By the way, Ollie, am I to take it that when a load of text appears purporting to explain Sorabji's music in terms of its use of 'Eastern elements' (and that sort of stuff you can find so unthinkingly in many forms of discourse about music), you think that all the ideological assumptions entailed in such a construction of 'the East' shouldn't be considered critically, so as not to rock the apple-cart?

Richard - one of the most admirably diplomatic posts I have seen.

BTW, I shall respond later to your comment about my rather flippant post the other day. I do agree with you, with certain provisos (but I am not a composer so am looking from the outside in!) - I think there had been an element of frustration in my thoughts which then informed my content... 

The sentiments from both Richard and Ollie would carry rather more weight if they actually did introduce some distinct contexts and ideologies of their own, rather than just the tired old formalist assumptions. Hmmm, Ollie, so such ideological issues as gender, ethnicity, orientalism, fascism and so on are just 'a couple of favourite hobby-horses'? Gender, in particular, is something only important to a few oddbods and New Musicologists? Orientalism is dominant in this thread, but there is a reason for that (hint - it's in the title).

Consensus might be comforting; that does not mean that areas where there are sharp divergences of opinion should be excluded. There are highly developed views on Shostakovich which would be radically at odds with any of those in that thread; simply advocates of such perspectives do not seem to be present at this messageboard. And I do believe the debate is somewhat one-sided as a result. It is of course far easier to have the sort of debate you prefer in the company of others who share the same basic assumptions.

I'm not actually all that interested in 'carrying weight'. Sorry if that's a disappointment but locking antlers with you or anyone else isn't high on my list of priorities.

I don't know whether you've noticed how often you find yourself writing something to the effect of 'I'm amazed no one else considers this to be an important issue'. That should be enough to tell you that what you want to talk about here isn't necessarily what everyone else here wants to talk about. Insisting on talking about it regardless is simply antisocial.

And once again, just because I don't want to talk about something here doesn't mean I don't think it's important. Conversely just because I do talk about something here doesn't mean I think it is. That should be obvious. On the other hand so should many other things which seem to be taking a while to sink in.

Whatever. As Alistair says, back to the topic.

Certainly this thread is specifically about Orientalism (the wider comments related to such subjects being raised in general, not just in this thread). Orientalism does itself frequently have a fair amount to do with gender and ethnicity, though.


On the contrary, the wish to present music as if it were divorced from any wider meanings is what really muddies the waters.


Certainly


Which I hope you know, from my various posts, is not my approach or intention. But to divorce these things entirely from consideration of the creation and performance of music is no better.


Well, I recall an earlier post in this thread that suggested that 'the St Matthew Passion is pretty incomprehensible unless you have some idea of 18th century Lutheran Christianity'; your response to the paragraph of which that formed a part was 'Agreed in all particulars'. I don't actually believe the work is incomprehensible without such, nor that (say) Mozart Die Entfuhrung is incomprehensible without some knowledge of attitudes towards the Ottoman Empire that were prominent in the area ruled by the Hapsburg monarchy in the late 18th century, nor that Borodin's In The Steppes of Central Asia is incomprehensible without some knowledge of common perceptions in Russia in the late 19th century with regard to the people's of Central Asia; though in each case I think such knowledge can enhance one's wider understanding of the works. The conclusion you suggest above seems diametrically at cross-purposes with the sentiments you agreed with earlier. If you are making the argument that one needs to understand Lutheran doctrine to understand the work, but through that knowledge it is possible to see its contemporary relevance (which would be a Benjamin-like argument), I can certainly accept that. But if that is the case, I do not see why the similar conclusions are not equally true of the other examples (and many more) that I give. I do believe that some knowledge of the ideals, assumptions and ideologies of late 19th/early 20th century aestheticism are important for a wider understanding of some of the music of that period. And that the ideologies that the post-1848 Wagner subscribed to are pretty fundamental to comprehending the type of world-view presented in Die Meistersinger, The Ring or Parsifal. There is of course much room for debate on the ways in which Wagner's ideas are manifested in the works, and the degree to which such manifestations concur with his wider views.


What do you mean by 'specifically musical' (and that's not merely a belligerent question, I believe the whole concept is a form of mystification)?


A huge amount of music purports to represent peoples and cultures of various ethnicities. The constructions thus entailed already bring ethnicity into the centre of things.


Which thread are you referring to?


I know that was Sorabji's view, but it is an extremely dangerous one. Fascism means something very real and very concrete, and continues to do so today. To call members of the contemporary far right 'fascists' is not just a purely arbitrary label that has no meaning other than to a particular individual; it refers to the extent to which their ideologies and programmes concur with the history of fascism.


Sure.

I wonder if, were we talking about white music and culture in South Africa during the apartheid era, and no-one wanted to talk about whether the nature of that society might be at all related to the music, and someone insisted that the subject remained important, whether you would call that 'antisocial'? If so, I'm sure you would have found plenty of support from white beneficiaries of that regime.

It's not altogether surprising to me that many people don't want to talk about such issues as the fact that the social groups (in terms of class, gender, ethnicity, etc.) from which classical music has primarily been produced and consumed are indeed extremely narrow. It's one of those facts that's rather more convenient to ignore. Does such a fact have no impact whatsoever on the actual music? I'd be very surprised if that were the case, though would be interested if anyone could come up with a convincing argument for it.

When the importance of preserving certain attributes of a radio station which is devoted to a music of such a type is continually advocated, on this messageboard and the others, against some of the powers that be who themselves invoke arguments of widening the social basis of the potential listeners, this issues seem as relevant as ever.

Yes, of course, but what about the specific thread topic? (to which I was referring in my comment) - what does "Orientalism in music (my italics)" have to do with these things?

I am not saying that all music is or should be "divorced from any wider meanings" but it is surely obvious that, whilst some music deliberately and consciously associates with other non-musical trains of thought, other music either does not do so or (more properly, perhaps), does not seek to do so, or do so overtly, deliberately, consciously; obviously, almost any music that sets words or claims in some way to depict or otherwise respond to some non-musical thing/s is less able to be so "divorced" than that which doesn't.

See above.

I should indeed have been more clear, careful and specific in my response to that (which was, I believe, from Richard) by separating off this remark from those others with which i agreed unreservedly; what I should have said was that, whilst a greater understanding of its contemporary contextual relevance and significance will be inevitable if one does have some idea of 18th century Lutheran Christianity", the work has proved to have had a much more far-reaching significance and can be (and is) appreciated not only by modern Christians of quite different persuasions and by atheists and the rest. Sorry for my lack of precision here.

Yes, I think that there undoubtedly is! - far more lebensraum, indeed, than can be accommodated by this forum, that's for sure! These works are, however, music-dramas, with words (again, see above), although again, so is Tristan und Isolde, yet neither the "world-view" of which you write nor Wagner's subsctiption thereto is clear in this, possibly the composer's greatest work...

What I refer to here is what I see as the flawed and misleading principle of trying to shoehorn all kinds of music into these "wider contexts" when discussion of all of those wider contexts admits only of verbal expression; I suppose that what I'm really getting at is the notion that music can be used for expressive purposes for which no words or other means of expression will do.

Yes, of course it does - some of it genuinely and some of it spuriously and speciously, as indeed any sensible and thoughtful discussion of this topic is bound to reveal - but what concerns me is that it is simply untenable to seek to discuss the subject as though the discoveries of, say Kodály and Bartók (both in their own right and when transliterated into their stage and concert works) somehow "bring ethnicity into the centre of things" in the same ways and to the same extent that Brahms's Sextet in G or Schönberg's Erwartung do.

Sorry - I can't remember now! Basically, what I wrote there (wherever it may be) was that if one attended, on an "innocent ear" basis, a performance of quartets by Bacewicz, Seeger and Maconchy one would not know from the music alone that one would be listening to the quartets of women any more than if the quartet played Tchaikovsky, Britten and Szymanowski works one would realise that one was listening to works by homosexuals.

The very fact that you immediately swing into attack only on the fascists of the "contemporary far right" in your response illustrates perfectly Sorabji's point - with which I concur; neither he nor I maintain that there is no such thing as fascism - that would be patently absurd - but it is plainly obvious that what is referred to here by "fascism" embraces the totalitarian forcing of ideas and ideologies down the throats of all, regardless of the desires or thoughts of the recipients. I'm sure that you can understand and accept that, Il Pace!...

Best,

Alistair