> seems to me that "gross inequalities" are almost hard wired into European
> culture, not American culture.
>
> But that's another discussion.
>
Yeah, let's skip that one - I've just been transcribing an
interview I did for hours so I'm not in the right shape
anyway...
Jeffrey Quick
David Sherman <possi...@possible20.org> wrote:
> As for Europeans/jazz - yes and no. They tried. But who did something on
> the scale of the First Concerto? Honestly, I don't know. Give me some
> examples.
I can't address the notion of scale, because I don't know that many of
his larger works. But Erwin Schulhoff was probably the most successful
European at integrating jazz into concert music in the '20s. Not
surprisingly, he was a jazz pianist, and one always feels he is speaking
the language rather than just putting on a costume (as one senses with
Milhaud for instance).
Jeffrey Quick
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
> In article <jaq-D0AB66.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>,
> Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >As for George, his particular brand of neo-impressionism hasn't warn
> >that well. His chief lesson was in how to integrate extended techniques
> >into a cogent musical language (belying Ned Rorem's charge of "six
> >effects in search of an idea"). He certainly had a following; at his
> >alma mater in the 70s, one heard a number of "Crumby" (and sometimes
> >just crummy) student works. Again, is there a successful composer who
> >really owes Crumb? I hear a little bit in Vasks, but it's not a dominant
> >strain.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, Crumb's message has only passingly to do
> with those things, and is really about the effectiveness of really
> simple, clear gestures and forms amid otherwise unfamiliar sounds.
OK, I'll buy that.
David Webber
"David Sherman" <possi...@possible20.org> wrote in message
news:BE9D6A57.938B%possi...@possible20.org...
>..... American
> democracy predates any of the true parliamentary systems in
> Europe.
What a very odd statement - considering that the philosophers who
invented the American democratic system were born British and
modelled it deliberately very much on the British system.
[In Switzerland and in Britain democracy started in the 13th
century, the first step to democracy in England being arguably Magna
Carta in 1215, though the franchise then was obviously fairly
limited, and things have evolved somewhat since. But you can't be
talking about universal adult franchise as the USA didn't have
anything like that originally - certainly not before the abolition
of slavery.]
David Webber
"Jeffrey Quick" <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
news:jaq-C5A049.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu...
> I can't address the notion of scale, because I don't know that
> many of
> his larger works. But Erwin Schulhoff was probably the most
> successful
> European at integrating jazz into concert music in the '20s. Not
> surprisingly, he was a jazz pianist, and one always feels he is
> speaking
> the language rather than just putting on a costume (as one senses
> with
> Milhaud for instance).
That description "putting on a costume" is very nice - it expresses
exactly what I have always felt about Milhaud.
Samuel Vriezen
> "Jeffrey Quick" <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
> news:jaq-C5A049.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu...
>
>
>>I can't address the notion of scale, because I don't know that
>>many of
>>his larger works. But Erwin Schulhoff was probably the most
>>successful
>>European at integrating jazz into concert music in the '20s. Not
>>surprisingly, he was a jazz pianist, and one always feels he is
>>speaking
>>the language rather than just putting on a costume (as one senses
>>with
>>Milhaud for instance).
>
>
> That description "putting on a costume" is very nice - it expresses
> exactly what I have always felt about Milhaud.
But is it really so different from Copland's Four Piano
Blues, say?
David Webber
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:427a3566$0$15633$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> That description "putting on a costume" is very nice - it
>> expresses exactly what I have always felt about Milhaud.
>
>
> But is it really so different from Copland's Four Piano Blues,
> say?
I'm afraid I don't know that piece - but, knowing what little I do
of Copeland, I wouldn't be surprised if it had the same feeling.
"Classical" (for want of a better word) composers inspired by jazz
and blues don't produced jazz and blues, just as classical composers
inspired by folk music don't produce folk music. What they produce
is different, and it is meaningless to put it on a scale (as was
popular for a long time) of better to worse.
Gershwin OTOH is different - he was as at home being a popular
songwright as much as a "classical" composer, and while he wasn't a
"jazz composer" in the sense of (say) Jelly Roll Morton, his songs
had all the elements in them which lent themselves to a jazz
treatment.
One of Cole Porter's early works, I learnt recently, was a ballet -
another example of someone with a musical education who deliberately
chose the path of popular song and did it supremely well.
Matthew Fields
David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"David Sherman" <possi...@possible20.org> wrote in message
>news:BE9D6A57.938B%possi...@possible20.org...
>
>>..... American
>> democracy predates any of the true parliamentary systems in
>> Europe.
>
>What a very odd statement - considering that the philosophers who
>invented the American democratic system were born British and
>modelled it deliberately very much on the British system.
Just for starters, The senate and house of representatives are not
in any sense an upper or lower house, and in no sense a house
of commons and house of lords. Originally, the senate represented
the interests of state governments while the house of representatives
represented district interests. They've evolved a bit from that.
>[In Switzerland and in Britain democracy started in the 13th
>century, the first step to democracy in England being arguably Magna
>Carta in 1215, though the franchise then was obviously fairly
>limited, and things have evolved somewhat since. But you can't be
>talking about universal adult franchise as the USA didn't have
>anything like that originally - certainly not before the abolition
>of slavery.]
We can find some sort of Democracy at least since the ancient Greeks,
and a failed parallel development in France 1789-1799 (which nonetheless
has given the world the metric system).
>Dave
>--
>David Webber
>Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
>http://www.mozart.co.uk
>For discussion/support see
>http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
>
>
David Webber
>>>..... American
>>> democracy predates any of the true parliamentary systems in
>>> Europe.
>>
>>What a very odd statement - considering that the philosophers who
>>invented the American democratic system were born British and
>>modelled it deliberately very much on the British system.
>
> Just for starters, The senate and house of representatives are not
> in any sense an upper or lower house, and in no sense a house
> of commons and house of lords. Originally, the senate represented
> the interests of state governments while the house of
> representatives
> represented district interests. They've evolved a bit from that.
Yes I am aware of that. I did try to be careful not to imply thay
had made an identical copy. There are many significant differences
of detail - which have also evolved.
I just found the idea that Britain did not have a "true parliametary
democracy" in the late 18th century (or later if that is when the
USA is supposed to have acquired one) a rather odd notion, and was
vaguely wondering what we might have done to become one since, or
whether we are not regarded as one even now.
(There are plausible arguments that we've been going backwards over
the last three years, but they apply to the USA too.)
> We can find some sort of Democracy at least since the ancient
> Greeks,
> and a failed parallel development in France 1789-1799 (which
> nonetheless
> has given the world the metric system).
Well France has been rather more turbulent and the French are now up
to their 5th Republic of course. You can't beat em for quantity,
even if you might for continuity.
But on our little island we got our revolutions over with, ahead of
the crowd: a bloody one in 1649 and a glorious one in 1688, both of
which were seminal points in the affirmation of democracy here.
[In the first case parliament impressed it rather strongly on the
king (who had rather misunderstood his position) that we were in
fact already a parliamentary democracy. In the second they sacked a
king a little less violently and invited a new king to take the job,
taking the opportunity to highlight the parliamentary democracy
thing firmly in the job spec, (along with kings not marrying
Catholics and things) so that similar misunderstanding would not
occur again.]
Melodious Thunk
wrote:
<snip>
> I studied with Boulanger in 1976 and she was *still* talking about Copland
> and that piece. In fact, she talked about it at length with a young African
> American composer who was studying with her that same summer. He was trying
> to sound like Satie, and she felt he wasn't listening to an inner voice
> (also, I'm sure she heard reports that he was a brilliant jazz pianist.) I
> heard that she even trotted out the old phrase "native sensibility" again.
> However I'm not sure if she meant it as purely as she did with Copland.
> Some thought that she was simply reacting to his dark brown skin and was
> saying something like, "shouldn't you be writing ugga-bugga music?"
I was curious who(m) you're referring to here.
Jeffrey Quick
Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> David Webber wrote:
> > "Jeffrey Quick" <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
> > news:jaq-C5A049.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu...
> >
> >
> >>I can't address the notion of scale, because I don't know that
> >>many of
> >>his larger works. But Erwin Schulhoff was probably the most
> >>successful
> >>European at integrating jazz into concert music in the '20s. Not
> >>surprisingly, he was a jazz pianist, and one always feels he is
> >>speaking
> >>the language rather than just putting on a costume (as one senses
> >>with
> >>Milhaud for instance).
> >
> >
> > That description "putting on a costume" is very nice - it expresses
> > exactly what I have always felt about Milhaud.
>
>
> But is it really so different from Copland's Four Piano
> Blues, say?
Well, it's a good question, since there's no intrinsic reason for a
Brooklyn Jew to be involved with the blues (or with cowboy or Shaker
music for that matter). My only defense of Copland vs. Milhaud is that
Copland is closer to the source than Milhaud; when he puts on blackface,
his accent is better. But there's nothing about American vernacular
music that is intrinsic to Copland's style (as Hungarian or Austrian
music is to Bartok or Mahler respectively). If in fact Copland had
managed a Bartokian style-integration, his music would probably sound
*less* American, because it would be more particular to "some" Americans
than others. To me, Copland's music sounds like America (or at least
many parts of America) looks. There's a sense of sky from horizon to
horizon, rather than the sense of being dogged by castles that could
fall on you at any moment. I get a similar-but-different feeling from
Chadwick...yes, he's speaking Brahms/Dvorak, but there's a jauntyness
and spirit in what he's saying in it, a certain something that a
Eupopean wouldn't say in exactly the same way.
I don't think that invalidates Copland's position as "the dean" though.
Even if "Aaron Copland, American composer" is partly a matter of
marketing, he couldn't have been marketed if the pieces did not have
intrinsic quality. "A. Louis Scarmolin, American composer" doesn't have
the same ring. <g>
David Sherman
David Webber wrote on 5/5/05 11:51 AM:
> Gershwin OTOH is different - he was as at home being a popular
> songwright as much as a "classical" composer, and while he wasn't a
> "jazz composer" in the sense of (say) Jelly Roll Morton, his songs
> had all the elements in them which lent themselves to a jazz
> treatment.
He was not at all at home being any kind of composer. That's what lead him
to contact Boulnager, Stravinsky, and others for "lessons." He felt his
musical experience and background was too limited to compose serious concert
works.
He was confident in his ability as a songwriter, and his piano
improvisations were legendary. His piano music was also excellent, but he
assigned the task of orchestrating his work (Rhapsody in Blue, Piano
Concerto, and his musicals) to others.
> One of Cole Porter's early works, I learnt recently, was a ballet -
> another example of someone with a musical education who deliberately
> chose the path of popular song and did it supremely well.
Another peculiar statement.
Cole Porter took piano lessons as a child, studied as an undergraduate at
Yale, and for a short while at Harvard Law School.
He had no formal music education. You make it sound like he could have done
either, and that's not the case. He was a songwriter, first and only. His
"Ballet-sketch" was a one-act collection of dances - songs without words if
you will - that he wrote while living (and partying) in Paris in the early
'20's. Like Gershwin, he didn't write his own orchestrations.
He had no aspirations to be a classical composer. He was interested in
writing musicals. Period.
You seem to think that Gershwin and Porter could have been either/or, and
they chose to be songwriters. This is not the case at all.
Pete Thomas
> Speaking of odd statements:
>
> David Webber wrote on 5/5/05 11:51 AM:
>
>
>>Gershwin OTOH is different - he was as at home being a popular
>>songwright as much as a "classical" composer, and while he wasn't a
>>"jazz composer" in the sense of (say) Jelly Roll Morton, his songs
>>had all the elements in them which lent themselves to a jazz
>>treatment.
>
>
> He was not at all at home being any kind of composer. That's what lead him
> to contact Boulnager, Stravinsky, and others for "lessons."
I think Gershwin was quite at home being "any kind of composer". He
composed some of the most influential compositions ever written (e.g. "I
Got Rhythm" - ask any jazz musician).
Asking for lessons from anyone, whether they be masters or peers has
never been a reason to doubt someone's talent or skill, either as a
composer, performing musician or any kind of artist. I think that's one
of the great things about music and art - there is always something to
learn from others. Unlike, say, plumbing. My plumber thinks he knows it
all and would never get plumbing lessons. I have known really great
musicians and composers who still think they have something to learn
from others.
> assigned the task of orchestrating his work (Rhapsody in Blue, Piano
> Concerto, and his musicals) to others.
It's not necessary to orchestrate to be a composer (although very often
it can help)
--
David Sherman
> David Sherman wrote:
>> Speaking of odd statements:
>>
>> David Webber wrote on 5/5/05 11:51 AM:
>>
>>
>>> Gershwin OTOH is different - he was as at home being a popular
>>> songwright as much as a "classical" composer, and while he wasn't a
>>> "jazz composer" in the sense of (say) Jelly Roll Morton, his songs
>>> had all the elements in them which lent themselves to a jazz
>>> treatment.
>>
>>
>> He was not at all at home being any kind of composer. That's what lead him
>> to contact Boulnager, Stravinsky, and others for "lessons."
>
> I think Gershwin was quite at home being "any kind of composer". He
> composed some of the most influential compositions ever written (e.g. "I
> Got Rhythm" - ask any jazz musician).
>
> Asking for lessons from anyone, whether they be masters or peers has
> never been a reason to doubt someone's talent or skill, either as a
> composer, performing musician or any kind of artist. <snip>
I think you missed the point. If I understood him correctly, David Weber
seems to have written that Gershwin was as comfortable as a classical
composer as he was a songwriter. He said the same of Cole Porter. I
believe he feels it was simply their decision to write songs instead of
concert works.
As it turns out Gershwin wrote a couple of works that are now concert hall
favorites. However, he did not consider himself a composer along the lines
of the musical elite he rubbed shoulders with in Paris. I mentioned his
trying to solicit lessons from Boulanger and Stravinsky to show that
although he was a fine musician, he felt unsure about his abilities as a
composer of serious concert works.
Also, I don't want to argue semantics, but I don't consider I Got Rhythm a
composition. I consider it a song. And I consider the process of writing I
Got Rhythm songwriting, not composition. I'm not saying one is better or
more substantial than the other. But I think we should call it what it is.
It was written for a musical called Girl Crazy, and was first sung by Ethel
Merman (who held a single note for a legendary 32 bars during the song. I
heard a recording of it - pretty amazing. And she still had enough breath
left to finish the phrase.)
There's nothing wrong with calling a song a song. Even if it was one of the
most influential pieces of music in the history of American popular music,
it's still a song.
Charles Camilleri
Just revisiting this thread, and maybe the comparison with Bartok has
already been made, but did Copland write anything to compare to the power
of Concerto for Orchestra ?
to me folk music was essential to Barok's soul, he couldnt breath without
it, musically speaking. Copland was just superfically experimenting , he
may have been skilled and i am not taking anything away from him, but his
America doesnt convince me, Duke Elligntons America does
--
Charles Camilleri
Just a small comment about Copland and Europe, becaue here in Australia ,
we have a composer named Peter Sculthorpe and he has kind of a similar
relationship to Europe, he incorporated indigenous elements in his music
and thought of the characteristics of our landscape etc, i remember
hearing him say something about how Sibelius's symphonies had the
landscape embeddedd in his consciousness or something like that, but guess
what, while i admire what he does, i am again not convinced, to me its
self deception on a cultural level, you cant consciously make culture,
anymore than you can consciously event the 1st Vienese school and than
event the 2nd Vienese, just the need for people to have a sense of
origins, this need for origins can convince anyone of anything, but the
ear doesnt lie and both Copland and Sculthorpe have been caught out.
--
Charles Camilleri
i must admit to not having heard this composer, but i have yet to hear a
authentic integration of Jazz and Classical it always sounds pasted on to
me , like copy and paste in my piano roll or something , it would take at
least 300 years to achieve an authentic blend that rings true , without
any reservations, how long did it take to get from J.S.Bach to Beethoven,
could you possibly condense such a growth, i cant possibly see how, and
thats the differnce modern composers have time against them.
--
Charles Camilleri
yep putting on a costume, but compared to other times and places, how many
composers have a set of costumes to fit the occasion ?
On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:28:58 +1000, David Webber
<da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Jeffrey Quick" <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
> news:jaq-C5A049.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu...
>
>> I can't address the notion of scale, because I don't know that
>> many of
>> his larger works. But Erwin Schulhoff was probably the most
>> successful
>> European at integrating jazz into concert music in the '20s. Not
>> surprisingly, he was a jazz pianist, and one always feels he is
>> speaking
>> the language rather than just putting on a costume (as one senses
>> with
>> Milhaud for instance).
>
> That description "putting on a costume" is very nice - it expresses
> exactly what I have always felt about Milhaud.
>
> Dave
--
Charles Camilleri
speaking of which did Stravinski understand Jazz ? i rest my case he
didnt have a clue about Jazz time
On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:02:48 +1000, Samuel Vriezen
<sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> David Webber wrote:
>> "Jeffrey Quick" <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
>> news:jaq-C5A049.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu...
>>
>>> I can't address the notion of scale, because I don't know that many of
>>> his larger works. But Erwin Schulhoff was probably the most successful
>>> European at integrating jazz into concert music in the '20s. Not
>>> surprisingly, he was a jazz pianist, and one always feels he is
>>> speaking
>>> the language rather than just putting on a costume (as one senses with
>>> Milhaud for instance).
>> That description "putting on a costume" is very nice - it expresses
>> exactly what I have always felt about Milhaud.
>
>
> But is it really so different from Copland's Four Piano Blues, say?
>
>
--
Charles Camilleri
cultural time, self deception on a grand scale, if that was the case why
dont American composers integrate music from the American Indian?
why do they only feel justified with Jazz ?
--
Charles Camilleri
just speculating here , but i can listen to a Schubert song, or string
quartet, or symphony and feel somehow they belong together. Now what was
the relationhip of song in schuberts day to compostion ?
when i look at my own experience , many serious composers look down on
songwriters of the more comerical kind, is this the difference ? To me
Gershwins songs sound one way , and his orchestral music sound another , i
am not saying there is no relationship , because i am sure there is, but
like the integration of folk music by Copland and Indigenous elements by
other composers, it doesnt sound socially or culturally organic.
--
Charles Camilleri
yep , you beat me to it with the Bartok comparison, but maybe its my
ignorance , but why do so many down play his work with folk music, when
clearly he spent most of his life collecting them, how much time did
Copland spend getting old ladies in shack in some mountain singing what
they thought they remembered of some tune, give me a break lol
--
Melodious Thunk
wrote:
> In article <427a3566$0$15633$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > David Webber wrote:
> > > "Jeffrey Quick" <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:jaq-C5A049.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu...
> > >
> > >>I can't address the notion of scale, because I don't know that
> > >>many of
> > >>his larger works. But Erwin Schulhoff was probably the most
> > >>successful
> > >>European at integrating jazz into concert music in the '20s. Not
> > >>surprisingly, he was a jazz pianist, and one always feels he is
> > >>speaking
> > >>the language rather than just putting on a costume (as one senses
> > >>with
> > >>Milhaud for instance).
> > >
> > > That description "putting on a costume" is very nice - it expresses
> > > exactly what I have always felt about Milhaud.
> >
> > But is it really so different from Copland's Four Piano
> > Blues, say?
>
> Well, it's a good question, since there's no intrinsic reason for a
> Brooklyn Jew to be involved with the blues (or with cowboy or Shaker
> music for that matter). My only defense of Copland vs. Milhaud is that
> Copland is closer to the source than Milhaud; when he puts on blackface,
> his accent is better.
I think that comparison would work better if you were comparing, say, "Scaramouche" to "Danzon
de Cubano" or "El Salon de Mexico." In those cases I'd agree, to some extent, with the "putting
on a costume" description.
The "Four Piano Blues," though, I think is a special case. I don't have any inside knowledge of
why Copland called them "blues," but there are no recognizable blues elements other than a
generally morose undercurrent. If anything, that piece speaks to me of war. I don't recall that
Copland really "puts on blackface" but if so, I don't think it was in the "Four Piano Blues."
<snip>
Melodious Thunk
> i agree with most of that, its self deception to think you can control
> cultural time, self deception on a grand scale, if that was the case why
> dont American composers integrate music from the American Indian?
Some claim to have done so; but there are some problems. For one thing, true NDN music is often
(of the Nations I know) a sacred statement. It would be inappropriate to share with non-NDNs, or
even with other NDNs of different Nations or clans.
For another thing, the U.S. govt. carried out a fairly effective program of genocide on all NDN
Nations for nearly 200 years. The handful who survived that atrocity were punished for being
NDN. The result is that nearly all NDN cultures within the U.S. have been (possibly irreparably)
warped. If you grew up NDN, as I did and my kids do, you would hear in school on a daily basis
statements like "sadly, today there are no Indians left."
Until very recently, the very last thing one would want to do in the U.S. (especially if you're
attempting to participate in an essentially white European idiom such as art music) is admit to
being NDN. (The very few exceptions basically prove the rule.)
> why do they only feel justified with Jazz ?
Well jazz was once an enormously successful popular form. Composers who might not otherwise have
even liked it would've been pushed toward it by publishers and booking agents. As it happened,
during the period 1910 through 1950, many composers liked it, as it was probably the most
exciting thing happening in *any* facet of music at that time.
Melodious Thunk
> Just revisiting this thread, and maybe the comparison with Bartok has
> already been made, but did Copland write anything to compare to the power
> of Concerto for Orchestra ?
I love "Concerto for Orchestra" but I'd have to say that the symphonic version of "Appalachian
Spring" matches up well against it for emotional impact and variety of orchestral timbres.
> to me folk music was essential to Barok's soul, he couldnt breath without
> it, musically speaking. Copland was just superfically experimenting , he
> may have been skilled and i am not taking anything away from him, but his
> America doesnt convince me, Duke Elligntons America does
Ellington is just fantastic but all of his music is more intimate than Copland's orchestral work.
Of course there's nothing wrong with intimacy. Bartok, Copland, and Ellington are among my
favorite inspirations (along with many, many others) and I'm please not to try and order them.
To the original poster, good luck finding *anything* to be especially proud of nowadays but you
shouldn't let a search for the "best" U.S. composer be your inspiration; we've churned out quite
a few fine ones. (If you're still looking for a source of pride, consider that it was the
federal govt. who *finally*, under Janet Reno, agreed to return little Elian Gonzales to his
father in Cuba, all those years ago. Be proud of that!)
Charles Camilleri
this area interests me a lot, because i try to make corelations with
Australia's indigenous, anyway you hit it, didnt you, the authentic stuff
got killed, and what was left ? for the most part in my view bad
imitation, just like in Australia, but origins have a strong pull on our
psyche and self deception is not foregin to us either, would love to
explore this more, but i have to go
On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:33 +1000, Melodious Thunk <rep...@website.com>
wrote:
--
David Webber
> I think you missed the point. If I understood him correctly,
> David Weber
> seems to have written that Gershwin was as comfortable as a
> classical
> composer as he was a songwriter.
I did, and for me Rhapsody in Blue, American in Paris, Porgy and
Bess prove it.
> He said the same of Cole Porter.
I did not. I said he chose to become a songwriter.
> Also, I don't want to argue semantics, but I don't consider I Got
> Rhythm a
> composition. I consider it a song. And I consider the process of
> writing I
> Got Rhythm songwriting, not composition.
Schubert wrote songs too.
There are really no sematics to argue - musical composition is
musical composition, and if Gershwin did anything, he completely
removed the boundaries that you seem so keen to reinstate. The
"my genre is better than your genre" argument (even paraphrased as
"this is composition; that is song writing") died completely, many
years ago.
David Webber
> Speaking of odd statements:
>
> David Webber wrote on 5/5/05 11:51 AM:
>
>> Gershwin OTOH is different - he was as at home being a popular
>> songwright as much as a "classical" composer, and while he wasn't
>> a
>> "jazz composer" in the sense of (say) Jelly Roll Morton, his
>> songs
>> had all the elements in them which lent themselves to a jazz
>> treatment.
>
> He was not at all at home being any kind of composer. That's what
> lead him
> to contact Boulnager, Stravinsky, and others for "lessons." He
> felt his
> musical experience and background was too limited to compose
> serious concert
> works.
I am afraid I simply regard that as a confirmation that he was a
great composer. Everyone who is any good has to be extremely
self-critical to become good, and who to look to to become better.
> He was confident in his ability as a songwriter, and his piano
> improvisations were legendary. His piano music was also
> excellent, but he
> assigned the task of orchestrating his work (Rhapsody in Blue,
> Piano
> Concerto, and his musicals) to others.
I know the histopry of Rhapsody in Blue.
> Cole Porter took piano lessons as a child, studied as an
> undergraduate at
> Yale, and for a short while at Harvard Law School.
>
> He had no formal music education. You make it sound like he could
> have done
> either, and that's not the case.
Well he chose to become a song-writer after the ballet - he did not
choose to go in the other direction. To say that he "couldn't have"
is simply an unsupported, untestable statement.
> He had no aspirations to be a classical composer. He was
> interested in
> writing musicals. Period.
That's what I said - that is the direction he chose to go in.
> You seem to think that Gershwin and Porter could have been
> either/or, and
> they chose to be songwriters. This is not the case at all.
You cannot know that. And in fact Gershwin *was* both.
Matthew Fields
>cultural time, self deception on a grand scale, if that was the case why
>dont American composers integrate music from the American Indian?
They do.
What makes you say they don't?
>why do they only feel justified with Jazz ?
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'm an American composer,
and I have never engaged in Jazz nor alluded to Jazz in my music.
I have alluded to Klezmer in my music, but not Jazz.
Matthew Fields
You might want to explain all this to Erik Santos. And you might want
to explain the white European idiom part to Olly Wilson, George Walker,
etc., etc., etc.
Samuel Vriezen
> speaking of which did Stravinski understand Jazz ? i rest my case he
> didnt have a clue about Jazz time
If he had a clue, he would never have let onto it. This is
Stravinsky you're talking about: a composer who took all the
music he could find and turned it into Stravinsky. He
wouldn't have been interested in writing 'jazz' at all - or
perhaps, he would write "jazz" rather than jazz.
Melodious Thunk
I'd like to hear more of Santos' work. You're implying, though, that he writes art music with
NDN influences. I don't see evidence of this, but I haven't seen much of his work. If you're
trying to tell me he's NDN, why don't you forward him a copy of my post? See what he says.
I'd be more interested in your opinion. Do you think Tiompkin was relaying authentic NDN musical
concepts in his film scores?
I guess you're taking offense at my opinion that art music is an essentially white European
idiom. Sorry if you're offended, but I'll stand by my words and especially the way I chose to
phrase it. Nowadays the idiom is being stretched; but when I'm working in standard forms with
standard instrumentation, I am participating in a tradition that comes to me from European
roots. Now I don't have *anything* good to say about the influence of Europeans on North
America, except that I kinda like the music. ;-)
I don't know about Wilson, but Paris-trained Walker would likely agree with my characterization.