Of course all writing about music will inevitably bring comparisons, influences and the rest into the arena but, as I have indicated previously (or at least tried to), the whole thing is a matter of proportion; when the labelling / categorisation / classification / pigeon-holing gets to the point at which some people assume it to have taken on an importance almost as great as that of the music itself and who then find it harder to listen to that music with open ears untainted by received musicological opinion,
Could you give some specific examples of this? And is the situation any different when musicologists identify, say, a rococo period between the Baroque and Classical eras?
I was writing in general terms here. The difference, to my mind, is in the infinitely greater diversity within what is termed "modernism" and the fact that "modernism" as it is generally understood by those who use the term has existed concurrently with other utterly different persusaions.
there is, to my mind, the grave risk of a fundamental problem; to say so is not to dismiss, as such, the works of conscientious and imaginative musicologists but simply to illustrate just one example of the old cliché that would have us believe that, at least in some cases (perhaps many, indeed), writing about music is like dancing about architecture.
Errr - I think that's a rather unfortunate analogy for anyone who posts many words on here or elsewhere to make
Sorry. I stand (or rather sit) upbraided. I must control my word count in future. That said, when I do post here or elsewhere, I do not seek to put forth high-minded academic conclusions in the kind of superior holier-than-thou manner typical of certain breeds of musicologist that think they know better than anyone how and why composers do what they do and the contexts in which they do it, so I think your "analogy" doesn't really hold water, actually.
Now to your next questions. To the one where you ask if I believe that influences from various older musical traditions on Carter's work are irrelevant, you indicate by your statement "I would imagine not (but correct me if I'm wrong)" that you already know my answer! To the next one where you wonder why the question of Carter's relationship to (influenced by and maybe influencing) aspects of a modernist tradition is not equally a legitimate concern, I would say that my view of this is inevitably compromised by my take on the extent to which the very notion of "modernism", especially as a phenomenon with which Carter might be thought to have some kind of relationship; my lack of belief in the very notion of "modernism" is what incites my serious doubts about such things.
Yes, I'm aware of that, and completely and utterly disagree. I find that sort of categorisation, denying the possibility of distinct twentieth-century sensibilities, just as bad as those you criticise.
You don't make it sufficiently clear what it is that you're "aware" of here, so I'd have to assume the necessity to agree to disagree with you even though I'm not certain of what it is that seems to prompt that necessity. Nothing I wrote can be taken either as "denying the possibility of distinct twentieth-century sensibilities" (indeed, I'd thought I was illustrating an example of the very opposite of this!) or as seeking to "categorise" Carter along with certin other composers whose manner and methods are analogous to his own (whoever, if any, they may be).
Carter has gone his way, slowly and with courage; some of his music may, to some ears, share with some other composers' music that is more commonly labelled "modernist"
Who do you think the latter are?
I don't, personally, but then I was not referring to my own when using the phrase "some ears". If obliged to hazard a guess on behalf of those with "some ears", however, I'd probably have to resort to certain names on the list of "modernists" that you yourself posted here recently, for what that would be worth, albeit of necessity strictly in the context of assuming the opinions of others rather than illustrating my own.
a challenging and to some degree uncompromising quality, but I just cannot find a way to shoehorn Carter's music into some kind of "modernist" club
I don't know who is doing that,
Those who create lists of "modernist" compsers, for starters, perhaps...
just suggesting some measure of commonality of approach, aesthetics, sonic realisations amongst a wide range of very different composers.
So wide a range, indeed, that the diversity far outweighs the "measure of commonality", thereby undermining the very classification.
he's just too independent-minded for that.
If we talk of Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven as part of a Classical Period, that doesn't imply any of those composers are less than independently-minded.
No, of course it doesn't.
Why should it be any different with modernism (or subsets therein - like romanticism, it's an extremely wide category)?
As I've already observed, it is different partly because the wide stylistic divergence is infinitely greater than would ever have been encountered prior to the 20th century and partly because "modernism" as it is generally understood has run concurrently with utterly different persuasions, which did not really happen before the 20th century.
When you finally ask if I think that all writing on music that attempts to discern broader tendencies is of no value, I would answer that, of course, I do not say so at all but, again, it is a matter of proportion; musicology is supposed - as far as I am concerned, at least - to serve as music's handmaiden (now don't come back at me about political incorrectness of expression in my gender use, please!), not as its line manager.
No sort of historical writing is simply like that - history is not just about reflecting a reality but also constructing one (within limits).
OK, but having the due sensibility and discretion to recognise and respect those limits is vital but by no means common to - or even commonly expected of - contemporary historians!
Historical musicology is the same.
(...I nearly wrote "as in
plus ça change?" but then thought better of making so below-the-belt a statement...)
The attempt to appropriate Carter (helped by his 'grand old man' status) into a view of 'tradition' that attempts to exclude most of the more radical tendencies in the twentieth century (preferring a smooth, rupture-free view of music history viewed almost entirely independently of other social processes) tells me of little more than a neo-romantic aesthetic, which is nothing if not post-modern.
Whatever it may or may not tell you, I do not even understand what you mean by the "attempt to appropriate Carter" into a view of anything at all; who is supposed to be doing this, how and for what purpose? I don't "appropriate" Carter; I listen to him. Furthermore, how does his alleged "grand old man" status "help" in these supposed appropriative attempts? (and I use the term "alleged" since I'm by no means certain that the cap really fits in any meaningful way in this instance and I rather doubt that Carter himself would see himself thus in any case). It is not unreasonable to perceive a peripheral interest in the fact of a composer continuing to compose on a regular basis as he approaches the age of 100, if for no other or better reason than that the case is almost certainly unique; other composers who lived into their 90s (and, in two cases, beyond them) had all ceased composing well before attaining the age that Carter is now (I am thinking, for example, of the nongenarians Sorabji, Brian, Petrassi, Rodrigo, Menotti and Arnold Cooke and the centenarians le Flem and Ornstein). The word "peripheral" is of the essence here, however, for the interest cannot in reality be greater than that (although I would be less than surprised if, as I write, some musicologist somewhere is already preparing a treatise on the subject!).
Something tells me that if someone wrote a study locating Carter's music as a clear and smooth development of nineteenth century tendencies, and thus as some type of late romantic, you wouldn't have anything like the same problem as if one tries to consider his relationship to modernism.
Something tells
me that anyone who did so preposterous a thing would attract little credibility in any circles and a good deal of ribaldry in some. Do you seriously know anyone who thinks in that way and would be prepared to write such a study and publish it? I'm quite sure that I don't!
Actually, the more Carter is appropriated and played in that anti-modernist manner, the more ephemeral I feel his work to be. It ends up sounding like just a tired, dusty range of late romantic clichés. I know there's more to it than that.
Ah - so now at least I understand something of what you mean by this appropriation business, even if I can't recognise it in practice; it's the province of misguided performers. OK, but what I still fail to understand is who you reckon they are and how do go about such (mis)appropriation? Come on - name a few names and provide at least a handful of technical examples as to how those who allegedly do this go about it. You then use the term "ephemeral", which is perhaps unfortunate in the context of "modernism" since, as Sorabji and other pointed out decades ago, the problem with certain things that are regarded as "oh-so-modern" at any given time run the risk of becoming "oh-so-
passé" all too soon thereafter - as an example of which I will cite the case of a colleague of mine who happens to be a professional musicologist and professor of musicology (yes, I do associate with such people!) who, in all innocence of expression (believe me!), once described the head of composition in the music faculty of his university as rooted in past traditions - you know, 1950s Boulez and all that. Still less do I understand how anyone could play Carter's music so that it "ends up sounding like just a tired, dusty range of late romantic clichés", although I'd rather like to hear an example, albeit only once, just for the purpose of amusing myself at the prospect of so monumentally improbable a circus trick.
Anyway, I think it's now time for me to bow out of this. I must remember, Ian, your salutary homily about wordiness as I bear in mind that it might be argued that, my verbosity notwithstanding, all I've really succeeded in contributing to his thread on "post-modernism in music" is in the fact that I've "posted" a lot and "appropriated" the terms "modernism" and "music" quite frequently...
Au revoir...
Best,
Alistair
