# An 'Out Of Body' Experience? Or More Nonsense From The Critic?



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

> Musical Events was the domain of a soft-spoken Englishman, Andrew Porter, whose prose was elegant and lyrical and who used his bully pulpit *to hold high the banner of Modernism*, often devoting lengthy pieces to encomiums of Milton Babbitt, Charles Wuorinen, Harrison Birtwistle, Peter Maxwell Davies, Pierre Boulez and, most of all, Elliott Carter. Porter was fortunately catholic enough in his interests to eventually acknowledge "Satyagraha," "Music for 18 Musicians" and even "Nixon in China," but it was the Modernists, and particularly Carter, who got his juices flowing and made his pen purple.
> 
> I could never completely understand how the same critic could wax ecstatic over "Tosca" one week and then describe an out-of-body experience with "Syringa" or the Double Concerto the next, but perhaps that capacity was a measure of his strengths as a critic



Read here:

http://www.earbox.com/posts/116;

While I am definitely no great fan of _Tosca_ I do understand what Adams is saying here. Honestly, I think many music critics are simply full of themselves. An out of body experience? Really Mr. Porter?

Sorry, those 2 Carter pieces aren't that great.

Try Beethoven's _Missa Solemnis_ for starters...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Do you have some sort of agenda against Carter now?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

omg, what I have done!. I shouldn't have cited that thing!. :lol:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

In other news, somebody likes something I don't like. Full story at eleven!


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Do you have some sort of agenda against Carter now?


Not at all. But I do think that a good deal of his music lacks a perceptible and coherent musical narrative.

In short, I think he was often ridiculously overrated.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Xavier said:


> Not at all. But I do think that a good deal of his music lacks a perceptible and coherent musical narrative.
> 
> In short, I think he was often ridiculously overrated.


"Perceptible"? Ooh, never say that in an open forum - but maybe you know that. How _Crudblud_ handles that will be a test of his self-control (and adeptness at allusion, perhaps).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Not at all. But *I do think* that a good deal of his music lacks a perceptible and coherent musical narrative.
> 
> In short, *I think* he was often ridiculously overrated.


Key words here. Not everyone has the same taste in music as you. I like Carter, my parents love his music, two or three of my friends really really enjoy his music, a few others don't, several people I know are indifferent in opinion. It's okay that you don't like his music but it's wrong to criticise others for liking something you don't like.

Another question for you, how much do you _know_ about Carter's compositional process?


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Not at all. But I do think that a good deal of his music lacks a perceptible and coherent musical narrative.


Examples please? Carter's music should be perfectly coherent to anyone with a decent attention span and functioning pair of ears. The Double Concerto was mentioned, if you think it lacks a "coherent musical narrative" you need to listen to it again. Or any of the string quartets.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Premise: The Critic is an idio.t.

Conclusion: Carter lacks a perceptible and coherent musical narrative.

It's just me, or this is a big non-sequitur?...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Not at all. But I do think that a good deal of his music lacks a perceptible and coherent musical narrative.
> 
> In short, I think he was often ridiculously overrated.


And yet you have posted two threads in one day that attack him as a secondary objective. I might not be the only person getting conflicting signals here.

In any case, we only have proof of Adams himself using the phrase "out-of-body experience," in fact, he doesn't even put it in quotes. His oversight in formatting, perhaps? Regardless, there's a whole world of difference between saying "I personally felt that I had an out-of-body experience while listening to _Piece X_" and "_Piece X_ is bad because of reasons and stuff." Now, I firmly believe that the writings of critics of any kind should be taken with a grain of salt, they are, after all, dealing entirely in the realm of opinion, but if they say "I liked/didn't like it" who am I to argue? It's only when someone tells me there are objectively good/bad things about a piece of music that I take issue.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Another question for you, how much do you _know_ about Carter's compositional process?


That is totally irrelevant.

Understanding music theory or the technical aspects of a composition does not affect what the music sounds like, and what it sounds like is why it moves you. Musical love and appreciation *always transcends* our propositional knowledge about musical techniques (i.e. finding out how it works).

It's simply a matter of listening to a work over and over and over again, carefully and patiently, however long it takes a person to 'make sense of' and assimilate and internalize.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Xavier said:


> It's simply a matter of listening to a work over and over and over again, carefully and patiently, *however long it takes* a person to 'make sense of' and assimilate and internalize.


I can think of a few people who would definitely disagree with this philosophy. There's one fellow, for example, who has apparently given up hope on making sense of Elliott Carter's music.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Let me ask you one thing Xavier... I agree with you that there is no need to know the technical aspects... 

but...

what you last said basically admits that perhaps somebody might have a strong opinion of a piece even before that someone has actually 'made sense of' what's there. 

What I'm trying to say is... how are you so sure that there is no sense in Carter, rather than the possibility that there is sense in Carter that you aren't getting?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Xavier said:


> That is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Understanding music theory or the technical aspects of a composition does not affect what the music sounds like, and what it sounds like is why it moves you. Musical love and appreciation *always transcends* our propositional knowledge about musical techniques (i.e. finding out how it works).
> 
> It's simply a matter of listening to a work over and over and over again, carefully and patiently, however long it takes a person to 'make sense of' and assimilate and internalize.


That may well be true for you, but it didn't work that way for me. I 'got' Carter's music only after reading that he composed it for the edification of the musicians, not the audience. So I listened more carefully to what the musicians were doing (rather than the whole schmeer), and voila.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That may well be true for you, but it didn't work that way for me. I 'got' Carter's music only after reading that he composed it for the edification of the musicians, not the audience. So I listened more carefully to what the musicians were doing (rather than the whole schmeer), and voila.


And at the risk of stating the totally obvious, music *doesn't* reveal all its secrets in just one or two hearings.

Here is a paragraph from the introduction of _Freedom and The Arts_ by the eminent musicologist, pianist and author Charles Rosen:



> One brute fact often overlooked needs to be forced upon our consideration: most works of art are more or less intelligible and give pleasure *without any kind of historical, biographical or structural analysis*. In the end, we must affirm that no single system will ever be able to give us an exhaustive or definitive understanding of why a work of music can hold an enduring interest for us, explain its charm, account for its seduction and our admiration. A recognition of the inadequacy of any system of interpretation is essential to our being able to gain a fresh experience of the work. We need at times to acquire the talent of listening to a piece of music with innocent ear, untainted or unblocked by critical studies. Every critical approach is likely to obscure important aspects of a work that will enter into the experience of a naïve reading.
> 
> *Listening with intensity for pleasure* is the one critical activity that can *never* be dispensed with or superseded. This will allow us to recognize the multiple possibilities of significance, and to avoid appreciating only those elements of a piece that are revolutionary.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Xavier said:


> That is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Understanding music theory or the technical aspects of a composition does not affect what the music sounds like, and what it sounds like is why it moves you. Musical love and appreciation *always transcends* our propositional knowledge about musical techniques (i.e. finding out how it works).


What can you verify your claims with? I, for one, and other people I know, can have different ideas on "what is the most important aspect of music?" I put a knowledge about musical techniques and theory and composition etc. etc. higher than if I like the music or not because it is what I find most interesting and most useful in my area of expertise. This can be exactly the opposite of you. I asked the question to elicit some sort of answer to make it clearer to me whether you put your musical enjoyment (it is entertainment after all) as a higher importance to you than knowledge on how it works.



> It's simply a matter of listening to a work over and over and over again, carefully and patiently, however long it takes a person to 'make sense of' and assimilate and internalize.


Okay, yes people enjoy music in this way. Probably the vast majority if not all, me included, but fact cannot be drawn from one's own opinion on whether they like it or not. The music critic who enjoyed Carter's music "made sense of" the music, it's as simple as that. You wrote it right there.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

^ ^ And the relevance to my post is?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Here is a paragraph from the introduction of _Freedom and The Arts_ by the eminent musicologist, pianist and author Charles Rosen


Incidentally, Rosen plays Carter with great sensitivity; I gather the two were friends. Here's an interesting interview between Carter and Rosen from youtube:


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Here are the words of Justin Davidson:



> *On appreciating-but not necessarily enjoying-Elliott Carter's music.*
> 
> It's often suggested that appreciating Carter requires a special kind of training - that some secret knowledge would make all those vinegary chords and dribbling rhythms suddenly make sense. Actually, the ideal listener would be one who had experienced total short-term memory loss. I could love all those little auroras, those dazzling bursts of iridescence, so much more if only I were relieved of the need to relate them to what came before or to wonder - the title of Carter's only opera - "What next?" After the first minute or so of his mazelike music, I lose all sense of how deeply I have wandered in. Each passage blots out its own past, and at any given moment the possibilities for what the ensuing few bars might hold are virtually infinite. Carter creates no expectations, and so he cannot defy expectations, either. I will accept any dénouement, but I do so without investment in the outcome.
> 
> A single blinding moment might be worth a standing ovation; a long chain of them gets *only an irritated shrug*.




http://nymag.com/arts/classicaldance/classical/features/43889/


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Do you actually have any of your own words or are you going to persist in appealing to the authority of others?


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Here are the words of Justin Davidson:
> 
> [/font][/size]
> 
> http://nymag.com/arts/classicaldance/classical/features/43889/


I opened the link and the words written here are... well... puzzling:



> What does it mean to be a great composer if nobody wants to hear your music? That question, which might have been asked of many avant-garde luminaries of the twentieth century, applies with particular force to Elliott Carter, who turned 99 in December and immediately plunged into a hectic centennial year.


Who is nobody? I think that right now it's pretty clear that plenty of people like to listen to elliott carter...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I've never given Elliott Carter's music the time it really deserves, but I have really, truly enjoyed certain works of his: the Cello Concerto, the First Quartet, Symphonia, and probably a few other scattered pieces here and there.

Is it a style that I find amenable personally? Not really. It doesn't attract me inherently like the music of later Boulez, Messiaen, Ligeti, Takemitsu, and others of the same era. I have no reason to believe that people who say they love Carter's music are not being sincere, especially since I have experienced a little bit of that enjoyment myself.

And as for waxing lyrical about both Tosca and the Double Concerto, why not? Today I've been about equally obsessed with the development and structure of Bruckner's 8th Symphony in C minor and the beautifully stark and austere choral writing in Stravinsky's 12-tone _A Sermon, A Narrative, and A Prayer_.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Xavier said:


> [/FONT][/size]
> Read here:
> 
> http://www.earbox.com/posts/116;
> ...


Andrew Porter is one of the most eminent and influential music critics the music world has seen
Music critic for the Times,the Daily Telegraph, the New Yorker,the Gramophone, the Financial Times.
Editor of the Musical Times and Wagner scholar.
Who is Adams ??


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

> I could love all those little auroras, those dazzling bursts of iridescence, so much more if only I were relieved of the need to relate them to what came before or to wonder - the title of Carter's only opera - "What next?"


This says it all really - pity he couldn't follow through on this insight. If he's constantly trying to rationalise everything he's hearing in tonal terms he's not going to hear the music at all, let alone have any apprehension of deeper structure.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

moody said:


> Who is Adams ??


One of the most popular composers working today, known for pieces like _Short Ride in a Fast Machine_, _Harmonielehre_ and his opera _Nixon in China_.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Garlic said:


> This says it all really - pity he couldn't follow through on this insight. If he's constantly trying to rationalise everything he's hearing in tonal terms he's not going to hear the music at all, let alone have any apprehension of deeper structure.


Some people think that music should behave the way they want. If this is not the case, then it's not music according to them. I would say that they don't know what music is then.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I don't understand why Adams would say:

"I could never completely understand how the same critic could wax ecstatic over "Tosca" one week and then describe an out-of-body experience with "Syringa" or the Double Concerto the next, but perhaps that capacity was a measure of his strengths as a critic."

Isn't that a bit like saying, "How can someone find Tallis's _Spem in Alium _ sublime but also love Mahler's 5th symphony?"

Further, shouldn't classical music critics have the ability to enjoy all classical music? Also he ends with strong positive statements about Carter. My overall impression is that Adams is basically saying, "Porter didn't appreciate my music soon enough and strongly enough, but that's OK. He had some good attributes as a critic."


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I don't understand why Adams would say:
> 
> "I could never completely understand how the same critic could wax ecstatic over "Tosca" one week and then describe an out-of-body experience with "Syringa" or the Double Concerto the next, but perhaps that capacity was a measure of his strengths as a critic."
> 
> ...


I don't understand if he was trying to trash or to flatter Porter with that remark!. The last sentence can be interpreted as sarcastic (or maybe I'm just a paranoid).


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

There is a lot of sarcasm and satire in his blog. It's a bit hard to follow


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Whatever one may think of the OP, it is definitely the case that Andrew Porter is an almost comically accurate picture of a 1950s modernist. Remember, this is the critic who had so thoroughly internalized the equating of modernism with progressivism--conveniently ignoring, as modernists can be counted on to do, the political persuasions of Stravinsky, Ezra Pound, etc.--that he accused George Rochberg of playing into right-wing hands after the composer reintroduced tonality into his musical language. Porter's words: "His [Rochberg's] works could become cultural fodder for the New Right: Down with progressive thought! Down with progressive music!"


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

niv said:


> There is a lot of sarcasm and satire in his blog. It's a bit hard to follow


Yes, for a non-native english speaker like me that kind of writing can be hard to follow indeed.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> [/FONT][/size]
> Read here:
> 
> http://www.earbox.com/posts/116;
> ...


Oh, la. Carter's _Syringa_ is a terrific piece, cerebral, emotional, passionate, and I suppose if you give yourself up to any piece of music, or music theater, enough that you forget yourself completely, that could be thought of as an out of body experience.

Your listening habits have a lot to do with hearing, or not hearing, the content, import, and making reasonable assessments about, it seems, music like Carter vs. Beethoven.

For me, _Syringa_ does pretty much what your cited critic says it does. You don't hear that, you don't hear that. Just because you do not hear that does not mean it is incredible it could have the effect of an "out of body experience" on a listener other than yourself.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Not at all. But I do think that a good deal of his music lacks a perceptible and coherent musical narrative.


Odd, since one of the most apparent qualities of Carter's music is that it is very narrative / dialogue oriented, and that quality is noticed / cited by many. (So what then is "narrative" for you, an older school tone poem?)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Premise: The Critic is an idio.t.
> 
> Conclusion: Carter lacks a perceptible and coherent musical narrative.
> 
> It's just me, or this is a big non-sequitur?...


Beyond big, it is gigantic -- more inflated than the OP's idea of how inflated Carter's reputation is.

But the OP's statements about Carter's worth, or lack of it, is a Very Big Balloon of lighter than air gas, I'll grant that.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Here are the words of Justin Davidson:


Heard of Carter -- actually heard a good number of Carter's works as well.

Can't say the same of Justin Davidson.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Heard of Carter -- actually heard a good number of Carter's works as well.
> 
> Can't say the same of Justin Davidson.


While I am firmly on Carter's side against the silly criticisms on offer by Davidson, appeals to obscurity are a bit, well, rubbish as refutations, aren't they?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> While I am firmly on Carter's side against the silly criticisms on offer by Davidson, appeals to obscurity are a bit, well, rubbish as refutations, aren't they?


As are appeals from the (relatively) obscure


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Xavier said:


> [/FONT][/size]
> Read here:
> 
> http://www.earbox.com/posts/116;
> ...


Wow, so sad that people dismiss Elliott Carter with a stroke of the wand .


----------

