There are many interesting factors for discussion here, but it might be worth noting in their context that Ian himself has, for example, written of Brian Ferneyhough as having learnt German as part of a statement (to himself, one may suppose) of intent to reject vital aspects of the background and geographical area in which he was raised; now whether and/or to what extent Ferneyhough himself would endorse this would be up to him, of course (not that I am doubting what Ian says here) and he is not a member of this forum as far as I know. What I am saying here is that any thorough consideration of the impact on his/her music of any individual composer's emotional, psychological, social or (dare I even think, let alone say, such a thing?!) political upbringing must of necessity take on board the extent to which any aspects of such things may consciously or subconsciously have been rejected by the composer in the way that Ian writes of in Ferneyhough's case.

In any case, I imagine that it might be very difficult to draw hard-and-fast incontrovertible conclusions from any such considerations.

Best,

Alistair

I think it would very much depend on the composer

What if, owing to social circumstances they do not have access to certain things, or are swept up in nationalistic movements as opposed to being inducted into the traditions of a religious organisation?  Admittedly all such effects are, in "absolute" music anyway, almost entirely mediated by musical traditions (Grainger, being a nationalist, wrote music that was influenced by folk styles and the styles of other composers who researched folk-music) or a composer's emotional state (say the  music is very sorrowful "because" the composer's honey just left them   ), but still. 

It would be hard to consider Shostakovich's music without considering the political climate at the time, or to view romantic program music without knowing something of romantic humanism.  And it would be rather unjust to consider a lot of folk songs without thinking of their sources, especially ones that contain explicit social commentary.

So you can't say anything with quite the same certainty, but they are worth bearing in mind.


EEEK )).  Phew.  Yes, such things are even weirder to establish than usual in his case.  But, once again, it's worth trying to keep all these forces in mind when listening to his more political music I think.


No; it is much easier to do a nice bit of old-fashioned harmonic/melodic/structural analysis, but they are certainly worth bearing in mind.


He said it was a subjective view.  But yes, I don't fully see where he's coming from myself; except that maybe, it was so different in conception from traditions of the time to put Wagnerites on a more or less similar footing to the musically uneducated and inexperienced.


I take it that you mean the extend of codification.  I don't think it can be pulled too far myself, but yes, what I said above.  Even Ian, I think, mentioned something about music's seeming irreducibility in the face of such approaches earlier on, so.

The composer's approach to harmony/melody/structure/rhythm/etc. themselves relate to certain traditions which developed under certain social circumstances (and not totally autonomous from such things, I believe, either). One can look at different vocal styles that were developed in the context of different types of church music, for example, and how those different churches permitted/encouraged/disdained certain approaches based on how they perceived them to relate to the theological ends they had in mind (and the social demand of communicating certain things to congregations), then how some of those styles were abstracted into secular developments. Which is not, by any means, to say that all that composers of sacred music did was simply to satisfy what the religious authorities demanded of them - some (for example in the pre-Palestrina Renaissance) attempted to develop some of the more immanent possibilities in the art relatively independently of the religious social function for which their music was being employed - but that nor could their work be entirely independent of such things. And the traces of such things affect the musical languages that later composers inherit and develop further.

I don't really understand what you mean by that last sentence? As far as later Schönberg is concerned, he was explicit in his politics at least in a few essays, describing himself in 1950 as 'at least as conservative as Edison and Ford have been' - which is incredible, bearing in mind Henry Ford's advocacy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was heavily reported (and opposed) in the US when Schönberg was living there. But conservative ideologies are riddled with contradictions - more so than liberal ones, I would say - and Schönberg's continued adherence to ideals of subjective autonomy and refusal to judge his and others' works in terms of market utility alone doesn't sit easily with the type of economics that are intrinsic to the conservative view. It is because of such contradictions (believing in the values of advanced culture even if it fails to convince a wider public, whilst also advocating the type of economics that make such culture possible) that Schönberg's outlook made more likely a type of music that did more than simply slot comfortably into the allocated place for music in capitalist society than, say, composers nominally on the left that produced more populist work which succeeds mostly in providing entertainment and distraction. Left-wing populism is equally ridden with contradictions as right-wing conservatism - overall, I believe the latter rather than the former is more likely to produce what I'll call 'critical' work (this conclusion is in part influenced by the arguments of György Lukács on literature - he believed that conservative novelists tended to articulate the contradictions in capitalist society much better than their left-wing counterparts, who tended towards crude propagandistic interpretations).

If I didn't believe in some degree of autonomy/irreducibility, I certainly wouldn't pursue music as a profession. Postmodernists tend towards a wholly reductive view, whereby all music or culture in general expresses little more than one's group identity - an argument that (like most postmodernist arguments) falls rather apart when it's redirected towards its own proponents, generally of the white middle classes. Composers do maintain some degree of freedom, I believe, but that isn't achieved easily. The parallel I would draw here is with improvisation, actually: most improvisers know (I think), that to be able to achieve genuine spontaneity in performance, rather than simply reiterating unconsciously absorbed clichés, takes a fair degree of self-critical reflexion in the process of developing one's art. I might question whether even the best improvisers really achieve such spontaneity completely - whether anyone can really be completely 'self-knowing' (I can elaborate on what I mean by this if anyone wants) when they still have to operate in society somehow in order to survive - but there are certain differences of degree in this respect. And the same is true for composition. Some composers write relatively derivative work when younger, without necessarily realising they are doing so, and develop a degree of individuality through a similar type of self-criticism. But this might be taken a lot further: one could ask the basic question of why one is composing in some sort of 'classical' idiom, rather than writing popular music, for example? I wonder if all composers involved with the production of the former have really asked that question, or whether it has simply been a default option? If one were an Afro-Caribbean, say, I doubt such a compositional path would have been so supposedly self-evident. Just because some things have not arisen as the result of self-questioning doesn't make them any the less ideological (indeed the reserve may be the case).

Fair comment, for the most part. The only remarks I would make here are that (a) you are not, as far as I know, a "regular composer" and (b) you do not make it clear in the specific context of your post here which "people belonging to the more privileged groups in society" who "claim to speak for some universal consciousness" you refer to here.

Well, almost no composer writes 'in a vacuum', I believe, most build upon the achievements of others, and as such locate themselves within a certain 'tradition' (which doesn't have to be a slavish relationship). That is equally true in non-'classical' musical genres. But those traditions were formed in response to particular sets of social circumstances that permitted their development - through the church, the courts, particular sub-sections of the marketplace, and so on. And, whatever Alistair might tell you, none of these environments gave the musicians in question total freedom to write whatever they want, if they wanted their work to be played/want to be able to play their work. Every such environment elevates some musicians more than others - and that's an inevitable state of affairs in any set of social circumstances, I believe (it would be impossible to play everything/everybody). Some would try and get round this question by saying all that really matters is 'quality' rather than 'style', but (a) I don't really believe the two things are easily separable and (b) that would assume an entirely neutral mode of objective judgement which I would be surprised if were ever achieved. So the question that some cultural historians ask is the basis upon which some music was favoured, and other music not - in particular looking at how this might relate to the (sometimes explicitly articulated) aesthetic wishes of those in charge of such organisations. Of course musicians might proceed entirely independently of any concern about career, public performances, etc., and more recent histories might privilege some of them more than some of their more successful counterparts: without quite going to such extremes, one might look at the comparative valorisation today of Schumann's extended piano cycles, thought to be obscure and impenetrable when they were written (causing his publishers grief, and leading to Clara Schumann urging him to write more simple and easily understood works so as to be more financially successful - Schumann never really earned a proper living until the beginning of the 1850s, well into the last decade of his life) and Meyerbeer's operas, which were massive successes all over Europe, packing out opera houses with the newly self-confident European bourgeoisie. But then one might ask on which basis contemporary canonisation is founded - that form of valorisation which is enshrined in subsidised music institutions, education and so on - and whether it is any less artificial (or any the less a reflection of the wishes of very particular groups in society) than was the case in earlier eras? I realise this is digressing a bit, but it seems very relevant to the broader debate in this thread.
[/quote]
Good points about Schumann, Ian (and no shortage of other good points either) and thank you for them - but "Alistair" didn't "tell you" what you seem to think that he did - well, not this Alistair, anyway...

I don't know, nor do I claim to know, in this specific instance. My points here are not just about Shostakovich (apart from the fact that his spectre has been raised here) but about the fact that, whatever any of us may choose to think, surmise or speculate upon, none of us can realistically and unequivocally pinpoint what it is about individual aspects of Shostakovich's musical language that identify his work with particular aspects of the environment in which he was raised and in which he functioned - that is not to say that none of these considerations had any effect on his musical creativity, of course, but to observe that we simply cannot tabulate the specific bits and pieces that supposedly link this aspect of his background with this, that or the other chord progression, phrase shape, etc. in any of his music.

In my 'umble opinion, that is...

Best,

Alistair

Interesting thought - but then unless we all knew and understood beyond reasonable (and even perhaps unreasonable) doubt the possible multiplicity of Shostakovichian subtexts behind that, what can we say? beyond the obvious fact that DDS was at the same time both well up to scratch in what was going on and well versed in musical cryptography and other potentially subversive activities that one can almost cherry-pick one's view/s thereon if one so desired; the example of its utterly magnificent symphonic predecessor would surely only risk serving to muddy the waters here, thinkst thou not?...

Best,

Alistair

I would prefer to ask that highly pertinent question from the opposite viewpoint...  why the "West" ignored, and continues to ignore, the work of composers who did not actively make a shibboleth of their anti-soviet views (or anti-Putin views now)?  Russians these days are surprised to hear that apparently there is a Russian composer Gubaidulina, whose work is almost never heard in Russia.  Yet she is - apparently - the "leading Russian composer of our times".  However, Desyatnikov - who achieved the rare distinction of getting a commission from the Bol'shoi for ROSENTHAL'S CHILDREN - remains mostly unknown outside Russia.  One might think that having one's work played at the Bol'shoi might be some kind of litmus test indicating that perhaps it isn't entirely a waste of 2.5 hours?  (But no, he will already have been tarred with the "Kremlin stooge" brush that lies so conveniently to hand - despite the performances of the opera being picketed by the pro-Kremlin youth thug group "Nashi", a group who also picketed my own production of "Der Kaiser Von Atlantis", so I know them quite well).

The Bol'shoi have been trying to tour ROSENTHAL'S CHILDREN abroad since its premiere 2.5 years ago,  but no-one wants it.  London and New York rejected it outright,  on the basis of Desyatnikov's name alone (they didn't even hear the score).  Bolshoi choreographer-in-chief Alexei Ratmansky was commissioned for a ballet for the Met, and wanted Desyatnikov to do the score - once again, no dice.   The strange thing here is that ROSENTHAL'S CHILDREN is based on a novel which suggests that soviet-era leaders were cloning offspring and having them cryogenically frozen for "future use" - hardly the kind of thing which reflects any great glory on the soviet past?

So I would suggest that the phenomenon Ian identifies from the soviet era continues today - it's only fashionable in the West to admire the composers who are offside with the Kremlin.  Meanwhile, we continue to promote Efrem Podgaits, Elena Aghbalyants, Irina Belova, Mikhail Bronner, Rim Khasanov...   unappreciated in their own country, unwanted anywhere else. (We did manage to work Podgaits's "Triptych In Memoriam DSCH" into a Shostakovich gala we played in Paris last year - that failed to get to London because of restrictions on instruments on planes, a story covered on TOP last year).   We are hoping to get a premiere for Khasanov's BODENSEE in 2009,  which I am staging along with choreographer Rodion Kotin.  [ It's a cross-genre piece - a kind of danced cantata? - about the mid-air collision of a charter flight from Ufa with a courier aircraft, over the Bodensee Lake.  Despite the possible accusations of "ambulance-chasing", it is in fact a philosophical work filled with hope. Libretto by the composer, who is himself from Ufa. ]