James, I'll try and post some more detailed thoughts on this issue if you want me to, but wanted to ask if you knew Adorno's essay 'Committment' (one of his very best, I think, along with 'The Ageing of the New Music'). It's in both the volume Aesthetics and Politics, and in volume 2 of Notes on Literature. That essay is about literature rather than music, mostly taken up with a critique of both Sartre and Brecht's 'politically engaged' work. Adorno's basic argument (I'm of course simplifying a great deal here) is that under late capitalism, there is less and less place for the expression of the individual subject; human beings are reduced to a merely functional role, becoming cogs in the capitalist machine. 'Political' art (which in this context refers to self-consciously leftist art), as Adorno sees it, apart from being for the most part ineffective in actual political terms, becomes part and parcel of this functionalisation and domination of subjective expression. Capitalist society can tolerate, even encourage, a certain amount of token 'dissenting' art, thereby becoming able to pat itself on the back for its pluralism and diversity, whilst in reality nothing changes. And in the process political artists become another cog in the machine, unwittingly lending sustenance to the very system they are supposed to be attacking. Adorno is even critical of Schoenberg's A Survivor of Warsaw, saying it

'remains trapped in the aporia to which, autonomous figuration of heteronomy raised to the intensity of hell, it totally surrenders. There is something embarrassing in Schoenberg's composition - not what arouses anger in Germany, the fact that it prevents people from repressing from memory what they at all costs want to repress - but the way in which, by turning suffering into images, harsh and uncompromising though they are, it wounds the shame we feel in the presence of the victims. For these victims are used to create something, works of art, that are thrown to the consumption of a world which destroyed them. The so-called artistic representation of the sheer physical pain of people beaten to the ground by rifle-butts contains, however remotely, the power to elicit enjoyment out of it. The moral of this art, not to forget for a single instant, slithers into the abyss of its opposite. The aesthetic principle of stylization, and even the solemn prayer of the chorus, make an unthinkable fate appear to have had some meaning; it is transfigured, something of its horror is removed. This alone does an injustice to the victims; yet no art which tried to evade them could confront the claims of justice. Even the sound of despair pays its tribute to a hideous affirmation. Works of less than the highest rank are also willingly absorbed as contributions to clearing up the past. When genocide becomes part of the cultural heritage in the themes of ommitted literature, it becomes easier to continue to play along with the culture which gave birth to murder.' (Aesthetics and Politics, p. 189)

Now, whilst there are issues where I take serious issue with Adorno, not least in his near-mystification of the Holocaust, placing it beyond the bounds of rational explanation, when rational explanation is precisely what is needed in order to attempt to prevent such a thing occurring again (an ontological view of the Holocaust is a mainstay of contemporary Zionist ideology, as well examined in Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry - it is no coincidence that Adorno himself at least toyed with Zionism, supporting Israeli actions in both 1956 (writing a hideous letter to Der Spiegel, together with Horkheimer, on this subject, describing Nasser as a type of Nazi in a way that would do Donald Rumsfeld proud) and 1967). But nonetheless, I think he does touch upon something very important, and my own critique of Nono's Ricorda cosa ti hanno fatto in Auschwitz is based upon similar principles.

In general, 'Political' art with a capital 'P' is fraught with such problems, even if I would not go quite as far as Adorno. Cardew's late work, for which I have no time, does exemplify so much of what he is describing. But, on the other hand, music does exist in society and as such is inevitably a political phenomenon. Beethoven's Ninth is and was undoubtedly a political piece (there are at least three books looking at that subject). The real question is precisely what are the ideologies sedimented therein (by no means the same thing as the conscious intentions of the composer). So instead of calling for 'political' art, we'd do better to recognise that art itself is political, whether we like it or not.

Yet most debates of this type evade direct questions of class, gender, race, and sexuality as might affect musical production and reception. The latter three of these (not the former) are mainstays of the New Musicology, though most of that work is total bunk. But the rather glaring fact that classical music per se (and especially new music) remain an extraordinarily white, male, middle class dominated field (in terms of gay men, there is plenty of representation, but much less so of gay women) cannot nor should not be avoided. Is that not a political question? And what are anyone's thoughts on this?

Don't know about the Riot concert but I would be surprised if such a 'canned' event could include much in the way of genuinely interesting music.  The relationship between music and politics is complex but I think ultimately tenuous.  I think it boils down to the fact that any music that might acquire sufficient popularity to have an immediate effect on mass events would necessarily be couched in terms of the most simplistic and, dare I say, primitive idioms of the culture concerned.  Music that attempts to challenge and to break out of cultural conventions, which is how I would characterise New Music, let us say perhaps radical music, will only ever appeal to a limited cogniscenti who love it for its own sake.  If anyone believes that the kind of music that the people on this message board are interested in will ever give rise to something that could change mass consciousness then I can't help but feel but they are deluding themselves with a species of Orwellian double-think, that in the post Cold-War era we should be too sophisticated to fall for.  As Schiller said, 'Great art is made by the few for the few'.  My interest in New Music comes from my personal quest for great art and the experience of it.  I don't expect everyone to like what I like or feel what I feel.  And I don't think any the worse of those who don't share my quest.  So I guess I'm saying that I don't think this attitude lumps me in with the class enemy either.

At a more general level the music we like and love is part of what gives rise to cultural identity and part of what gives us individuality within our wider society.  Thus music as a medium of broad human activity becomes part of what makes life worth living and a way of life worth preserving.  Having said that, we can still look back into our near musical history and see the music of Universal Brotherhood and the music of the Ubermensch and see that without their texts, it would be hard to decide which was which.  Great music can vastly enrich our inner lives but it is ultimately down to the listener what impulses will be expressed as a result.

Well, I was at the Unite against Fascism conference yesterday, where Jerry Dammers was speaking (amongst many others). Various people pointed out that his song 'Free Nelson Mandela' played a very significant part in bringing the plight of Mandela to an international audience (many of whom had not previously heard of Mandela). Now, of course that has to do with the words, but the words alone would surely not have made the impact, it was the punchiness of the music as well that communicated to a lot of people. One could argue that this was didactic sloganeering in the form of music, I suppose; the point is that here the music itself did play a role in producing a positive political effect (in the sense of increasing international support for Mandela's plight, perhaps a factor in effecting his ultimate release)?

"For example with those piano works that practically push the instrument to its limits (think of the high notes, and the strain thus produced when played on a Viennese fortepiano of the time, in the second movement of Op. 111), which inhabit a much more comfortable realm on a modern instrument."

Ian - Could you recommend a good recording of these sonatas on period instruments?

If you (or anyone else) could tell me more... I should do a thread on period performance sometime.

I don't think they are, Richard.  I've searched and searched.  If anyone finds them .......

Searched and searched, have you?

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?PID=7111053&style=music&frm=frooglemusic

Hmm, I have managd to find Volunes 1 (109, 110 & 111), and 4 (81a, etc). at Caiman prices, so hav ordered them. They had better be up there with Badura-Skoda and Binns though.