# Your honest opinion, the mid 20th century American symphonists.



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Read this whole post before responding, no "title responders" please! Its more about the post than the title.

I'll try my best to articulate my thoughts on this. First I'll preface the content implied in the title of the post with this: recently, I've been branching out into modern composers, restricting my intake to symphonic/sonata forms(symphonies, concertos, anything with the label symphony or concerto slapped on it). 

I've been criticized by both my teachers for being too fixated on symphonies. I'm not so stubborn that I can't comprehend the truth of their statements that a composer's essence isn't always to be found at its most concentrated or clearest in their symphonies, but my mind likes to work in categories, and symphonies seem to be the most encompassing and interrelated of musical forms(from piece to piece). I don't care what they think about my fixation, I'll get over it eventually, I move through interests rather quickly if I may say so myself. 

Now I'll start getting to the point: my piano teacher does not have much respect for the American symphonists of the mid 20th century, and basically refuses to admit that they are any good, despite my recent surge of interest in them. I find them interesting and I can't seem to explain to him, who has much more experience and knowledge and possibly even talent than I in music, why I like them, he doesn't treat my appreciation of them as anything more than a passing thing in attempt to branch out and understand modern music as should be expected of a young student. He calls them dry, and he isn't in the least bit impressed with 20th century counterpoint, although I told him that since these symphonies are not completely atonal, there seems to me to be some strong harmonic skill being applied in these symphonies. 

The thing is, I consider it an achievement that I've genuinely warmed up to and experienced William Schuman's 3rd symphony, I've been listening very closely to it, I thought of it as an elusive but interesting style of music, that had integrity to it but took some time to get to know. I have trouble holding this viewpoint though, when a person who has composed modern music himself and is a composition major, calls that work dry and saying that the counterpoint is mere academic exercise, it makes me feel like I'm delusional or something. 

The thing is, I'm not totally confident of the music myself, but I really enjoyed taking the time to figure it out, and I feel there's yet more to be experienced in it, but I just don't know what merit I have in recommending it to other people and telling them how great I think it is, whether I'll seem nuts or not. I think of the modern American symphonists that I'm just getting to know, namely William Schuman, Walter Piston, Aaron Copland, and David Diamond, as having a sort of American classicism to them, interesting forms and a certain homogenous style with subtle differences. I enjoy stuff of that type as I have a categorical mind, like I said, and I don't consider myself an overly analytical or intellectual listener, but maybe my intellect is deluding me as to the greatness of this music that really is emotionally bland as my piano teacher says, I don't know. It makes me uncomfortable to think of it that way, there's a curiosity to this music and I hate for people to call it academic or worse, trivial or fraudulent. Am I just too eager to like everything?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

My advice, don't worry about what other people think about your taste in music, even teachers. Just enjoy what you enjoy, recommend what you enjoy and I'm sure you'll find other people that enjoy it too. There's nothing wrong, IMO, in being eager to like everything. It means you can easily see value in things others cant. That's a good thing to have.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Your teacher's an idiot. 

Seriously, everyone has their biases and blind spots. You didn't delve much into what works your teacher actually does admire from this time period. Personally, I think William Schuman, Walter Piston, Aaron Copland, and David Diamond... and I would add Roger Sessions, Philip Glass, Charles Ives, and Alan Hovhaness to this list... all produced some music of real merit. I would suggest with time you also explore non-American symphonists of the century including Ralph Vaughan-Williams, Prokofiev, Shostakovitch, Sibelius, Nielsen, Rautavaara, Kalevi Aho, Per Norgard, Holboe, Penderecki, Gorecki, Henze, Karl Weigl, etc...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Your teacher's an idiot.
> 
> Seriously, everyone has their biases and blind spots. You didn't delve much into what works your teacher actually does admire from this time period. Personally, I think William Schuman, Walter Piston, Aaron Copland, and David Diamond... and I would add Roger Sessions, Philip Glass, Charles Ives, and Alan Hovhaness to this list... all produced some music of real merit. I would suggest with time you also explore non-American symphonists of the century including Ralph Vaughan-Williams, Prokofiev, Shostakovitch, Sibelius, Nielsen, Rautavaara, Kalevi Aho, Per Norgard, Holboe, Penderecki, Gorecki, Henze, Karl Weigl, etc...


I'm exploring plenty of non american symphonists as well!  Shostaskovich, and Prokofiev are pieces of cake for me, I loved them right from the start, especially Prokofiev's 3rd. Also, thanks to violadude and delicious manager, I've gotten into the english symphonists. Also some pretty obscure ones, like Khachaturian, Tcherepnin, Honnegger, Szymanowski, Gliere. I have to say though that my teacher is definitely not an idiot, he's a very witty man and a strong composer in his own right, but he may have his blind spots though. The fact that he is far from an idiot is what gave his opinion a frightening amount of merit to me. I have to say though, hearing your unmitigated statement was quite liberating to me. Perhaps liberating enough that I may devote some attention to Hovhaness and Glass(I am getting into Ives and Sessions, I just considered them different from this "American classicism"), my teacher hates them more than he does these composers so I was influenced by him for a while, but I want to devote some serious study to their music now.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> ...I'm not so stubborn that I can't comprehend the truth of their statements that a composer's essence isn't always to be found at its most concentrated or clearest in their symphonies...


Well, there are thinkers whose opinion is that the "essence" of music lies in the smaller forms, eg. solo instrumental, art-song, unacompained choral, chamber. It can be argued that a strong facility in these areas kind of separate "the men from the boys" in terms of a composer's ability or boiling down their "essence." I don't know about this, because quite a few composers concentrated mainly on genres outside of these & they were at a high level in what they did (take Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner for example). Maybe your teachers are thinking that it's easier for you as a music student at the stage you are (whatever it is, I'm not pre-judging here, I know little about you) it would be more worthwhile for you to study these smaller scale types of musics?



> Now I'll start getting to the point: my piano teacher does not have much respect for the American symphonists of the mid 20th century, and basically refuses to admit that they are any good, despite my recent surge of interest in them.


To clarify, do your teachers dismiss these composers fully or just their symphonies? I'm no expert in this area, but I have recently been getting into American piano sonatas of c.1900-c.1950 (Ives, Griffes, Barber, Copland, Carter, Sessions). I think they are superb, all of their piano sonatas that I've got on two discs played by Peter Lawson on EMI are excellent. I'd be interested to know if your teachers don't like these kinds of composers completely, or are only dismissing their orchestral/symphonic works?



> ...Am I just too eager to like everything?


Being eclectic is not a "problem." I see it as a kind of "asset" (well, I'm quite biased there, being more of an all-rounder than specialist myself). I think it's good to be as flexible as possible and embrace the many wonders of the musical arts. Classical music isn't just a branch or twig of a tree, it's a whole tree, a whole forest of them, even!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> My advice, don't worry about what other people think about your taste in music, even teachers. Just enjoy what you enjoy, recommend what you enjoy and I'm sure you'll find other people that enjoy it too. There's nothing wrong, IMO, in being eager to like everything. It means you can easily see value in things others cant. That's a good thing to have.


This is a philosophy that I have moved towards, I like the way you put it.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> To clarify, do your teachers dismiss these composers fully or just their symphonies? I'm no expert in this area, but I have recently been getting into American piano sonatas of c.1900-c.1950 (Ives, Griffes, Barber, Copland, Carter, Sessions). I think they are superb, all of their piano sonatas that I've got on two discs played by Peter Lawson on EMI are excellent. I'd be interested to know if your teachers don't like these kinds of composers completely, or are only dismissing their orchestral/symphonic works?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Maybe your teachers are thinking that it's easier for you as a music student at the stage you are (whatever it is, I'm not pre-judging here, I know little about you) it would be more worthwhile for you to study these smaller scale types of musics?


I don't know if my teachers think like that completely, I certainly don't agree with this philosophy, I think their is strength to the condensed essence of a small work but also strength to a large work and my piano teacher has said this before himself. My study is very self directed, I take peoples suggestions liberally, but I don't want them telling me off about my own path, add to me don't detract from me! I don't know, maybe my other teacher thinks that there is more to be had from smaller works unless a composer is specifically known for symphonies, actually my piano teacher was just saying today that he didn't think Mahler's symphonies were his best works even, but Nielson's were. Its complicated.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

By the way, I forgot about Harris!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I would agree with those suggesting not to worry about the musical tastes of anyone else (and agree with violadude's post). No two people have identical tastes in music, obviously a lot of it is subjective. That is not to say your teacher isn't talented, he could be a musical genius, who just has different tastes than you. Some of my musical heroes didn't like composers who I love, but I certainly don't let that lessen my enjoyment of those composers. I think its really cool that you find value in a lot of stuff less well known...it encourages others to want to explore more as well, which is a very good thing.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> Just my piano teacher and he seems to dismiss the American style in general. He doesn't like their harmonies. He's calls Fanfare for the common man, "fanfare for the common cold". That's more because its so damned popular, though I like it, but also because its so culturally american. But make no mistake, I think he claims that its not for purely cultural reasons he doesn't like it, but because he finds it "thematically bland and academic" in his words or at best, "a little too earnest"...


It just seems to be a kind of Euro-centrism. Of course, all musicians start with the European "canon." Spanish pianist Aliccia de Laroccha said she played things like J.S.Bach & Beethoven for years before she could even begin to grasp the Spanish repertoire. I'd hazard a guess that competently playing things like J.S. Bach is a "first step" or essential background knowledge to playing things that came later. But I'm looking at this from a musician's perspective. What you like doesn't have to correspond with your teacher's tastes. & actually, many USA composers came out of study from Europe, eg. Carter, Thomson, Copland, Glass all studied with Nadia Boulanger in Paris. Maybe your teacher thinks that, due to things like this, USA music is like a pale imitation of the "real thing" (eg. the European)?



> He hates the concord sonata...But he does admire Ives second symphony.


Which talks to his preferences. The _Concord Sonata _is very different from other sonatas, kind of a precursor to later "avant-garde" techniques (eg. having the optional flute part as well as the pianist having to hit keys with a block of wood). By comparison, the second symphony is most likely more conventional (well, in terms of Ives' output, anyway), although I don't remember hearing it, I've just read about it (it is generally admired as his finest symphony)...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I have to admit, I shy away from the Concord sonata, its seems too avante garde for my tastes, but I haven't paid very close attention to it.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Listening to criticism from one's teachers is always a good idea. 

Proving a point to one's teachers is never a good idea. 

Regardless of who is actually right. 

Personally, I think your teacher is wrong to just dismiss a lot of good American music. 

For a music listener, it's prefectly fine to prefer some genres over others, or even to focus on some genres entirely. But for a music student, it might be different. 

And, yes, it's a good thing to be open-minded and eager and really give each music piece a chance, even though you don't get it at first. I wish I was that eager. I love to explore new music, but if I don't get it, I tend to move on and so I miss out on much of the music that needs repeated listening.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Your teacher's an idiot.
> 
> Seriously, everyone has their biases and blind spots. You didn't delve much into what works your teacher actually does admire from this time period. Personally, I think William Schuman, Walter Piston, Aaron Copland, and David Diamond... and I would add Roger Sessions, Philip Glass, Charles Ives, and Alan Hovhaness to this list... all produced some music of real merit. I would suggest with time you also explore non-American symphonists of the century including Ralph Vaughan-Williams, Prokofiev, Shostakovitch, Sibelius, Nielsen, Rautavaara, Kalevi Aho, Per Norgard, Holboe, Penderecki, Gorecki, Henze, Karl Weigl, etc...


I agree with all the above sentiments!

I think you must argue that the list of composers above (born in the US) have as much merit as any other composer from Europe at the same period. They all moved the yardsticks insofar as creating a "modern symphony", and many of them were taught by luminaries from overseas, so it's not as though they formulated their "sound" in the vacuum.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

TresPicos said:


> Listening to criticism from one's teachers is always a good idea.
> 
> Proving a point to one's teachers is never a good idea.
> 
> Regardless of who is actually right.


As a teacher, I disagree. How can students ever learn if they are afraid to voice their opinions? The best learning environment is one in which student and teacher can freely communicate to each other what they think and why. And it is a two way street. A teacher might be proficient in their field, but take it from me, that doesn't mean that the teacher has encountered every single perspective and thought on a subject.

What a student should not do however is be antagonistic or belligerent. Also a student should not derail a lesson for wanting to fight about a topic. But there is nothing wrong with courteously but assertively disagreeing with their teacher.

A response like "wrong! the American symphonists are..." is clearly not the way to approach it, but a response like "well I value those symphonies for the following reasons..." is swell. And the nice thing about what I'm saying is that it transcends the classroom. People from your boss at work to friends, family and acquaintances value contrasting opinions if done politely and respectfully.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

haydnfan said:


> As a teacher, I disagree. How can students ever learn if they are afraid to voice their opinions? The best learning environment is one in which student and teacher can freely communicate to each other what they think and why. And it is a two way street. A teacher might be proficient in their field, but take it from me, that doesn't mean that the teacher has encountered every single perspective and thought on a subject.
> 
> What a student should not do however is be antagonistic or belligerent. Also a student should not derail a lesson for wanting to fight about a topic. But there is nothing wrong with courteously but assertively disagreeing with their teacher.


Yes, that's pretty much what I meant. Voicing one's opinion if often a good thing, but not always. And pushing it, seldom. Most teachers can handle opposing views well, others might take revenge if you hurt their ego.


----------



## ChrisHenry (Aug 20, 2011)

Your teacher may be trying to control you, not guide you. It's tough when someone knows all the arguments, terms, works, etc., and can throw them at you. But smart people believe weird things all the time. And when you're new at anything….you just "know what you like." 

Does it make sense to stop trying to explain and defend your tastes? I would think it's important that you carefully to your feelings. Believe in them on something like aesthetics, not your teacher. Read some reviews or analysis that seem to lean towards your opinion and test them against what your teacher is saying. Good luck.


----------



## johnfkavanagh (Sep 9, 2011)

I remember being introduced to the music of Bax in the late 70's (when I was in my late teens) by a teacher who thought it overblown and old-fashioned and obviously expected me to agree. Well, I didn't. It may have been unfashionable at the time but fashion is a poor judge of quality.

I discovered the music of most of the American symphonists who have been mentioned rather more recently, mostly thanks to those good people at Naxos, as, with the exception of Copland, it was certainly not programmed very much here in the UK and still isn't. But I certainly agree with you that there is a great deal of fine music to be foundbin that area of the repertoire.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I've been branching out into modern composers, restricting my intake to symphonic/sonata forms(symphonies, concertos, anything with the label symphony or concerto slapped on it).
> 
> I've been criticized by both my teachers for being too fixated on symphonies.


btw this is a fair criticism. The 20th century is NOT the 18th century. Sonata form and symphonic forms is not the dominant form of musical expression. Also in any era you will miss out on most of the great works by focusing on symphonies and sonatas. Let me illustrate this:

* Bach's Cantatas and Oratorios
* Scarlatti's Sonatas are mostly in binary form
* Handel and Vivaldi's operas
* actually all of pre-classical era!
* Mozart's operas (his greatest works)
* Haydn's Creation and The Seaons (his greatest works)
* Beethoven's String Quartets (his greatest works)
* Many of the great Romantic era works are operas
* ... and chamber music...
* In the modern era "symphony" becomes less and less about being the 18th century symphony
* Also many of the great orchestral works of the 20th century are not symphonies or concertos, for example what is Ligeti's San Francisco Polyphony?

Rereading your quote I noticed that you said sonata form, but did not include piano sonatas... and for that matter solo piano music... the most intimate of classical music. Without listening to the piano music of Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Faure, Debussy, Ravel... you don't even know them!

And let's not even get into leider. Symphonies and concertos don't tell you enough about a composer, they are the least personal of the music they write... also you are very likely to skip over the greatest works written by any composer because they are not likely to be symphonies and concertos which are usually (but not always) the fluff genres for mass consumption.

btw I only came back to this because I wondered why you thought that Ives symphonies were so great, and now I have my answer.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I wouldn't worry about missing out on anything. If you're absorbed by a certain musical genre, enjoy it to the fullest and don't let other people do your thinking for you.

Your brain will tell you when it's had enough, and when it's time to explore other music.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

haydnfan said:


> btw this is a fair criticism. The 20th century is NOT the 18th century. Sonata form and symphonic forms is not the dominant form of musical expression. Also in any era you will miss out on most of the great works by focusing on symphonies and sonatas. Let me illustrate this:
> 
> * Bach's Cantatas and Oratorios
> * Scarlatti's Sonatas are mostly in binary form
> ...


I listen to more than you think, chill out.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Your teacher is not an idiot, but a human being who IS A COMPOSER of sorts. He is clearly not impartial. His dismissive criticisms, with less dismissive negativity, I could agree with (see just below). It would behoove you to then ask what his AESTHETIC is (a messy but necessary consideration where art is concerned) and ask him, too, directly about his positive preferences. Maybe there are mid-century composers he loves and admires, even if what they did is now 'old.'

He speaks his truthful opinion on William Schuman. I used to be very excited by some Schuman, and still find it very solid Old Fashioned Symphonic writing well beyond just 'journeyman' quality writing. BUT -- Schuman's harmonic language Was nearly Retro-Conservative in his own time! You are not, then looking at the modern music from that time. I never was a clinger to the old form, so my 'comfort zone' is much wider than yours. (If you really want to know a composer, ditch the large symphonic works and examine their chamber music.)

William Schuman is all 'Old Style' Symphonic form and old-fashioned Saxon 18th century species counterpoint - nothing new with it other than the harmonies, and nothing wrong with it either. That does make it retro-conservative as far as his era, though. You could say the same for a heap of Hindemith as well. If your teacher's taste AND INCLINATIONS as a composer are for the more recent ways music is being written, he could consciously or unconsciously resent the hell out of Schuman being recorded, performed or being in circulation at all.

That is another very active factor: contemporary composers, quite reasonably, are fed up and frustrated with a commercial world which has essentially turned concert programming and much of what is marketed in classical into a true museum of antiquity. The general public, compared to what they consume in all the other arts, are truly about 110 years behind the times when it comes to classical music.

Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps is one hundred years old next year - a certified antique. Ives' "Unanswered Question is about 110 years old. Later contemporary music is played even less, with the exception of the most populist and popular 'minimalists,' John Adams, Steve Reich, and Philip Glass -- with Adams being the most universally popular. They are all also 'conservative.' Adams is, as a conservative populist composer, in a contemporary slot similar to that held by Aaron Copland in the 1950's.

Ellioitt Carter was asked why he had not, ever, gone into serial music ala the Viennese school. He answered that he had looked into it, but the more he looked the more he found it uninteresting, and said, "It seemed like it was just more of all that old Brahms Stuff." In a very direct way, he was dead on in that assessment.

One composition teacher on staff where I studied (a good number of years after my conservatory bachelor's in piano performance, this a second bachelor / masters in theory and comp in the mid 1980's) was always somewhat disparaging of much of the older 'conservative' modern music. He composed, produced and had some works done at fairly frequent intervals, mainly within academic circles. He was likeable but had such a temper that if every student was not letter-perfect and doing straight 4.0 work all the time he would lose his temper, his face would in a few seconds turn beet red, the veins in his forehead bulging: we thought he might just pop / explode in front of us some day. (I took a twentieth century music lit / history class with him - he, and it, were terrific.) About a decade + after I was well out of academe, that same Professor won the Pulitzer prize. Old school pals told me he was much easier going after that 

There are otherwise very fine teachers who carry their own baggage with them, like everyone else. They may, or may not be brilliant composers. Ditto for the instrumental performance instructors. There is a sad truth that a majority of music teachers at university level never imagined being there and did not / do not want to teach: teaching is their reluctantly accepted fallback 'plan B.' Some of them have tons to impart and do teach well. Some are bitter and frustrated beyond belief.

You have to take what they have to offer, and dismiss the rest as personal taste, often enough a manifestation of their personal frustration as well. I would suggest asking your teacher which music from that era he does like and admire, and why. You are bound to get much more out of him. Your penchant for old-style symphonic form is not helping you, with him or in general. It is not 'modern' in any way, shape or form. To know it is necessary to build or understand other form, but do not, please get stuck there.

For now, you are working with this teacher. Take what you can from him, bend a bit to find out his interests and taste and let him take you over that repertoire, because he will be enthusiastic and know it well. That is the best he has to offer you, and it gets you the most from working with him.

ADDED: If your teacher is truly a good pedagogue, he also has a general 'plan' for you. What you want to look at so eagerly right now may be derailing what he thinks, or KNOWS is best for you to be studying, in or outside your lesson plans.
I see in the thread, collectively, a host of strong American and European early to mid-Century Symphonists. With only a few exceptions, with perhaps only a minor importance as to dramatic use of the old form (Nielsen 5), is there Anything New OTHER than the contents. There is nothing 'exciting' about the Honegger, Harris, Bernstein, etc. symphonic works to compare with the audacious innovations of Beethoven, for example. There is nothing wrong with any of that, but truly, the bulk of those suggested are all 'upper case' Conservative, while their harmonic language, the whole symphonic discourse, leaves much of it still hugely enjoyable. Other than an already 'dated' harmonic language in all of them - nothing new to learn from, as a student, about musical procedure making form, or how to invent or handle other forms. That could be exactly what the teacher is trying to pull you away from, at the same time you are hammering away at it. [I think two of the most 'terrific' in the genre are Berio's Sinfonia and Messiaen's Turangalila - one cast in baroque 'sinfonia' format, the other having little relation to either the multiple movement works of Mahler or late romantic composers - it too, is maybe more 'the baroque suite, or a Renaissance sequence of movements held together by several prominent themes. - none of these are in the 'comfort zone' of the many others listed.] ADD II: Ives' Symphony Four IS a masterpiece, and far less 'conventional' than his 2nd. (imo.)


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Want to listen to music that will draw even more ire from your teachers? You should try Delius, hehe.


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

PetrB said:


> The general public, compared to what they consume in all the other arts, are truly about 110 years behind the times when it comes to classical music.
> 
> Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps is one hundred years old next year - a certified antique.


I didn't realize it until you mentioned it. Now there really seems to be a necessity for the audience (me included) to catch up!

And just in general, I think everyone, music student or not, can have something to learn from your post. Thank you!


----------



## suffolkcoastal (Feb 28, 2012)

The American symphony is one of my chief areas of interest, having over 200 works in recorded format and quite a number of scores too. 
Many 20th century American composers forged very individual styles, styles that are often instantly recogniseable which is no mean feat. Whether it be in the neo-Romantic style such as Barber or Hanson, or taking aspects of French composers, Piston and Diamond, or forging what became known as the 'Americana' style, such as Harris and to a lesser extent Schuman or a completely original style using 20th European developments, composers such as Sessions and Riegger for example.
Their approaches to the symphony were also very individual and seem tailored to their very individual styles.
The best composers for me are Harris (of whom I have made a considerable study); I have recpordings of all his symphonies apart from the early American portrait symphony at the complete 12th. Harris's approach to the one movement form is very unusual and his 4 symphonies in this form (nos 3, 7, 8 & 11) show four differing treatments of the one movement form. William Schuman whose style evolves from the early brash 3rd to the gritty tough 9th (his masterpiece IMO), a one movement through composed work of considerable concentration. Walter Piston, whose 8 symphonies are all in 3 or 4 movements beautifully written and very satisfying. The journey here moves from the austere 1st through the more approachable 2nd & 6th to the tough 8th. David Diamond, whose lyrical early symphonies give way to a much tougher language in nos 6-8. Finally Roger Sessions whose 9 symphonies are difficult but superbly written and well worth the effort of getting to know.
Other composers of interest would include Peter Mennin whose highly contrapuntal earlier symphonies contrast which the much tougher and gritty writing of nos 7-9, Vincent Persichetti whose symphonies are very approachable and other composers who wrote symphonies of note such as Barber's two fine examples, Hanson, Lees, Copland, Bernstein, Creston and Hovhaness; and more recent composers such as Corigliano, Rouse, Bolcom and Zwilich.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

suffolkcoastal said:


> The American symphony is one of my chief areas of interest, having over 200 works in recorded format and quite a number of scores too.
> Many 20th century American composers forged very individual styles, styles that are often instantly recogniseable which is no mean feat. Whether it be in the neo-Romantic style such as Barber or Hanson, or taking aspects of French composers, Piston and Diamond, or forging what became known as the 'Americana' style, such as Harris and to a lesser extent Schuman or a completely original style using 20th European developments, composers such as Sessions and Riegger for example.
> Their approaches to the symphony were also very individual and seem tailored to their very individual styles.
> ...Harris's approach to the one movement form is very unusual.... "Etc."


Nothing needs contesting there, and quite a good list from one well-familiar.

My point is still, the majority of those, maybe even the Bolcolm (which I do not know) are more a matter of contemporary decorating and furnishings using an old and traditional floor plan, or architecture of old form using older construction materials.

My point -- and perhaps the point of the Teacher of this student -- is that learning the decorative style (the harmonic language) of those composers and from those forms may not be abetting the student in the learning of musical procedures which lead to the need of or generate other forms of organization. Conservative is not a dirty word, but in study, it is good to keep pushing forward in what is a progressive study from the past to present. (I fully agree with and am happy about the young musician 'finding' all these works and finding them of real worth.)

The student's penchant for the old form may be very useful in that it brings him to harmonic procedure with which he is familiar, finds even challenging to follow. That has already, maybe, served its purpose; time, then, to move forward a bit. I cannot recall any point in the time line of study when a student's mere 'comfort zone' was a consideration to stall or halt the progression of what is studied.

Whether to good purpose or a limitation on the part of the teacher, the pupil being a bit fixated in this arena of musical organization is at odds with either the teacher's plan, or what the teacher can offer of benefit to the student -- the latter having nothing to do with an either yea or nay verdict from the instructor re: the form or the composers themselves, but everything to do with the student getting the best of what they can from that instructor within the dynamic of that situation. (Ideally, no student should have to 'work around' a truly good teacher. That ideal is truly rare, and though a pity, all students should be aware of teacher's limitations - to better get what is on offer, and even identify areas the student may want or need to investigate on their own.)

OF COURSE, the teacher should be able to explain, even to a stubborn student, Why the student should drop one pursuit (at least temporarily) and stick to 'the plan.' The teacher should at any time be able to make clear what the plan is, and how that plan benefits the student. There is a line there, too, and it works both ways -- A novice should be able to question a teacher, but how much, how often a teacher has to take time out from a lesson or lesson plan to explain what where and why of that lesson plan... well, there is only so much before the student, really, should just be quiet and do the work asked of them.

If I was still working with piano students, and they kept interrupting the session with, 'yes, buts,' I might have to give them a bit of 'see here' verbal what for.... And students always have 'yes, buts' - some are necessary; they don't understand something or have another notion 'in the way' which the teacher needs to help them mentally adjust before real understanding can take place. But if the student was more of a genuinely contrarian 'yes, but' pathology, I'd have to 'fire them.' -- and that I have done, our time and their money not being put to good use. LOL.

I do have a 'suspicion' we have a piano teacher who is a grad student of comp, and that, without projected detail, prompts me to think of long lists of potential frailties within the teacher. BUT, none of us 'were there' nor had the fly-on-the-wall observer's viewpoint on this one.


----------

