Poivrade; I listened to his quintet again over the weekend, and I have to say I'm not sure where you're coming from (also listened to the Viola concerto, but I'm not on close terms with that yet, so don't know either way).  HMMM.

I didn't mean this in the flippant way you seem to think, I can assure you-but the suffering of a nation by no means gives its most prominent composer the unquestioned status of genius. Indeed one can argue that he was a product of the system rather than part of the resistance.

Lately I have listened again to quite of bit of Schnittke, after having taken a long break from the composer’s music – at some point at the time when avantgarde (Stockhausen, Boulez, Xenakis, Ligeti, Mawell-Davies, Rihm etc.) was new to me, I found him too conservative. Here are a few of my impressions:

String Trio (1985):
Previously I had found to be one of the weaker works – yet I had heard it in the car on Harvard radio the other day (I live in the Boston area), and I was surprised how striking on that occasional listening the textures really were, and then I decided to put on the CD at home. Already the first few bars feature breathtaking harmonies. Whenever the music threatens to die down, the composer consistently comes up with solutions as what to do next that are unusually elegant and imaginative. Very solid and varied thematic development; I have always found this a strong point with this composer. Now I find the string trio compelling music.

Historia von D. Johann Fausten (1991/94):
This opera shows Schnittke’s effortless prowess with vocal expression. Vocal writing tends to be one of the more problematic, weaker points of avantgarde composition, where it often leans toward strain and/or boring one-dimensionality and indistinctiveness. Some composers are notable exceptions, such as Stockhausen and Rihm, whose vocal writing actually tends to be among the strongest aspects of their compositional output. Yet Schnittke’s vocal writing is strong as well. It switches naturally between atonality and tonality, and his “polystilism” in that respect is so unforced and unobtrusive that at least I only notice it when consciously reflecting upon the music. There are, of course, the exceptions where stylistic references are all too (intentionally) obvious.

Cello Concerto # 2 (1990):
This had always been one of my favorites, and did not disappoint me this time either. That opening theme of 12 notes has always struck me as particularly visceral, and I find very successful how the composer treats it in the first movement and has it come back at select places in the second one. The switch from motivic to mainly, rather nervous, gestural language in the second mvmt. is also satisfying and exciting. The ensuing slow movement features beautiful invention. The fourth movement opens in a thrilling manner when the theme bounces from one orchestral group to another, and the final movement, that slow passacaglia, is simply unbelievable in its beauty and complex treatment of the theme and deviating gestures. Like the CD booklet (Rostropovich, Ozawa, London Symphony on Sony) puts it well about the recitative of the cello: “at times it progresses thematically, at times it only reacts spontaneously”. The constant switching between these options is well judged and makes for a gripping listening experience. There are breathtaking timbral textures in this concerto that would do any avantgarde composer proud.

Viola concerto (1985):
Also here striking timbres are found, and the way musical tension is built is exciting. Thematic treatment is very inventive. Unlike the less polystilistic above works, this music makes obvious references to nostalgic and kitschy realms, but in my view in a brilliant manner. Certainly the “devil’s dance” at the end of the second movement is over the top, but how good that sounds and how well the build-up to this passage is done! It is this concerto that in particular seems to have drawn the wrath of Poivrade:


Asked what music specifically he means, Poivrade answers:

Like other posters on this thread, I don’t really understand where Poivrade is coming from. Music that “seeks to manipulate an audience’s response”? You certainly don’t mean that good old Bach did not want to “manipulate” the audience’s response with the joyousness of the Gloria from the Mass in B Minor? And, does not any music seek to “manipulate an audience’s response” when it asks “please listen!”?

Going down that argumentative road is a dangerous and slippery undertaking.


Also this is dangerous and slippery argumentation. What exactly is “inner senses of necessity, or simply convictions in terms of the immanent demands of the piece”?

Is this not “inner necessity” when the composer seeks expression? Schnittke says: “Like a premonition of what was to come, the music took on the character of a restless chase through life (in the second movement) and that of slow and sad overview of life on the threshold of death (in the third movement).” (Schnittke would suffer a heart attack a few days after completing the work.)

I certainly would not assume that you would want to accuse the composer of insincerity.

Also, as far as “immanent demands of the piece” go, what always has drawn me to Schnittke’s music is that, next to the “romantic expression”, his music always works convincingly on the level of “absolute” music. The expressive tension is always founded on a compelling musical tension, and the musical narrative is practically always coherent.

When I was introduced to the avantgarde in 1999 I basically forgot to listen to Schnittke. Now I realize that I was foolish to do so; in fact I find him still, or again, one of the best composers of the last 50 years, and I also find that I was not at all wrong to have been so immersed in his music from 1990-1999: his music is as good as to deserve it. 

Seconded. Thank you, Al. I only 'know' a handful of Schnittke's works (Viola Concerto, Concerto Grosso No 1, Symphony No 6, Trio Sonata) and have also heard 'Life with an Idiot' (once) though I must confess that the latter left me bemused. Your post has made me want to explore more. Thank you for reassuring me that is is 'all right' to find Schnittke admirable and interesting

I also, FWIW, agree with the general points you make about expressivity and achieving an audience's emotional response on the one hand and insincerity on the other. Well put, sir! 

Here are some impressions of Schnittke's 6th symphony (1992).

Even though there is masterful polyphonic writing as well (as can be expected from Schnittke), most of the time the music is homophonic or quasi-homophonic, especially in the slow first and third movements. Each of the three basic orchestral groups of brass, woodwinds and strings plays almost all the time isolated from the other groups (the faster movements seem a bit more communicative between the orchestral groups, or at least they alternate more quickly). A given musical gesture in the brass may thus, for example, be answered by another gesture exclusively played in the strings which in turn is answered by another one exclusively played in the woodwinds etc. Often, however, gestures are answered within the instrument group itself.
 
The musical gestures are often sparse and there are frequent small pauses or onsets of new breath in the musical accentuation. Add to this the often homophonic writing with mostly no accompaniment of gestures and the playing of the orchestral groups apart from each other, and the result is that individual gestures are very isolated. In this manner each one of them acquires a searing intensity that might be possible to a lesser extent in a denser score. Schnittke here makes a powerful and convincing argument for the motto "less is more" (even though by no account I would want to miss the density of other - including Schnittke's - modern scores).

To give a brief idea of the moods and character of gestures of the work with a few examples: the first, slow, movement starts with a succession of fragmentary motifs, most or all of which turn out to be part of an extended marcia funebre theme when they finally gel together into the full presentation of this theme at about 3 and a half minutes into the music. After a while the music splinters from there once more into isolated gestures. The third, also slow, movement presents its theme right at the beginning in the strings, a zigzag ascending line (in fact, a twelve-tone row). When a short time later the strings return, they present the ascending line with longer note durations, and broken by pauses. It is amazing how beautiful and full of tension such a simple device sounds coming from this composer’s hands. About 2 and a half minutes into the fourth movement, which like the second one is faster, a deceptively relaxed melody appears in woodwinds and lower registered strings, which finally is cut off by an acerbic gesture in violins. After these have thus been established as the disturbing factor, the same melody appears menacing when subsequently it is played by them.

The intensity of the gestures is enhanced by the impression of granitic rightness with which contrasting gestures succeed each other. The harmonic language of the symphony is powerful and the harmonic accents of each individual gesture are beautifully and tightly controlled, which adds to the impact.
 
The music sounds cutting-egde modern, clearly more modern than some recent scores by established "modernists".

I don't think I do feel that way though I suspect we are largely differing here, if at all, about which labels to apply to what, rather than about substance.

I certainly believe there is a difference between music which is manipulative propaganda and music which is not  -  or at least there is some sort of spectrum stretching from one to the other. I too like to think I can spot which is which though I wouldn't take my own internal propaganda-meter as particularly reliable. (I find a lot of Strauss's music 'manipulative', for example, and don't care for it much for that reason. But I suspect I'm wrong )

What I was agreeing with (I think!) was Al's objection to equating "intended to elicit an emotional response" with manipulation or propaganda in this derogatory sense. As far as I can see, "eliciting an emotional response" is what successful expression and communication does. Manipulation and propaganda is a dodgy subset of that  -  but not to be equated with the whole thing.
 

OK, sorry, I misunderstood your sentiments. I suppose I differ over the implications of the words 'intended' and 'an'! Music I value presents an emotional experience, one very important to its creator, and invites listeners to share in or engage with that experience in their own way, rather than so much setting out to produce specific responses in listeners. I might be tempted to say 'who can second-guess an audience's responses', but I do think that is possible to do if the music uses cruder means. Rather than intending to elicit an emotional response, I'd say that the best music offers the possibility for listeners to respond to it with a wide range of individual emotions, often very different depending on the particular listener. However, for music to 'sell' better, it's safer to try and make such responses rather more unequivocal.

[If anyone else thinks this subject is interesting - one can look at how music is used to manipulate shoppers' responses all of the time, for example - would they like to start a different thread on it, so people here can stick to Schnittke?]

Well, why that is (at least in terms of degree, in certain pieces - I don't wish to make any blanket condemnation of Wagner, just to suggest that his music exhibits these qualities more than that of some others) is reasonably clear to me, and has a lot to do with compositional strategies, but that's a big subject, if I was to elaborate in detail, which really requires its own thread.

It's obviously not something that can be gainsayed for sure, short of having privileged access to the inside of Wagner's brain, but it's something I sense very strongly (just like one senses when someone is lying, for example, though making a straight parallel in this way can be dodgy). It doesn't seem that unclear to me that Wagner was attempting to produce a relatively unambiguous specific effect for a mass audience, in a way I doubt could be plausibly said of Brahms (save for a few pieces like the Triumphlied). But in the end, this is a quality of the compositional subject as perceived through the music, rather than necessarily the actual individual subject who composed it. The two things are not necessarily identical.

Well, I don't hear it that way - for all it inhabits a general musical/expressive space that is relatively clear, the music maintains its own inner logic and development, rather than simply 'filling in' and bolstering a generalised effect. It is certainly joyous music, but done in an extremely personal way. Is the question of why the notes are the way they are, relative to the grand scheme, really unambiguous? I don't think so at all, there is a mystery about the music - the mystery of human personality (as transformed into a compositional subject), rather than any sort of affected mysticism. It's when the compositional subject is considerably less complex than an actual human subject that there are problems, arguably.

Well, I have no problem with letting off the hook a composer who intends to be manipulative but does not succeed, for reasons given above - the compositional subject (the subject made manifest through the work) matters more than the actual person who wrote it. Schoenberg had ideas about renewing and reinvigorating tradition, but in the process of so doing developed further the very internal ruptures within that tradition, arguably producing a result that differed from his initial intentions - but I don't believe his work is any the lesser as a result (quite the contrary).

(this is one reason why I am sceptical about certain attempts to reduce music solely to an expression of autobiography)