# Is contemporary American music "ahead of the Eurpeans" as Jennifer Higdon claims?



## Selby

*Is contemporary American music "ahead of the Eurpeans" as Jennifer Higdon claims?*

I recently acquired Jennifer Higdon's violin concerto played by Hilary Hahn. As I was listening to it, and enjoying it, I did a Google search and came across a two part interview with Higdon posted on YouTube which I believe is from 2011.

Part I




Part II





Beginning at 9:20 on Part II Higdon begins discussing differences between contemporary American and European music. This was prompted after the interviewer asked her if she was gaining any popularity in Europe. Higdon replied that music in Europe is... "lacking melody, it tends to be closer to what we were doing in the '70s... I think the Americans are actually ahead of the Europeans. They're moving forward, the Americans."

Holy American hubris, Batman!

Any thoughts on this controversial claim, or Higdon's music in general?


----------



## KenOC

I'll check out the interview, thanks! My impression from the Higdon I've heard is that she doesn't leave much "breathing space" in her music, making it rather tiring to listen to. I'll try to sample a bit more broadly...have several pieces I haven't really spent time with yet.


----------



## Crudblud

It is quite ridiculous to suggest that anyone, whether they are American, European, Asian, African or whatever else, is "ahead" of anyone else stylistically. If anything I'd say Higdon is quite firmly "behind" ideologically in her belief that progress is of a singular direction.

On Higdon's music: It's like someone took a Hallmark movie and converted it in to soundwaves.


----------



## Guest

Crudblud said:


> On Higdon's music: It's like someone took a Hallmark movie and converted it in to soundwaves.


ROFL. Now I'll have to go and listen to some.

Whether 'Europe' is ahead or behind of the US in music, the US is ahead in quaint TV interviewing styles! (Is the Drexel interview typical?)

Given the endless debates here, it's amusing that we are "still atonal" while the US is "moving forward with melody"


----------



## ptr

Crudblud said:


> On Higdon's music: It's like someone took a Hallmark movie and converted it in to soundwaves.


Thank You Mr Crud, You made my day!

/ptr


----------



## BurningDesire

it is pretty absurd. Plus most American composers seem to be stuck in minimalism, so if Europe is living in the past of serialism and sound masses, America hasn't gotten much further than the 60s, in general.

Also I don't get the Hallmark movie thing Cruddy


----------



## PetrB

Seriously pretentious, said to bolster that composer's bent, or limitations.

The fiddle concerto has left me (and many others) very cold, finding it 'nothing of interest' on any plane. (I am not 'anti-tonalist, btw.)

The idea of melody or 'tune' is always with us, but I think it terribly over-emphasized and beyond terribly over-rated.

Well, that was blunt 

P.s. @ Crudblud. You trod where I thought angels might fear to tread. Bless you. Maybe take that a step further, the Women's Channel? i.e. "Man beats woman: Woman gets revenge?"


----------



## Crudblud

PetrB said:


> P.s. @ Crudblud. You trod where I thought angels might fear to tread. Bless you. Maybe take that a step further, the Women's Channel? i.e. "Man beats woman: Woman gets revenge?"


I've never seen the Women's Channel, in fact, up until now I'd never even heard of it, so I don't think I'm the prime candidate to make that comparison.


----------



## PetrB

Crudblud said:


> I've never seen the Women's Channel, in fact, up until now I'd never even heard of it, so I don't think I'm the prime candidate to make that comparison.


You are not missing a thing, trust me, it is either a subsidiary or akin to 'the Hallmark Channel'


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> You are not missing a thing, trust me, it is either a subsidiary or akin to 'the Hallmark Channel'


I think you mean Lifetime. I resent it. As a woman, that doesn't represent me. Honestly I'd rather watch Spike TV, cause at least they air some good stuff like Star Trek and The Three Stooges. Though Lifetime does had Frasier so there's one good thing going for it.

I think its a pretty mean insult to compare Higdon's work to that crap though.

*may I also point out the pointlessness of your censorship guys since crap means EXACTLY THE SAME THING as the censored word that everybody knows I am talking about anyway. Censorship is stupid.


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> ROFL. Now I'll have to go and listen to some.
> 
> Whether 'Europe' is ahead or behind of the US in music, the US is ahead in quaint TV interviewing styles! (Is the Drexel interview typical?)
> 
> Given the endless debates here, it's amusing that we are "still atonal" while the US is "moving forward with melody"


Try 'Blue Catherdral' -- High school players LOVE it.


----------



## BurningDesire

The Higdon isn't bad, but its just kinda meh for me, like Rachmaninov, or much of Liszt.


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> I think you mean Lifetime. I resent it. As a woman, that doesn't represent me. Honestly I'd rather watch Spike TV, cause at least they air some good stuff like Star Trek and The Three Stooges. Though Lifetime does had Frasier so there's one good thing going for it.
> 
> I think its a pretty mean insult to compare Higdon's work to that **** though.


Yeah, 'lifetime,' where they've got the knack of making an illusion that women are independent and strong while somehow keeping that 'arch-conservative chauvinist' agenda going. Gotta really hate that if one is a truly independent woman.

Sorry, I think Higdon's stuff is not very much underneath a superficial dressing of advanced instrumental techniques, I parallel any such to "The Emperor's New Clothes."

I suppose some find it 'pretty.'


----------



## Mahlerian

Given how bland and dull Higdon's music is, I'd hesitate to say it's ahead in just about anything. I can pay her the complement that seems to meet every new composer these days: she orchestrates well.


----------



## aleazk

Crudblud said:


> It is quite ridiculous to suggest that anyone, whether they are American, European, Asian, African or whatever else, is "ahead" of anyone else stylistically. If anything I'd say Higdon is quite firmly "behind" ideologically in her belief that progress is of a singular direction.
> 
> On Higdon's music: It's like someone took a Hallmark movie and converted it in to soundwaves.


lol, I now know I'm not alone!. I thought I was the only one making jokes about Hallmark movies. They have a pattern movie: very happy and middle class american family (wonderful house, beautiful autumn landscapes, maple trees, etc.); then some unexpected tragedy destroys the family (typical resources: the mother dies from a quick cancer, the father dies from a stroke or automobile accident, etc.); the rest of the movie shows how, through motivational quotes, the family starts again, their ups and downs, unpleasant jobs, social prejudices, etc.; of course, they make it, and, again, very happy and middle class american family (wonderful house, beautiful autumn landscapes, maple trees, etc.); but now they are more "wise". :lol:


----------



## Selby

This was the first thread that I've created here. I must say that I am fairly delighted by the humorous and thoughtful comments. While watching the interview I was incredulous. For Higdon musical advancement is defined by "more melody," which is, needless to say, absurd. I was about to type something that included the word 'ignorant' but I think I'll grant Higdon a little grace and assume it was a silly self-promoting interview and that she did not thoroughly consider the implications of her supposition.

Either way, I refuse to feel guilty for enjoying her violin concerto. Well, so far - I've only listened to it once.


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> lol, I now know I'm not alone!. I thought I was the only one making jokes about Hallmark movies. They have a pattern movie: very happy and middle class american family (wonderful house, beautiful autumn landscapes, maple trees, etc.); then some unexpected tragedy destroys the family (typical resources: the mother dies from a quick cancer, the father dies from a stroke or automobile accident, etc.); the rest of the movie shows how the family starts again, their ups and downs, unpleasant jobs, social prejudices, etc.; of course, they make it, and, again, very happy and middle class american family (wonderful house, beautiful autumn landscapes, maple trees, etc.); but now they are more "wise". :lol:


 ...You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife
You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here? " ~ David Byrne, Christopher Frantz, Tina Weymouth, Jerry Harrison, Brian Eno, Peter George.


----------



## PetrB

Mitchell said:


> This was the first thread that I've created here. I must say that I am fairly delighted by the humorous and thoughtful comments. While watching the interview I was incredulous. For Higdon musical advancement is defined by "more melody," which is, needless to say, absurd. I was about to type something that included the word 'ignorant' but I think I'll grant Higdon a little grace and assume it was a silly self-promoting interview and that she did not thoroughly consider the implications of her supposition.
> 
> Either way, I refuse to feel guilty for enjoying her violin concerto. Well, so far - I've only listened to it once.


Most 'geezers' have arrived at this conclusion well before they became geezers...
Pretty is not Beautiful; rather, it is vapid.


----------



## Alypius

I must say that I am rather appalled by the tone of the comments on this thread. By turns, sexist and elitist. Exactly the tone that turns me and many others off to the world of classical music.

Was Higdon's comment ill considered? Yeah. Are contemporary European composers stuck in the "modernist" past? Some may be, but _not_ as a whole. If one scans in the full breadth of contemporary European composers, they are not stuck in some "modernist" past but are following a wide swathe of new trajectories. But there is something to be said about the offense taken by serialists at the shift caused by American minimalists. Here's from Richard Taruskin's _Oxford History of Western Music_, vol. 5: _The Late Twentieth Century_:



> Because it was often relatively consonant in harmony and employed ordinary diatonic scales, minimalist music was frequently attacked as 'conservative' by academic modernists, for whom the term was the deadliest of slurs. But the charge was unconvincing. The contexts in which familiar sounds appeared in minimalist music, and the uses to which they were put, were too obviously novel, and the effect the music produced was too obviously of the present. Besides, 'progressive' music, against which minimalism was being implicitly measured in such a comparison, was following a technical and expressive agenda that had been set at least a quarter of a century, even half a century, before. It no longer seemed quite immune to the epithet it habitually hurled.


Is that mudslinging being repeated here? I'm inclined to think so.

I enjoy a number of Higdon's works. I think her recent _Violin Concerto_ is excellent, well deserving of the awards it has received. I think her _Percussion Concerto_ is also excellent. I'm fond of some of her chamber works, including _Impressions_ (a string quartet) and _Piano Trio_. Many have acclaimed her _Concerto for Orchestra_, but I find it less engaging.

It seems to me that it is perfectly acceptable to say that one does not enjoy her music. But can we stop with mudslinging and discuss the music on its own terms?


----------



## Crudblud

aleazk said:


> lol, I now know I'm not alone!. I thought I was the only one making jokes about Hallmark movies. They have a pattern movie: very happy and middle class american family (wonderful house, beautiful autumn landscapes, maple trees, etc.); then some unexpected tragedy destroys the family (typical resources: the mother dies from a quick cancer, the father dies from a stroke or automobile accident, etc.); the rest of the movie shows how, through motivational quotes, the family starts again, their ups and downs, unpleasant jobs, social prejudices, etc.; of course, they make it, and, again, very happy and middle class american family (wonderful house, beautiful autumn landscapes, maple trees, etc.); but now they are more "wise". :lol:


Ah, but you're missing the subtle nuances of the Hallmark formula. Sometimes the film is set during Winter, and then they don't use as much soft-focus.


----------



## Mahlerian

Alypius said:


> I must say that I am rather appalled by the tone of the comments on this thread. By turns, sexist and elitist. Exactly the tone that turns me and many others off to the world of classical music.


By all means, point such comments out. I'd be just as willing as you to condemn sexism (which has shown up on this forum in the past) and elitism.



Alypius said:


> Was Higdon's comment ill considered? Yeah. Are contemporary European composers stuck in the "modernist" past? Some may be, but _not_ as a whole. If one scans in the full breadth of contemporary European composers, they are not stuck in some "modernist" past but are following a wide swathe of new trajectories. But there is something to be said about the offense taken by serialists at the shift caused by American minimalists.
> 
> Is that mudslinging being repeated here? I'm inclined to think so.


Serialism was already passe by that point anyway. Most modernists (Boulez, Ligeti, Stockhausen) had turned to post-serialist idioms, and many had never written serial music at all (Messiaen, Carter).


----------



## Guest

Alypius said:


> I must say that I am rather appalled by the tone of the comments on this thread. By turns, sexist and elitist.


Well, I think what you're seeing here is the reactions of a few sensitive and knowledgable listeners who were appalled by Ms. Hidgon's racist and elitist and very ill-considered remarks.

And not only wide of the mark, but not even really at the same archery range as the rest of us. Off in some little private archery range of her own, where everything she says is right on the mark, because she gets to decide where the mark is!!

I don't see the tone of the comments on this thread to reveal anything but how appalled we all are by the arrogance of this vapid composer. But, then again, what I just said might be seen as unnecessarily harsh....


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> this vapid composer.


I think you might be the second person to use this adjective with regard to the composer under scrutiny and I'd like to be sure it's apposite...

...what does it mean again??


----------



## Guest

Surely you can type in "vapid" at the google prompt.

What I get when I do that is "Offering nothing that is stimulating or challenging."

Certainly seems apposite. Jennifer is warmed over Barber/Hanson/Harris/Copland. And not the edgy, progressive, challenging Copland from both early and late in his career, but that rather, um, vapid Americana he churned out in the middle.

Stimulating might be a point of contention. Maybe people who like her music can argue that it stimulates them. If anyone advances this argument, I, for one, will accept it.

What I meant by it, which is what your challenge* is directed at eliciting, is "weak and insipid." Not oatmeal, not mush, not even porridge.

Gruel.


----------



## Crudblud

MacLeod said:


> I think you might be the second person to use this adjective with regard to the composer under scrutiny and I'd like to be sure it's apposite...
> 
> ...what does it mean again??


The Collins English Dictionary says "dull and uninteresting," from the Latin _vapidus_.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> I can pay her the complement that seems to meet every new composer these days: she orchestrates well.


Hey, quit talkin' about my guy John Adams that way!


----------



## science

With reference to the discussion in this thread, I suspect some people should reconsider their votes on the "easy to enjoy" poll.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Surely you can type in "vapid" at the google prompt.


Of course I can. But that would have deprived you the pleasure of expanding on your opinion, and me the pleasure of reading it. Where would the fun be if we were all so self-sufficient?



Crudblud said:


> The Collins English Dictionary says "dull and uninteresting," from the Latin _vapidus_.


I particularly like the Latin. It makes it sound even more like a disease.


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> Where would the fun be if we were all so self-sufficient?


Especially since it would rob some of us of the opportunity to be snarky about it!

There ought to be a Dutch character in a Voltaire story ... something like "Vapidus van Glorious" ...


----------



## Petwhac

Hell hath no fury like a modernist scorned.


----------



## LordBlackudder

it sounds like a reasonable thing to say. Americans are ahead in many areas like teaching music, soundtracks, and all the new classical music superstars they have.


----------



## Mahlerian

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3A2S47EKN7JVH/

This review is more or less in line with my thoughts on Higdon in general.


----------



## KenOC

Yes, ear-candy for sophisticates. I wonder if some fine composer can figure out how to do product placement in compositions, for a bit of extra income? Say, just a suggestion of the Coke jingle, almost subliminal, near the beginning of the second movement...


----------



## PetrB

Alypius said:


> I must say that I am rather appalled by the tone of the comments on this thread. By turns, sexist and elitist. Exactly the tone that turns me and many others off to the world of classical music.
> 
> Was Higdon's comment ill considered? Yeah. Are contemporary European composers stuck in the "modernist" past? Some may be, but _not_ as a whole. If one scans in the full breadth of contemporary European composers, they are not stuck in some "modernist" past but are following a wide swathe of new trajectories. But there is something to be said about the offense taken by serialists at the shift caused by American minimalists. Here's from Richard Taruskin's _Oxford History of Western Music_, vol. 5: _The Late Twentieth Century_:
> 
> Is that mudslinging being repeated here? I'm inclined to think so.
> 
> I enjoy a number of Higdon's works. I think her recent _Violin Concerto_ is excellent, well deserving of the awards it has received. I think her _Percussion Concerto_ is also excellent. I'm fond of some of her chamber works, including _Impressions_ (a string quartet) and _Piano Trio_. Many have acclaimed her _Concerto for Orchestra_, but I find it less engaging.
> 
> It seems to me that it is perfectly acceptable to say that one does not enjoy her music. But can we stop with mudslinging and discuss the music on its own terms?


I did, "not very much of interest under a superficial use of advanced instrumental techniques." 
I repeat, and so you are certain, I am not an 'anti-tonalist,' nor a zealous advocate of any 'one way to write.'

I simply find the music vapid.


----------



## hello

Elitist maybe, but sexist? _Racist?_ This is getting silly. You have to really be grasping for straws to find racism or sexism in this interview.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Elitist maybe, but sexist? Racist? This is getting silly. You have to really be grasping for straws to find racism or sexism in this interview.

Perhaps some members are "behind the curve" when it comes to PC Groupthink.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

BurningDesire- I'd rather watch Spike TV, cause at least they air some good stuff like Star Trek and The Three Stooges. Though Lifetime does had Frasier so there's one good thing going for it.

The Higdon isn't bad, but its just kinda meh for me, like Rachmaninov, or much of Liszt.



Honestly, I can't find an emoticon that even begins to approach how bewildered, befuddled, and discombobulated these posts leave me.


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> http://www.amazon.com/review/R3A2S47EKN7JVH/
> 
> This review is more or less in line with my thoughts on Higdon in general.


Loved the 'art by committee,' and audiences being catered to in order that they can 'feel good' about themselves.

But this reviewer said it all very clearly, with such acuity one can only think, _'ouch!'_


----------



## hello

StlukesguildOhio, there is such a thing as "reply with quote".


----------



## violadude

PetrB said:


> Try 'Blue Catherdral' -- High school players LOVE it.


I've never listened to Higdon. So I gave this a try just now.

I don't remember any of it now.


----------



## PetrB

hello said:


> Elitist maybe, but sexist? _Racist?_ This is getting silly. You have to really be grasping for straws to find racism or sexism in this interview.


I could not more wholeheartedly agree.... 
If taken to a degree where people can not freely speak about why they think a piece lacks merit, and that is because there is some whack premise demanding a 'special consideration' due to either the gender and or skin color of the composer, then it is time for P.C. to crawl back into the slimy, monstrously tyrannical hidey-hole from whence it first emerged.


----------



## science

I'd guess the cracks about Lifetime and Hallmark TV were in mind when sexism was mentioned, not any music-based criticism of Higdon's music. 

Of course we can continue to pretend not to see that in order to continue to pretend to be oppressed by opposition to sexism. Oh, it's so unfair! I'm just an oppressed man, with all the disadvantages that brings. If I were a woman, I'd be universally hailed as a great composer.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> I've never listened to Higdon. So I gave this a try just now.
> 
> I don't remember any of it now.


Rather like the same 'why is nothing still lingering on the palate' non-after taste of much new-age music?


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Rather like the same 'why is nothing still lingering on the palate' non-after taste of much new-age music?


Let's be fair. Higdon's music may not be memorable, but she offers a lot of people the chance to say that they've heard modern music, and it didn't make their ears bleed. That has value, certainly.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Let's be fair. Higdon's music may not be memorable, but she offers a lot of people the chance to say that they've heard modern music, and it didn't make their ears bleed. That has value, certainly.


Cotton Candy (ear candy) has some value: it is fluorescent hot pink, entertains the senses, and requires no teeth at all to eat it.

If you're going to feed the masses, I'd like to think what you feed them has some nutritional value:

Contrary to that, there is nothing wrong with highly temporal entertainment, but then the authors of same might be better off in not making 'important statements' upon the state of the fine arts (on an international scale, to boot) in published interviews.


----------



## PetrB

LordBlackudder said:


> it sounds like a reasonable thing to say. Americans are ahead in many areas like teaching music, soundtracks, and all the new classical music superstars they have.


That much traveled and informed, are we?


----------



## violadude

LordBlackudder said:


> it sounds like a reasonable thing to say. Americans are ahead in many areas like teaching music, soundtracks, and all the new classical music superstars they have.


Actually, as things are seeming to go, the music capitol of the world seems to be shifting to Northern Europe, a lot of stuff happening in Amsterdam. I can't see America really being "ahead" when their culture and politicians don't put nearly as much importance on music as in most European countries. In America, music/art programs are often the first thing that is cut when there's a school budget to be met, even though half their budget probably goes to sports in many cases


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> Cotton Candy (ear candy) has some value: it is fluorescent hot pink, entertains the senses, and requires no teeth at all to eat it.
> 
> If you're going to feed the masses, I'd like to think what you feed them has some nutritional value:
> 
> Contrary to that, there is nothing wrong with highly temporal entertainment, but then the authors of same might be better off in not making 'important statements' upon the state of the fine arts (on an international scale, to boot) in published interviews.


I didn't know anyone was trying to feed the masses, and if we are then the way to do so appears to be to set up a capital market regulated by a democracy. They get McDonalds and fat, Selena Gomez and plastic lawn art of ducks and flamingos. Easy to scorn, but it beats starvation by several miles.

As for we the elite, we ought surely to appreciate cotton candy in its place rather than scorning it absolutely. I don't even mean camp appreciation, but just straightforward, let's take a ride on the tilt-a-whirl and then get some cotton candy.

We can't sit around in our stuffy George Plimpton suits all the time.


----------



## Guest

hello said:


> Elitist maybe, but sexist? _Racist?_ This is getting silly. You have to really be grasping for straws to find racism or sexism in this interview.





PetrB said:


> I could not more wholeheartedly agree....
> If taken to a degree where people can not freely speak about why they think a piece lacks merit, and that is because there is some whack premise demanding a 'special consideration' due to either the gender and or skin color of the composer, then it is time for P.C. to crawl back into the slimy, monstrously tyrannical hidey-hole from whence it first emerged.


The -ism thing seemed to get out of hand because it arose in a short succession of posts which were, IMO, misread by hello. It's just as easy to shout 'PC' to frighten away the looking mass of -isms as it is to shout '-ism' - and both can infect a conversation if not used wisely.

Go back to Alypius' first post (#19) and follow from there if you want to know why three -isms suddenly appeared. Blowed if I know why s/he decided that the comments had been sexist and elitist, but Alypius did not respond to Mahlerian's correct challenge to come back and point to specific posts that exemplified either -ism.

(BTW, I wasn't including 'serialism' in the list of -isms!)

I think the critic_isms_ of Higdon's comment that Europe is behind America were valid one (living here in elitist Europe, enjoying my Golden Canon, I would say that wouldn't I?), though I would not go so far as to attach an -ism.


----------



## hello

MacLeod said:


> The -ism thing seemed to get out of hand because it arose in a short succession of posts which were, IMO, misread by hello. It's just as easy to shout 'PC' to frighten away the looking mass of -isms as it is to shout '-ism' - and both can infect a conversation if not used wisely.





MacLeod said:


> Go back to Alypius' first post (#19) and follow from there if you want to know why three -isms suddenly appeared. Blowed if I know why s/he decided that the comments had been sexist and elitist, but Alypius did not respond to Mahlerian's correct challenge to come back and point to specific posts that exemplified either -ism.


I interpreted "by turns" to imply that Higdon and the commenters were elitist and sexist. Is that not what that meant?


----------



## Guest

hello said:


> Elitist maybe, but sexist? _Racist?_ This is getting silly. You have to really be grasping for straws to find racism or sexism in this interview.





PetrB said:


> I could not more wholeheartedly agree....
> If taken to a degree where people can not freely speak about why they think a piece lacks merit, and that is because there is some whack premise demanding a 'special consideration' due to either the gender and or skin color of the composer, then it is time for P.C. to crawl back into the slimy, monstrously tyrannical hidey-hole from whence it first emerged.





hello said:


> I interpreted "by turns" to imply that Higdon and the commenters were elitist and sexist. Is that not what that meant?


Not sure about 'by turns', but Alypius seemed to be referring only to the commenters, not the interview.



> I must say that I am rather appalled by the tone of the comments on this thread. By turns, sexist and elitist.


I must say I agreed with Mahlerian: I didn't spot either elitism or sexism in any post, but like him, would have welcomed Alypius' being specific about which posts.


----------



## hello

MacLeod said:


> Not sure about 'by turns', but Alypius seemed to be referring only to the commenters, not the interview.


Sounds like "in turn" to me. Like she, and in turn commenters. I dunno, it's an odd phrase.


----------



## science

Alypius said:


> I must say that I am rather appalled by the tone of the comments on this thread. By turns, sexist and elitist. Exactly the tone that turns me and many others off to the world of classical music.
> 
> Was Higdon's comment ill considered? Yeah. Are contemporary European composers stuck in the "modernist" past? Some may be, but _not_ as a whole. If one scans in the full breadth of contemporary European composers, they are not stuck in some "modernist" past but are following a wide swathe of new trajectories. But there is something to be said about the offense taken by serialists at the shift caused by American minimalists. Here's from Richard Taruskin's _Oxford History of Western Music_, vol. 5: _The Late Twentieth Century_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was often relatively consonant in harmony and employed ordinary diatonic scales, minimalist music was frequently attacked as 'conservative' by academic modernists, for whom the term was the deadliest of slurs. But the charge was unconvincing. The contexts in which familiar sounds appeared in minimalist music, and the uses to which they were put, were too obviously novel, and the effect the music produced was too obviously of the present. Besides, 'progressive' music, against which minimalism was being implicitly measured in such a comparison, was following a technical and expressive agenda that had been set at least a quarter of a century, even half a century, before. It no longer seemed quite immune to the epithet it habitually hurled.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that mudslinging being repeated here? I'm inclined to think so.
> 
> I enjoy a number of Higdon's works. I think her recent _Violin Concerto_ is excellent, well deserving of the awards it has received. I think her _Percussion Concerto_ is also excellent. I'm fond of some of her chamber works, including _Impressions_ (a string quartet) and _Piano Trio_. Many have acclaimed her _Concerto for Orchestra_, but I find it less engaging.
> 
> It seems to me that it is perfectly acceptable to say that one does not enjoy her music. But can we stop with mudslinging and discuss the music on its own terms?
Click to expand...

Actually this is an excellent post. I'd overlooked it before. Well-argued, well-explained, with a very well-timed disarming admission ("Was Higdon's comment ill considered? Yeah. ... _not_ as a whole") near the beginning. The Taruskin quote is used to perfection, right on point. Really, we could well have closed this thread as of this post.


----------



## Guest

hello said:


> Sounds like "in turn" to me. Like she, and in turn commenters. I dunno, it's an odd phrase.


Now you've prompted me, I think 'by turns' meant 'first sexist, then elitist' and not 'first Higdon, then the commenters'


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Actually this is an excellent post. I'd overlooked it before. Well-argued, well-explained, with a very well-timed disarming admission ("Was Higdon's comment ill considered? Yeah. ... _not_ as a whole") near the beginning. The Taruskin quote is used to perfection, right on point. Really, we could well have closed this thread as of this post.


I couldn't see where the mudslinging was, science.


----------



## PetrB

I'm thinking the very best part of this thread is embedded in the OP,
"ahead of the Eurpeans" = 'ahead of the urpenes.'


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> I couldn't see where the mudslinging was, science.


I find that hard to believe. Unless you think the remark about the Hallmark channel was meant as a compliment.

Higdon started it, the modernists retaliated, and that's pretty much how we got here.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I find that hard to believe. Unless you think the remark about the Hallmark channel was meant as a compliment.
> 
> Higdon started it, the modernists retaliated, and that's pretty much how we got here.


Being critical - the Hallmark comment - did not constitute mudslinging in my eyes. I guess, like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Sid James

Well I will not comment on Higdon's opinions. But in light of what people attacking her are saying, people on this forum are often quick to defend all manner of composers. I mean real racists like Wagner, real toadies to odious regimes like the Nazis (one contributor to this thread, who I shall not name, telling me I have no right to say Webern tried to toady to the Nazis - well he did, and I got a right to say it, even if Anton is your god!) or real ideologues like the young Boulez was. Maybe composers should stick to music rather than politics, or comments of a politico-ideological nature, but that's life. It happens. But what I'm saying is let them throw the first stone who haven't done these things themselves. If you throw a stone at Higdon, c'mon guys, throw stones at your dead (or octegenarian?) idols. Or are they too sacred to touch, whereas she's a soft target?


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> Being critical - the Hallmark comment - did not constitute mudslinging in my eyes. I guess, like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.


Whatever. I have no opinion on Higdon's music because I haven't heard much of it, but a criticism that is meant to be funny is an insult regardless of the beholder. Higdon's comment, though not meant to be funny, was also clearly meant as an insult. This is not a question like which puppy is cuter, but an objective recognition of tone and intent.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> a criticism that is meant to be funny is an insult regardless of the beholder.


Sorry, I can't agree with that.


----------



## science

The insult was effective as well. This much has definitely been accomplished: all readers of this thread will realize that Higdon's music is considered too feminine and trite to be respected here, and they'd better get with it or be prepared for a fight. 

You can believe this: I am going to try to like her music, and if I succeed I will greet your scorn with equal or if possible greater scorn. The point of the comments were to draw these lines, and they have been successfully drawn.


----------



## Crudblud

You know, my comment wouldn't have been a problem if certain people here hadn't turned it in to one. It wasn't sexist, it wasn't in retaliation to her comment, which was not racist - she was asked to give her opinion of the situation and she gave her opinion of the situation, the OP asked for opinions on her comment and I gave my opinion of her comment, the OP also asked for opinions on her music and I gave my opinion of her music, that is all. Now, if you are quite done with your myopic and sanctimonious whining, perhaps we may continue with the discussion?

I've already said that I believe her comment reveals her to be the one who is stuck in the past, as it betrays her belief that progress is of a singular direction. Now, of course it would be wrong to suggest that there are not composers in Europe, and indeed others in America, and among the more recently "westernised" composers of the east as well, who also feel that progress is of a singular direction, and I feel that is the real problem here. As long as we believe in _this *vs.* that_ we're stuck, if we instead see it as _this *and* that_ we may well both move on and move forward.


----------



## science

Crudblud said:


> your myopic and sanctimonious whining


Also not an insult, right?


----------



## Crudblud

science said:


> Also not an insult, right?


An accurate assessment of your behaviour in this thread. I shall not be replying to any more of your comments, off-topic as they are, because I should very much like to get this thread back on track.


----------



## StevenOBrien

Surely it's a bit behind the times for her to think that:

- Artistic style is still largely determined by nationality (within the Western world, at least).
- Art is like technology, in that it evolves linearly and that you can be writing in an obsolete style if you don't keep up.
- There are still general stylistic guidelines that adhere to our current point in history. (Seriously, I don't think this has really even applied since the 1830s.)

Seriously, I look around me and all I see is eclecticism and independent thinking everywhere. This is probably the first time in history where artists are really being unbound from these arbitrary shackles. I really don't understand her point.

We live in a time of timelessness!


----------



## quack

I was reacquainting myself with her music due to this thread. I only have her violin concerto, played by Hahn and mentioned in the first post. I have heard others including a disc on Naxos with Piano Trio / Voices / Impressions, but I didn't like that much, can't actually remember why and didn't leave and significant impression on me, rather as others have suggested, her music doesn't stick.

As you say, her reliance on the "forward progress in music" idea seems in itself a fairly dated. People are taking influences from all over these days and going in a variety of different directions. Progress only makes sense if you are aiming for some classical epiphany. Looking back you could regard a Bach work as the high point of the baroque style, or a Mozart work as a high point of his era. But trying to see the goal of music whilst in the midst of an era is hard enough, trying to say where a postmodern era might be going, an era where formal rules are largely absent, is pretty much a nonsense.

Her violin concerto is the only piece of hers i've really liked but it seems to have the postmodern qualities of taking a variety of influences and styles while not being tied to a formal structure, so it is odd that her comments seem opposed to that. The concerto does have a film soundtrack kind of quality to it. That's not really meant as an insult, just it doesn't seem as cohesive as a concerto should be, rather it seems like a bunch of scenes which would benefit from a plot added over top of it.

She's certainly not the first led into saying foolish things in an interview. It's strange enough that she resorts to us and them America vs Europe as if that is an especially meaningful distinction these days. It sounds more like market positioning than any kind of serious criticism: "Hey people, i'm the American composer it's ok to like. I make that kind of music you are already comfortable with, not like those noisy rowdy Europeans."


----------



## arpeggio

*Twilight Zone or Outer Limits.*

What a strange thread. I really no not know what to make of it. It appears that posters are trying to make a point. I have no idea what it is. 

The only contribution I can make, if it is possible to make one, is that our band performed Ms. Higdon's _Kelly's Field_. Most of the band liked it. It had a great bassoon part that was fun to play.


----------



## OboeKnight

Just played Higdon's SkyLine yesterday...I really find nothing enjoying about her music. My youth orchestra is the first youth orchestra to ever perform SkyLine. We played it at our last concert and will be reprising it on our orchestra tour to Chicago. The first oboe part is ridiculous....high G flats in an exposed section accompanied by the piccolo...ugh. I'm not opposed to modern music, but I can't stand Higdon.


----------



## Mahlerian

Sid James said:


> Well I will not comment on Higdon's opinions. But in light of what people attacking her are saying, people on this forum are often quick to defend all manner of composers. I mean real racists like Wagner, real toadies to odious regimes like the Nazis (one contributor to this thread, who I shall not name, telling me I have no right to say Webern tried to toady to the Nazis - well he did, and I got a right to say it, even if Anton is your god!) or real ideologues like the young Boulez was. Maybe composers should stick to music rather than politics, or comments of a politico-ideological nature, but that's life. It happens. But what I'm saying is let them throw the first stone who haven't done these things themselves. If you throw a stone at Higdon, c'mon guys, throw stones at your dead (or octegenarian?) idols. Or are they too sacred to touch, whereas she's a soft target?


I have nothing against her as a person, and she's done quite well for herself, so I don't consider her a soft target at all. I also don't think the problem people have with her music is that it's too "feminine" (to answer Science). I don't honestly know how femininity in music would sound, given how different Hildegard von Bingen, Gubaidulina, Clara Schumann, Crawford-Seeger, and Chin sound from each other.



KenOC said:


> Let's be fair. Higdon's music may not be memorable, but she offers a lot of people the chance to say that they've heard modern music, and it didn't make their ears bleed. That has value, certainly.


I can write music that accomplishes that. It's really not hard.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mitchell said:


> Higdon replied that music in Europe is... "lacking melody, it tends to be closer to what we were doing in the '70s... I think the Americans are actually ahead of the Europeans. They're moving forward, the Americans."...Any thoughts on this controversial claim, or Higdon's music in general?


As she readily admits, Higdon comes from a non-classical background, and is writing a "bluegrass concerto" which will feature a bluegrass trio. So this is indicative of the new "musical pluralism" in today's consumer-driven market.

"Atonal" music and other more experimental forms are now a sub-genre of classical; the larger client-base of the traditional classical canon has been expanded backwards into historically informed performances and older Baroque and Pre-Rennaissance composers.

Perhaps the "Neo-Romantic" tendency is an attempt to expand the client-base forward in time, to bring the canon back in-touch with the moving time-line of history, although in my opinion, the Minimalists have already done this, although not generally as accepted as the traditionalists would wish.

Higdon admits that she is accommodating, writing commissions for whatever length and instrumentation is required; so this is a "socially engaged" approach to music, not an "ivory tower" approach. Perhaps she is one of the first "celebrities" to come, like John Williams, who will forge a "new traditionalism" in music.

Asserting that this means we are "ahead" in America is ignoring certain realities. Europe is not as "consumer" oriented as America, and has a more liberal attitude towards art. I suppose there are attempts to force Europe into our "McDonald's" mentality, but I can't see it really holding. America's musical culture started out as "worshipping all things European," but iconoclasts like Charles Ives are the true American composers. I think Samuel Barber, Aaron Copland, Persichetti and all the earlier Americans are the thread which should be followed.

This phenomenon which Higdon represents is a desire for "traditionalism" to keep pace with a moving time-line, against the constant and formidable forces of popular and folk music.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.


----------



## science

So this is the third time or so that I'm listening to the violin concerto. It's not Berg or Schoenberg, it's got creative stuff going on in it though, and it's not sentimental in any ordinary sense. It has pretty moments, but nothing like Bruch or Tchaikovsky or even I suspect what's going on is that Higdon has fallen afoul of the modernists, in part at least because of comments like that interview, but probably also in part because her music doesn't try to be Crumb, and as a result it is at best to be damned with faint praise but more candidly criticized as too sweet or pretty to be serious. Probably Maw is going to get the same treatment, right? 

I wonder how Vasks lines up in this fight? Salonen?


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> So this is the third time or so that I'm listening to the violin concerto. It's not Berg or Schoenberg, it's got creative stuff going on in it though, and it's not sentimental in any ordinary sense. It has pretty moments, but nothing like Bruch or Tchaikovsky or even I suspect what's going on is that Higdon has fallen afoul of the modernists, in part at least because of comments like that interview, but probably also in part because her music doesn't try to be Crumb, and as a result it is at best to be damned with faint praise but more candidly criticized as too sweet or pretty to be serious. Probably Maw is going to get the same treatment, right?
> 
> I wonder how Vasks lines up in this fight? Salonen?


Truly "contemporary" music, music which is changing along with a moving time line, is now a specialist sub-genre.

This just reinforces the idea that classical music is an "invisible museum" which is comprised of older works; and the canon of older classical music is frozen in time, a product of the monolithic, institutionally-approved culture of nineteenth-century thought.

Earlier, Modernism attempted to merge "world music" with the classical canon, treating "primitive" music with reverence and respect. Examples are John Cage, Lou Harrison, Jolivet, Ravel, Debussy, Henry Cowell, Varèse, and the Minimalists.

The real issue here is "economic viability." Success means monetary success. The problem is the nineteenth-century idea of "high art," and in opening-up the "canon" to outside influences which would make it relevant, not just a museum.

In order to be economically viable, Higdon is willing to use _popular music_ (bluegrass, an American form) as her selling point, a sign of the increasing ethnocentric "corporate mentality" of America, which Europe has apparently not succumbed to..._yet. _A better solution than the earlier modernists? That is yet to be seen.
_

_
...Although I hear that bluegrass is very popular in Germany these days; and McDonald's as well. _ :lol:



_


----------



## Selby

millionrainbows said:


> In order to be economically viable, Higdon is willing to use popular music as her selling point, a sign of the increasing "corporate mentality" of America, which Europe has apparently not succumbed to..._yet._


I've agreed with a lot of what you have posted thus far, but this misses for me.

Higdon is far from the first artist to look for economic viability in her work. How about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and on and on and on. They all did work on commission.

It seems like quite a jump to then attribute this to an American "corporate mentality," if anything, throughout art history, this is very much in line with how it has always been, not the sign of a crumbling apocalyptic cash-crazed America.


----------



## Kieran

millionrainbows said:


> The real issue here is "economic viability." Success means monetary success. The problem is the nineteenth-century idea of "high art." In order to be economically viable, Higdon is willing to use popular music as her selling point, a sign of the increasing "corporate mentality" of America, which Europe has apparently not succumbed to..._yet._


Is there a form of elitism in this comment? 

I once did a course in screen-writing and we were told by a wise old guy that American film-makers think first of the audience and then of how to give them what they want (sometimes before the audience even knows what it wants).

And European film-makers think first of what film they want to make and then bring it to the audience.

I see merit in both, and I wouldn't criticise the Americans for being pragmatic in their approach to their work...


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> So this is the third time or so that I'm listening to the violin concerto. It's not Berg or Schoenberg, it's got creative stuff going on in it though, and it's not sentimental in any ordinary sense. It has pretty moments, but nothing like Bruch or Tchaikovsky or even I suspect what's going on is that Higdon has fallen afoul of the modernists, in part at least because of comments like that interview, but probably also in part because her music doesn't try to be Crumb, and as a result it is at best to be damned with faint praise but more candidly criticized as too sweet or pretty to be serious. Probably Maw is going to get the same treatment, right?
> 
> I wonder how Vasks lines up in this fight? Salonen?


Despite her claims to be recovering melody in music (which I think have been the primary instigating factor in criticism here), I have never heard a single thing of melodic interest in it. Of the 2 or 3 listens I gave to the violin concerto (over a year ago now), I now remember exactly one thing about it: a series of glissandos in the first movement. It was an effect (that appeared twice, I think), and not particularly substantial.

Having a hard time remembering it would be fine, as some music takes a good number of listens to digest, but there was absolutely nothing that made me want to return, and every time I just waited for the piece to end. I'm not a fan of so-called Neoromantic music in general, but it surprises me that Higdon seems to have taken the spot for most popular living composer above her peers.

I do have respect, if not love, for minimalism as a style, and I don't consider myself a hardcore serialist by any means (I prefer Carter, Ligeti, and Messiaen to anything by Babbitt or Stockhausen), although I would probably be called modernist in my contemporary tastes.


----------



## science

Kieran said:


> Is there a form of elitism in this comment?
> 
> I once did a course in screen-writing and we were told by a wise old guy that American film-makers think first of the audience and then of how to give them what they want (sometimes before the audience even knows what it wants).
> 
> And European film-makers think first of what film they want to make and then bring it to the audience.
> 
> I see merit in both, and I wouldn't criticise the Americans for being pragmatic in their approach to their work...


That's an interesting anecdote. My father (the type of jingoistic American conservative who never regretted an American bomb being dropped on a foreigner - though he would say it's because America never drops bombs without really good reasons) once said that the Japanese (this was back when we were scared of them) were able to take American jobs because they thought about what consumers wanted while American companies thought about what consumers needed.

The reason this is interesting is that in both cases the one supplying the "want" or consumer-oriented approach is implicitly criticized.

Perhaps there's a kind of romantic conservatism at work in the view that true artists should suffer poverty in devotion to their art. I know Ayn Rand was so alarmed by the ease of her fame that she invented stories about publishers rejecting _Atlas Shrugged_. Perhaps the _succès de scandale_ phenomenon is inherently conservative? Inherently aristocratic rather than bourgeois?

Makes sense to me, but I'd like to give it a few more mental spins before I endorse it even tentatively.


----------



## Selby

science said:


> I wonder how Vasks lines up in this fight? Salonen?


Interesting that you should mention him, when I picked up the Higdon violin concerto I also got the Salonen. I heard it shortly after it was released, through Alex Ross's website, but have not returned to it.

I think I will double down on the two and listen to them back-to-back sometime this week.

Regardless of all the debate, I think it is vitally important that we support living artist creating "classical" music.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> Despite her claims to be recovering melody in music (which I think have been the primary instigating factor in criticism here), I have never heard a single thing of melodic interest in it. Of the 2 or 3 listens I gave to the violin concerto (over a year ago now), I now remember exactly one thing about it: a series of glissandos in the first movement. It was an effect (that appeared twice, I think), and not particularly substantial.
> 
> Having a hard time remembering it would be fine, as some music takes a good number of listens to digest, but there was absolutely nothing that made me want to return, and every time I just waited for the piece to end. I'm not a fan of so-called Neoromantic music in general, but it surprises me that Higdon seems to have taken the spot for most popular living composer above her peers.
> 
> I do have respect, if not love, for minimalism as a style, and I don't consider myself a hardcore serialist by any means (I prefer Carter, Ligeti, and Messiaen to anything by Babbitt or Stockhausen), although I would probably be called modernist in my contemporary tastes.


You're limiting "peers" to her age group, right? She can't be more popular than Adams, Reich, Tavener, Glass (and if John Williams counts...). I'd be surprised if she's more popular than Silvestrov, Salonen, Vasks, Kapustin, or Aho. Or even Andriessen, or Rzewski. On a tier with Chen. But Thomas Adès is even younger and probably more popular, or at least more famous.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mitchell said:


> I've agreed with a lot of what you have posted thus far, but this misses for me.
> 
> Higdon is far from the first artist to look for economic viability in her work. How about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and on and on and on. They all did work on commission.
> 
> It seems like quite a jump to then attribute this to an American "corporate mentality," if anything, throughout art history, this is very much in line with how it has always been, not the sign of a crumbling apocalyptic cash-crazed America.


I'm not criticizing economic success. I'm saying that bluegrass is an American form, so this reveals an ethnocentric approach, rather like building McDonald's in Pakistan.

The real problem is the nineteenth century idea of "high art" vs. "low art" which we still subscribe to, which just makes Higdon's job more difficult.


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> You're limiting "peers" to her age group, right? She can't be more popular than Adams, Reich, Tavener, Glass (and if John Williams counts...). I'd be surprised if she's more popular than Silvestrov, Salonen, Vasks, Kapustin, or Aho. Or even Andriessen, or Rzewski. On a tier with Chen. But Thomas Adès is even younger and probably more popular, or at least more famous.


I meant fellow Neoromantic composers like Ellen Taffe Zwilich, John Corgiliano, John Harbison, and Michael Daugherty. I'd say she's the most prominent of the group and most often performed.


----------



## millionrainbows

Kieran said:


> Is there a form of elitism in this comment?
> 
> I once did a course in screen-writing and we were told by a wise old guy that American film-makers think first of the audience and then of how to give them what they want (sometimes before the audience even knows what it wants).
> 
> And European film-makers think first of what film they want to make and then bring it to the audience.
> 
> I see merit in both, and I wouldn't criticise the Americans for being pragmatic in their approach to their work...


Where does one draw the line, then? The dilemma is not "economic viability," but how do you achieve this in a contemporary environment without totally compromising the 'high art' idea of "classical" music, without making it absurd or trite? What's next, a "Brittney Spears" opera?

Mark O'Connor's _Fiddle Concerto_ seems to be a respectable answer; so I suppose the notion of "high art" is being modified to fit an economically viable model, as long as the grafted source is deemed "authentic."

Folk music...this is nothing new. I don't see how this will "expand the syntax" of music...apparently, traditionalists are happy with tonal harmony just as it was frozen in the nineteenth century or before...so this brave new "modernism" will just be a pastiche of popular styles played by orchestras.


----------



## science

Mitchell said:


> Interesting that you should mention him, when I picked up the Higdon violin concerto I also got the Salonen. I heard it shortly after it was released, through Alex Ross's website, but have not returned to it.
> 
> I think I will double down on the two and listen to them back-to-back sometime this week.
> 
> Regardless of all the debate, I think it is vitally important that we support living artist creating "classical" music.


I would consider Maw too. It's older (1993 vs. Higdon 2008) but it is also unapologetically neo-romantic, also dedicated to a rock star violinist (Joshua Bell vs. Higdon's Hahn). I didn't do it today but I have it in mind to do.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> I meant fellow Neoromantic composers like Ellen Taffe Zwilich, John Corgiliano, John Harbison, and Michael Daugherty. I'd say she's the most prominent of the group and most often performed.


Daugherty slipped my mind but.... Whew. I don't know.

Is Corigliano considered neo-romantic? I hadn't realized that. And less popular than Higdon?

I should've added Pärt as well. And Rutter, Whitacre, all those choral guys. But I didn't know you were limiting it to neo-romantic people. That's an interesting limitation, though, because as I read this thread and the social scene generally, it is neo-romanticism itself that is under attack; Higdon just happens to have incarnated it in this thread.

It's interesting that (afaik) all the neo-romantic composers you mentioned are American. Perhaps that's what Higdon had in mind? Who are the most prominent European neo-romantic composers?


----------



## Selby

millionrainbows said:


> I'm saying that bluegrass is an American form, so this reveals an ethnocentric approach, rather like building McDonald's in Pakistan.


Not to keep harping on, but I also find this to be an unfair criticism. What is one thing that say Dvořák, Liszt, da Falla, and Ives have in common? Integrating folk melodies into their compositions. This hardly makes them ethnocentric; in fact, when this is referred to it is usually in praise.

I'm not touching the other comment, which appears intentionally provocative.


----------



## Kieran

millionrainbows said:


> Where does one draw the line, then? The dilemma is not "economic viability," but how do you achieve this in a contemporary environment without totally compromising the 'high art' idea of "classical" music, without making it absurd or trite? What's next, a "Brittney Spears" opera?
> 
> Mark O'Connor's _Fiddle Concerto_ seems to be a respectable answer; so I suppose the notion of "high art" is being modified to fit an economically viable model, as long as the grafted source is deemed "authentic." Folk music...this is nothing new.


Well, we had Anna-Nicole Smith, The Opera, so why not? 

I understand, an opera by Britney would be a bridge too far. I see no problem with composers aiming for popularity, however. I think if they're great enough, it shouldn't matter. The divides really came into play, as you say, in the 19th century. Before this, Mozart would trot out serenades and dances for the gentry, which were the equivalent of pop dances today.

But I was referring to your use of "corporate mentality" as being something Americans have succumbed to, as if somehow Europeans have a moral edge by not yet succumbing to this. Everyone has succumbed to this, even in the monasteries of Asia and Roscrea, but they practice it at different levels...


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> Daugherty slipped my mind but.... Whew. I don't know.
> 
> Is Corigliano considered neo-romantic? I hadn't realized that. And less popular than Higdon?


You might be right. I've just heard the "most performed/most commissioned living composer" appellation applied more often to her, but Corigliano does have more recordings of more works available.



science said:


> I should've added Pärt as well. And Rutter, Whitacre, all those choral guys. But I didn't know you were limiting it to neo-romantic people. That's an interesting limitation, though, because as I read this thread and the social scene generally, it is neo-romanticism itself that is under attack; Higdon just happens to have incarnated it in this thread.
> 
> It's interesting that (afaik) all the neo-romantic composers you mentioned are American. Perhaps that's what Higdon had in mind? Who are the most prominent European neo-romantic composers?


Well, I admit that I really don't find myself enthused by Neoromanticism in general as a style. Music like Blue Cathedral or Higdon's Concerto for Orchestra simply bothers me on some level. That said, I'm sure that she's sincere, and that she's not writing for the money. I believe she writes what she wants, and that happens to be more or less what her audience wants.

As for Europeans, I couldn't name any off the top of my head, but Wikipedia lists Rihm in their Neoromantic article.


----------



## Arsakes

Not in the sense of "Ford GT > Ford T"

In the field of diversity it may be correct though.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> You might be right. I've just heard the "most performed/most commissioned living composer" appellation applied more often to her, but Corigliano does have more recordings of more works available.
> 
> Well, I admit that I really don't find myself enthused by Neoromanticism in general as a style. Music like Blue Cathedral or Higdon's Concerto for Orchestra simply bothers me on some level. That said, I'm sure that she's sincere, and that she's not writing for the money. I believe she writes what she wants, and that happens to be more or less what her audience wants.
> 
> As for Europeans, I couldn't name any off the top of my head, but Wikipedia lists Rihm in their Neoromantic article.


Rihm is good.

I wonder why not Vasks or Silvestrov?


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> Rihm is good.
> 
> I wonder why not Vasks or Silvestrov?


Silvestrov is a good choice, and I enjoy some of his music. Vasks I'm not as familiar with. Wikipedia is user-edited, so feel free to contribute.


----------



## quack

Mahlerian said:


> As for Europeans, I couldn't name any off the top of my head, but Wikipedia lists Rihm in their Neoromantic article.


I read that too, it didn't make much sense to me, he doesn't seem the least bit romantic. I thought the main neo-romantic composer was Einojuhani Rautavaara. I suppose it is a measure of the art scene at this time that no composer neatly fits in one movement. A specific work of theirs might be romantic but they are just as likely to have composed serialist, avant garde and pop classical crossover works too.


----------



## ptr

science said:


> I wonder why not Vasks or Silvestrov?


I think Rihm might be to complex to be one, in addition to these two and perhaps Kancheli are the main event unless you count Pärt as N.R.?

/ptr


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> You might be right. I've just heard the "most performed/most commissioned living composer" appellation applied more often to her, but Corigliano does have more recordings of more works available.
> 
> Well, I admit that I really don't find myself enthused by Neoromanticism in general as a style. Music like Blue Cathedral or Higdon's Concerto for Orchestra simply bothers me on some level. That said, I'm sure that she's sincere, and that she's not writing for the money. I believe she writes what she wants, and that happens to be more or less what her audience wants.
> 
> As for Europeans, I couldn't name any off the top of my head, but Wikipedia lists Rihm in their Neoromantic article.


I broke up my response because I want to discuss the two things separately.

Crudblood had a good point about things not being linear, at least if he meant that there really isn't such a thing as progress inherent in changing musical taste.

This is a bit complex, because I believe we can talk about "progress" with respect to musical technologies, such as recording technologies, manipulation of tape, amplification and distortion and so on, improvements to instruments, inventions of new instruments, and even discoveries of compositional techniques, new ways to score music, and so on. But the idea that something that comes later is or ought in some way to be better than what influenced it is nonsense: it's probably just a misapplication of what is or ought to be true in fields like math and science, and what is or ought to be true about economic development as well.

So I can agree that, say, Chopin had better pianos to play with than Haydn did, and his music reflects that, and that is a kind of progress. But I'd have to agree with someone who argues in the same way for Nancarrow's music being progress from Chopin. The kind of thing I cannot agree to is, say, that nocturnes are progress from sonatas; or that Chopin's greater chromaticism is progress.

Basically, Haydn would've easily recognized the superiority of Chopin's piano, and probably bought it from him, but Haydn may not have appreciated Chopin's music. It's later in time, but it's not progress, it's just change.

So someone like Crudblood and I agree, more or less, that Higdon's notion of "moving on" if it implied progress is, at best, naive. Probably "wrong" would be better, but she's been through a lot in this thread, so I'm inclined to charity for now.

Nevertheless, our culture still has a hangup with progress, and the fact that someone like Higdon isn't obviously making it is probably a big part of why she's not so popular with the highest brows. She's not serious enough. She's not innovative enough. She doesn't challenge her audience enough.

You can hear the progress-oriented modernist values there: nothing has any value but the artist's vision, she's got to insist upon her own way forward, she's got to drag a reluctant audience along with her. She's not alienating the middle-brows, so she's not doing it right.

I propose that "neo-romantic" is by itself semi-damning. It's not hard to find people expressing opinions like, "It's too bad that Stravinsky was for so long just neo-romantic." The notion itself undermines our self-image as elite, "avant-garde," forward-marching cultural soldiers.

We can _say_ we're not like that, but then, say, this Allevi guy comes around with this violin concerto that really has nothing innovative at all about it and we're like, "Where's the dern beef, buddy? If I want dumbed-down Vivaldi I'll put on a wig, get me some fleas, maybe a bit of syphilis, and drink week-old coffee like they did back in Vivaldi's time. You play me some Sciarrino or you get the fortissimo out."


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> Silvestrov is a good choice, and I enjoy some of his music. Vasks I'm not as familiar with. Wikipedia is user-edited, so feel free to contribute.


Probably better leave that to people who know more than I do. I contribute to the religion topics, sometimes. That's my field.



ptr said:


> perhaps Kancheli


Ah, good one. Maybe so.


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not criticizing economic success. I'm saying that bluegrass is an American form, so this reveals an ethnocentric approach, rather like building McDonald's in Pakistan.
> 
> The real problem is the nineteenth century idea of "high art" vs. "low art" which we still subscribe to, which just makes Higdon's job more difficult.


Composing Hoedown music was not an obstacle to Aaron Copland's career. (irritated aside; I had to remove the hyphen from 'Hoedown' because in the wisdom of TC's censor software, it did not like the first part three letter garden-variety word '***' 

Composing blues-like -- near real blues -- movements was not any sort of initial hurdle, did not hinder Gershwin, Ravel, John Adams, Rzewski, etc.

Using folk material indigenous to the country a composer is from has not hindered the careers of Stravinsky, Copland, Mahler, Barber, Berg (folk & Bach both worked into the _Violin Concerto,_) or many an earlier composer, including those from the classical, baroque eras, etc.

Poulenc's _Piano Concerto_ is on record as a work intended, primarily, 'to entertain,' the composer on record as having said just that -- nothing wrong with writing a piece 'to entertain.'

Mark O'Connor's career as a classical composer has not been at all hampered by composing very bluegrass / fiddling style piano trios and other works.

The collaborative effort by Bela Fleck, Edgar Meyer and Zakir Hussain which resulted in their _Triple Concerto for Banjo, Bass, Tabla and orchestra_. involved no hypo-melodramatic prerequisite 'romantic struggle' under preliminary resistance or suppression prior gaining popularity.

Charles Wuorinen composed a _Concerto for Amplified Violin and Orchestra_ in 1976, evidently at the time causing no little furor because it used an amplified violin: today we have, without any to do at all, John Adams Chamber Concerto, using a trap drum-set, and later his Concerto (Dharma at Big Sur) for six-stringed electric violin and orchestra, each occasioning zero controversy as to those instrument's inclusion in a 'classical' piece.

Composers whose style more resembles that of Higdon, and others whose works are more in the forefront of less 'audience friendly' works requiring more openness and a high degree of listener attentiveness are all being commissioned for new works and those works somewhat routinely programmed, performed and recorded.

The Chicago Symphony's current composer in residence, Anne Clyne, is female, not American, and composes mainly electronic music montages.

The romantic era is quite over, along with the Germanic hegemony of the late romantic era, or its 'Golden mean' of Beethoven as the non plus ultra of both classical music and the embodiment of a once fashionable aesthetic: stirring into an old recipe contemporary politically correct agendae, class struggle in a nearly classless world -- including trying to drop that onto the presently nearly classless arena of classical music -- and applying that as argument pertinent to the contemporary scene is, to me, a red herring as an excuse to exercise / exorcise some folk's personal issues and frustrations onto a situation which has little or nothing to do with those issues. If a composer jumps on that political bandwagon to take advantage of a current vogue, I may find it distasteful but will never condemn their music simply on that account. (Artists have been 'working the press' since there was a press -- also something less than new 

Ms. Higdon's music then, should neither be extolled / rationalized or defended with the (imo) completely non-relevant inclusions of issues of sexism or on any of these 'class war' high-art / low art' platforms.

It seems many here and elsewhere, both in the 'Yea' and 'Nay' column, have all pretty much decided if they do or do not care for the music of Higdon on the more fundamental basis of merely 'what sort of sound' the composer makes, evaluating that, and only that, as being the basis of evaluating the work as having merit.


----------



## millionrainbows

As I said back in post # 82, "Folk music...this is nothing new. I don't see how this will "expand the syntax" of music...apparently, traditionalists are happy with tonal harmony just as it was frozen in the nineteenth century or before...so this brave new "modernism" will just be a pastiche of popular styles played by orchestras."

Charles Ives used hymn tunes, but this did not stop him from being harmonically challenging and decidedly "modern" in an avant garde sense. 

By Higdon saying what she did about post-war European serialism, she downplays the notion of "high art" as being somehow separate from "popular" forms, and wants to merge the two. Can you have it both ways? A "canon" seen as "high art" merged with elements of "low" popular & folk musics, both with different origins, different agendas, different criteria and social functions? Sounds like a bad dream.

I think this demonstrates the dilemma of "avant garde" modernism vs. the nineteenth-century idea of a classical canon. We are in an age of pluralism now, so with the rejection of the European avant garde, we will be facing a world of absurd juxtapositions and "pop art" pastiches. Is that progress? Is that modern?


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> Composers whose style more resembles that of Higdon, and others whose works are more in the forefront of less 'audience friendly' works requiring more openness and a high degree of listener attentiveness are all being commissioned for new works and those works somewhat routinely programmed, performed and recorded.


 Most of your post was very interesting and full of sense. However, the above paragraph strikes me as curious.
I would like to know which pieces you think require more 'listener attentiveness' than the Higdon. Is there any music which does not benefit from of openness and a high degree of listener attentiveness? A good pop record included.


----------



## PetrB

What Higdon said is something else apart from the actual scores the composer produces. Foot-in mouth during that interview, big time? Sure - could have much better 'played the press,' if she had either thought about it, or perhaps, did not believe her own hype. Ultimately, the music must stand on its own without any verbal hype to support it. We shall see.

There is no 'progress' in the arts, only 'developments.' ( I can bemoan the development of late romantic music until I am blue in the face, thinking it a very bad turn for music altogether I don't have to care for all or any of those developments, but if one is expecting constant 'progress' in the arts then one is damned to constant disappointment.

Is John Adams' work 'progress?' Perhaps as one aspect of minimalism it is 'progress', but it is not at all progressive on the 'advancing chromaticism and radically new form' plank.

First you mention the tyranny of the 19th century classical establishment having a mighty grip, (perhaps better put, as 'a lingering ghostly presence,') which predominates the music scene; then you say 'we' have rejected the European avant-garde. Are you advocating 'look away from the Europe of the past, but look very closely at the contemporary avant-garde of Europe?

Were you around in the sixties? Tons of 'pluralistic' and 'experimental' music was made in the classical arena, of which just a tiny bit now still seems worthwhile and 'meaningful.' A a lot of seriously bad music was written and performed (and avidly consumed by those who adhere to the avant-garde), but thereafter, much had been learned from those essays. Once that experimental 'reaction' and period were over, many a composer learned a hell of a lot from it, and settled back into more 'constructed' music which was more than influenced by having gone through that experimental period.

It is a happenstance of timing alone that has us now at this particular juncture of classical music both in the States and abroad. Whether it was triggered by an orchestral piece by Corigliano or others, I recall a New York Times article from the 90's mentioning and somewhat criticizing the tendency for new classical music (mainly the tonal sort) of taking a path akin to a film score, i.e. episodic, polystylistic, not cohesive, etc. Perhaps we are at the apex of that trend now.

Too, 'colorism' was emerging, texture being the main feature of a work. That too generated some seriously bad music, but from that trend we have the more than interesting and successful Spectralists.

As it was in the sixties, another decade will see if this trend takes, stays, or gets radically altered by composers 'fed up with,' reacting against, or just not interested in it.

Ditto for the general audience, in whom I have only a little bit more faith than it seems you might. A nutritional study was done on preschoolers, where a smorgasbord of all food types was daily on offer. Being kids, some repeatedly went for the chocolate cake, cookies, and chocolate milk for days on end. What was observed was, eventually they found a real craving for the other foods with more nutritional value, and chose those over all the sweets.

I do think that at least a goodly part of the audiences now happy with Higdon and similar will eventually turn to something 'more satisfying' than 20 minutes of a 'pretty coloristic' noise they like. What that audience turns to might not be what those of us who like the more rigorous musics would choose. I'm sure Grofe is still played and recorded somewhere, but nowhere near as much as when I was a kid. Now it is Higdon, et alia. Looked at over a longer span of time, that is a great 'advancement.'

Stravinsky said, *"The best comment on a piece of music is another piece of music."* I firmly believe that, and though I write, and trained to do it, I am nowhere near capable of writing in the mode of the most 'advanced' of vocabularies and forms, much of which I both love and admire. I write what I can.

I agree with you more than wholeheartedly that 'pluralism' -- at the hasty tempo it is being picked up (a fashionable vogue) -- is more a detriment to any works having a distinct voice, i.e. being either here or there. That is not xenophobic, I think, but just an observation, just like 'fusion' in pop music is rarely good in its initial stages, it taking some time to assimilate all the elements and make that genre sound 'as a whole.'

Your 'bad dream' is a bad dream, but there is no preventing it unless you accept Stravinsky's challenge / offer. To otherwise 'make comments from the peanut gallery' is somewhat akin to Chicken Little piping about, "The Sky Is Falling."

I don't care for the particular direction Higdon and others have taken, at all. As already stated,, I have nowhere near even that vocabulary under my command. I also do not have to consume or sponsor it any more than I am 'required' to sponsor or later consume the upcoming CD project involving one TC performer and one TC composer, just as I have an option to be, or not to be a patron, consumer, or sponsor of performances of Brahms. Unless one composes and is aggressive about getting it heard, that is the one vote any and each of us has.


----------



## millionrainbows

PetrB said:


> There is no 'progress' in the arts, only 'developments.' ( I can bemoan the development of late romantic music until I am blue in the face, thinking it a very bad turn for music altogether I don't have to care for all or any of those developments, but if one is expecting constant 'progress' in the arts then one is damned to constant disappointment. Is John Adams' work 'progress?' Perhaps as one aspect of minimalism it is 'progress', but it is not at all progressive on the 'advancing chromaticism and radically new form' plank.


"Progress" and "development" mean basically the same thing, so you lost me there. But Minimalism is a progression into a different way of structuring time and process. Music is physics, so it will progress in terms of sheer sound as well. Western music has progressed since Gregorian chant; even Beethoven progressed within his own works. I have great faith in musical development, and I will always believe it to be valid, as long as there is a history to comment on.


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> Most of your post was very interesting and full of sense. However, the above paragraph strikes me as curious.
> I would like to know which pieces you think require more 'listener attentiveness' than the Higdon. Is there any music which does not benefit from of openness and a high degree of listener attentiveness? A good pop record included.


I hope you are not being disingenuous: it takes a lot more attentiveness of intellect to track 'what is happening' in the Berg Violin Concerto than a Beatles' tune.

Similarly, there is more, and less, 'challenging' classical music.

'Struth.


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> "Progress" and "development" mean basically the same thing, so you lost me there. But Minimalism is a progression into a different way of structuring time and process. Music is physics, so it will progress in terms of sheer sound as well. Western music has progressed since Gregorian chant; even Beethoven progressed within his own works. I have great faith in musical development, and I will always believe it to be valid, as long as there is a history to comment on.


Development can and often does include happenstance, capriciousness as to which way something went.
'Progress' implies a 'logical step-by-step progression.'

If all of classical music is 'progress,' then Higdon, or Brahms and Rachmaninov, for that matter, are throwbacks, or more politely, unexpected developments ;-)


----------



## BurningDesire

science said:


> So this is the third time or so that I'm listening to the violin concerto. It's not Berg or Schoenberg, it's got creative stuff going on in it though, and it's not sentimental in any ordinary sense. It has pretty moments, but nothing like Bruch or Tchaikovsky or even I suspect what's going on is that Higdon has fallen afoul of the modernists, in part at least because of comments like that interview, but probably also in part because her music doesn't try to be Crumb, and as a result it is at best to be damned with faint praise but more candidly criticized as too sweet or pretty to be serious. Probably Maw is going to get the same treatment, right?
> 
> I wonder how Vasks lines up in this fight? Salonen?


I'd like it much better if it sounded like Tchaikovsky. I have no problem with pretty, nor emotional or sweet. Her music just mostly sounds boring to me. It seems directionless. It lacks personality and attitude. It really has alot in common with much film music these days. As I've said many times, I am a Romantic. I don't think art HAS to be a certain way just because thats the popular fad of the time. I write stuff that is pretty contemporary sounding, and I also write stuff that has alot more in common with early 20th Century or even 19th century music, as well as things that have little to nothing to do with the realm of classical music. I don't see any sexism in people's criticisms of Higdon, because the same criticisms are leveled at many male composers. I'd really hate it if people just praised my music deafly only because I'm a female composer, just as much as I'd hate for my music to be dismissed simply because I'm a female composer.


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> I hope you are not being disingenuous: it takes a lot more attentiveness of intellect to track 'what is happening' in the Berg Violin Concerto than a Beatles' tune.
> 
> Similarly, there is more, and less, 'challenging' classical music.
> 
> 'Struth.


The Berg Concerto is over 10 times the length of most Beatles's tunes so firstly it is a question of scale.
What is it about tracking 'what is happening' in a piece of music that you consider important? What is important about being challenged? Is music a puzzle to be solved or a test to be passed?

I don't think it's particularly hard to 'track what is happening' in any number of great masterpieces. Especially when one has become familiar with them. And there's the crux of the matter. Once you know what's happening in a piece of music, once you are so familiar with it that you can replay it in your head or at least (if it's very complex) anticipate each and every phrase as you listen. Once you know a piece that well, does listening to it become a redundant exercise? Once you've 'tracked' it, is it still worth listening to? When you know the plot and the dialogue of Macbeth is it still worth seeing?

Can you honestly say that even the greatest intellect in the world can 'track what is happening' in a string quartet by Brian Ferneyhough or a piano sonata by Boulez? It would be impossible without close scrutiny of the score. I very much doubt whether 'tracking what's happening' is something Messrs F and B not to mention a whole host of 'modernists' expect of their listeners.

Great music whether it is classical, jazz, popular or whatever is more than the sum of it's parts.

It is also a mistake to compare a Beatles' song with a violin concerto because the Beatles made _records_ they did not write songs in the same way that Schubert or Schumann did. With pop music it's the whole package. It's the song, the arrangement, the performance and the production that is the 'work'. When I said that the listener benefits from giving their undivided attention to a good pop _record_ I meant it.


----------



## Mahlerian

Petwhac said:


> The Berg Concerto is over 10 times the length of most Beatles's tunes so firstly it is a question of scale.


Scale is not as important as density. Berg's concerto may be about as long as some Prog Rock pieces, but it's far denser.



Petwhac said:


> What is it about tracking 'what is happening' in a piece of music that you consider important? What is important about being challenged? Is music a puzzle to be solved or a test to be passed?


Gaining a sense of where you're going and where you've been.
Expanding your horizons.
No.



Petwhac said:


> I don't think it's particularly hard to 'track what is happening' in any number of great masterpieces. Especially when one has become familiar with them.


Depends on what you mean by the phrase. When you encounter this page (kudos to the ones who recognize it):








Are you tracking the recurrence of the subject, the motions of the individual voices, the motions of those voices in relation to the voices around them, or the harmonies produced by the aggregate of all of these?

If you answer "all of the above", then you probably would have a tough time without a good deal of familiarity.



Petwhac said:


> And there's the crux of the matter. Once you know what's happening in a piece of music, once you are so familiar with it that you can replay it in your head or at least (if it's very complex) anticipate each and every phrase as you listen. Once you know a piece that well, does listening to it become a redundant exercise? Once you've 'tracked' it, is it still worth listening to? When you know the plot and the dialogue of Macbeth is it still worth seeing?


Obviously it is. Every performance of a piece is different, just as every performance of a play is different, and brings new things to and out of it.



Petwhac said:


> Can you honestly say that even the greatest intellect in the world can 'track what is happening' in a string quartet by Brian Ferneyhough or a piano sonata by Boulez? It would be impossible without close scrutiny of the score. I very much doubt whether 'tracking what's happening' is something Messrs F and B not to mention a whole host of 'modernists' expect of their listeners.


See above page. I think that Boulez expects people to be able to follow the contrasts in color and rhythm throughout his scores, and perhaps they'll realize, listening to _Le marteau_, that the movements with similar titles are based on the same melodic material. Sometimes not every note is important (if Strauss writes an 11-tuplet sweep upwards in the strings, and the players make it into a dectuplet with a note cut, will anyone care?), and the listener only needs the general direction to "track".



Petwhac said:


> It is also a mistake to compare a Beatles' song with a violin concerto because the Beatles made _records_ they did not write songs in the same way that Schubert or Schumann did. With pop music it's the whole package. It's the song, the arrangement, the performance and the production that is the 'work'. When I said that the listener benefits from giving their undivided attention to a good pop _record_ I meant it.


Here I do agree with you. Classical music is meant to be listened to in a different way from Popular music and Jazz, so you're tracking different things.


----------



## millionrainbows

PetrB said:


> Development can and often does include happenstance, capriciousness as to which way something went.
> 'Progress' implies a 'logical step-by-step progression.'
> 
> If all of classical music is 'progress,' then Higdon, or Brahms and Rachmaninov, for that matter, are throwbacks, or more politely, unexpected developments ;-)


Yes, if "art" is all you are after; art as a manifestation of underlying syntax & vocabulary of ideas. But "progress" must be applied to musical thought, not its manifestations, which are myriad. If the syntax and methods progress, then new art will "develop" out of this; _there_ is the proper realm of caprice and random outcomes. But "art" is the result of the DNA which constitutes its basic underlying driving principles, and pitched 12-note music has certain "DNA" characteristics built in to it. You seem to be more concerned with effects, while I am more concerned with causes. No cause, no effect.


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, if "art" is all you are after; art as a manifestation of underlying syntax & vocabulary of ideas. But "progress" must be applied to musical thought, not its manifestations, which are myriad. If the syntax and methods progress, then new art will "develop" out of this; _there_ is the proper realm of caprice and random outcomes. But "art" is the result of the DNA which constitutes its basic underlying driving principles, and pitched 12-note music has certain "DNA" characteristics built in to it. You seem to be more concerned with effects, while I am more concerned with causes. No cause, no effect.


You are correct, I am little concerned with cause: you are incorrect, I am little concerned with effect.

What I am concerned with foremost are successful results. Successful results are, in a cumulative sequence as taken from the time line of music literature, exactly what comprise the base of materials in the study of music theory.

_I emphasize theory as meant to be put toward creative use in making new music._ Me, I can see absolutely no other worthwhile use or justification for its existence or any other reason for studying it.

The areas of cause or effect, I believe, are more for those most interested in history, or philosophy.

We politely, I hope, diverge on 'art' being in itself, replete, i.e. quite enough (for me) -- and your wanting something else to satisfy your mind about 'art.'

"DNA of a 12 pitch scale, and as "driving principle," I find meaningless and useless: you think otherwise.

...vive la différence


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> The Berg Concerto is over 10 times the length of most Beatles's tunes so firstly it is a question of scale.
> What is it about tracking 'what is happening' in a piece of music that you consider important? What is important about being challenged? Is music a puzzle to be solved or a test to be passed?
> 
> I don't think it's particularly hard to 'track what is happening' in any number of great masterpieces. Especially when one has become familiar with them. And there's the crux of the matter. Once you know what's happening in a piece of music, once you are so familiar with it that you can replay it in your head or at least (if it's very complex) anticipate each and every phrase as you listen. Once you know a piece that well, does listening to it become a redundant exercise? Once you've 'tracked' it, is it still worth listening to? When you know the plot and the dialogue of Macbeth is it still worth seeing?
> 
> Can you honestly say that even the greatest intellect in the world can 'track what is happening' in a string quartet by Brian Ferneyhough or a piano sonata by Boulez? It would be impossible without close scrutiny of the score. I very much doubt whether 'tracking what's happening' is something Messrs F and B not to mention a whole host of 'modernists' expect of their listeners.
> 
> Great music whether it is classical, jazz, popular or whatever is more than the sum of it's parts.
> 
> It is also a mistake to compare a Beatles' song with a violin concerto because the Beatles made _records_ they did not write songs in the same way that Schubert or Schumann did. With pop music it's the whole package. It's the song, the arrangement, the performance and the production that is the 'work'. When I said that the listener benefits from giving their undivided attention to a good pop _record_ I meant it.


O.K. Charles Ives' Unanswered Question has the running time of a brief pop song. Have to agree with Mahlerian that one is much more dense than the other -- which is nearer the crux -- and the classical piece also pretty void of wholesale repetition.

On the other hand, I find it pretty lame if you are arguing that an adult listener need not not have, or should not be expected to have and use, a contiguous twenty minute attention span.


----------



## Petwhac

Mahlerian said:


> Scale is not as important as density. Berg's concerto may be about as long as some Prog Rock pieces, but it's far denser.


I don't care about density. I care about poetry. There's nothing particularly dense in some of Bruckner's scherzos or in some Scarlatti sonatas. I think 'Close To The Edge' by Yes has a degree of density and poetry for that matter.



Mahlerian said:


> Gaining a sense of where you're going and where you've been.


In that case one can discount a large amount of 20C music.



Mahlerian said:


> I think that Boulez expects people to be able to follow the contrasts in color and rhythm throughout his scores, and perhaps they'll realize, listening to _Le marteau_, that the movements with similar titles are based on the same melodic material.


What does it mean to follow a contrast in colour and rhythm? I can do that in any music that has contrast. Do the contrasts mean something in themselves or are they there to illuminate the underlying structure? The Higdon is full of changes in colour and rhythm. So what? Changes in the music are not necessarily an end in themselves, nor is density.



Mahlerian said:


> Sometimes not every note is important (if Strauss writes an 11-tuplet sweep upwards in the strings, and the players make it into a dectuplet with a note cut, will anyone care?), and the listener only needs the general direction to "track".


And a pianist might play a few bars in the left hand of _Structures_ up a semitone without 'the listener' caring.

I don't know the Higdon piece well enough to defend or criticise it. I merely question the assertion that it doesn't demand the same amount of 'listener attentiveness' as any piece of music.


----------



## millionrainbows

PetrB said:


> You are correct, I am little concerned with cause: you are incorrect, I am little concerned with effect.
> 
> What I am concerned with foremost are successful results. Successful results are, in a cumulative sequence as taken from the time line of music literature, exactly what comprise the base of materials in the study of music theory.
> 
> _I emphasize theory as meant to be put toward creative use in making new music._ Me, I can see absolutely no other worthwhile use or justification for its existence or any other reason for studying it.
> 
> The areas of cause or effect, I believe, are more for those most interested in history, or philosophy.
> 
> We politely, I hope, diverge on 'art' being in itself, replete, i.e. quite enough (for me) -- and your wanting something else to satisfy your mind about 'art.'
> 
> "DNA of a 12 pitch scale, and as "driving principle," I find meaningless and useless: you think otherwise.
> 
> ...vive la différence


But you are not God, my friend. Who determines what is a "successful result?" A good case in point is the autistic "horse whisperer" Temple Grandin. Is she "defective," or does this sort of genetic diversity have a purpose? I think "failure" is as important as "success:"

Temple Grandin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_


PetrB said:



I emphasize theory as meant to be put toward creative use in making new music.

Click to expand...

_
I see it that way as well; but history is a matter of interpretation. Apparently, you have a historical "agenda" if you are going to use your selected 'successful examples' of practice as evidence of music history's direction, because historical events can be subject to bias and interpretation; in your case, what you believe to be "successful." That, to me, is "meaningless and useless" as well.

By contrast, my musical observations have to do with intrinsic features of music structure itself, which transcend history, as "mathematical constants" of music considered as part of the Quadrivium.

The other is aesthetic irrelevancy.


----------



## Mahlerian

Petwhac said:


> I don't care about density. I care about poetry. There's nothing particularly dense in some of Bruckner's scherzos or in some Scarlatti sonatas. I think 'Close To The Edge' by Yes has a degree of density and poetry for that matter.


You may not care about density, but it's relevant for these discussions because it is more important (and this is the context of my line) in determining the "difficulty" of the music. That there are classical pieces that are not at all dense is true (though some of Bruckner's Scherzos have parts with quite a bit going on), and there are still better examples: monophonic plainchant, the works of Erik Satie, Ravel's Bolero.



Petwhac said:


> In that case one can discount a large amount of 20C music.


This reply is a nonsequitur. I said that tracking music is important for the listener because it "gives them a sense of where they're going and where they've been". We already agreed that denser music is harder to track, but this has nothing to do with discounting it. It is perfectly possible to track one of Stockhausen's Klavierstucke or Carter's String Quartets, although it may take more than a single listen.



Petwhac said:


> What does it mean to follow a contrast in colour and rhythm? I can do that in any music that has contrast. Do the contrasts mean something in themselves or are they there to illuminate the underlying structure? The Higdon is full of changes in colour and rhythm. So what? Changes in the music are not necessarily an end in themselves, nor is density.


Given how many people seem to think 20th century modernism is arrhythmic and/or monochrome, I would say not everyone does do it (I fully believe that everyone, or nearly everyone, is able to). You are of course correct that these things are not an end in and of themselves, but they tend to highlight structure, so following them gives a sense of the music's form.



Petwhac said:


> And a pianist might play a few bars in the left hand of _Structures_ up a semitone without 'the listener' caring.


They might not notice that there are wrong notes, but it could easily give off a bad impression (and Boulez's total serialist works, cue confession, mean very little to me personally). Stravinsky's Threni is rarely performed, but it's a great work. I think part of the reason people don't like it is because the phrasing and tone of the players and singers on the recording most have heard is quite poor and ill-suited to the music, simply because the idiom was so unfamiliar and difficult in the 50s when it was made.



Petwhac said:


> I don't know the Higdon piece well enough to defend or criticise it. I merely question the assertion that it doesn't demand the same amount of 'listener attentiveness' as any piece of music.


I think it would be better to say that it's not as likely to reward the listener for trying.


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> But you are not God, my friend. Who determines what is a "successful result?" A good case in point is the autistic "horse whisperer" Temple Grandin. Is she "defective," or does this sort of genetic diversity have a purpose? I think "failure" is as important as "success:"
> 
> Temple Grandin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _
> _
> I see it that way as well; but history is a matter of interpretation. Apparently, you have a historical "agenda" if you are going to use your selected 'successful examples' of practice as evidence of music history's direction, because historical events can be subject to bias and interpretation; in your case, what you believe to be "successful." That, to me, is "meaningless and useless" as well.
> 
> By contrast, my musical observations have to do with intrinsic features of music structure itself, which transcend history, as "mathematical constants" of music considered as part of the Quadrivium.
> 
> The other is aesthetic irrelevancy.


Color me irrelevant and be done with it then.

May that Quadrivium help you keep your interior and exterior world in order and well under your control.


----------



## Petwhac

Mahlerian said:


> I think it would be better to say that it's not as likely to reward the listener for trying.


When you say 'the listener' you are referring of course only to one particular listener, you.
I could make you a list of celebrated 20C 'modernist' works that are less rewarding to _this _listener.
:tiphat:


----------



## arpeggio

Petwhac said:


> When you say 'the listener' you are referring of course only to one particular listener, you.
> I could make you a list of celebrated 20C 'modernist' works that are less rewarding to _this _listener.
> :tiphat:


Anybody can say I do not like this or I do not like that.

I would be more interested in hearing about those you found rewarding.


----------



## millionrainbows

Really, as Bassoon told me in a PM, what is this thread about? I was informed about Higdon after watching the clips, but beyond that, I've learned very little. Higdon just made a "snap" at European serial-derived music, that's all. What does she know? She herself admits that she is a hillbilly who was raised on bluegrass. She just thinks Boulez is "Euro-trash" because she is a backwoods hick. 

* "Is contemporary American music "ahead of the Eurpeans" as Jennifer Higdon claims?"*

Hmmm...I don't know. Does it have any banjo in it? Pass the biscuits...


----------



## Petwhac

arpeggio said:


> Anybody can say I do not like this or I do not like that.
> 
> I would be more interested in hearing about those you found rewarding.


Well, I'm flattered that you are at all interested in what music I find rewarding.

If we are talking about 'modernist' as opposed to just modern or later 20C music, then there is little that I have found rewarding.
On the non modernist front, Ligeti's piano studies are very engaging. I recently was introduced to the captivating Clarinet Concerto by Magnus Lindberg. There's two to get on with.


----------



## PetrB

Uh, oh, on second thought, best left unsaid


----------



## Mahlerian

Petwhac said:


> If we are talking about 'modernist' as opposed to just modern or later 20C music, then there is little that I have found rewarding.
> On the non modernist front, Ligeti's piano studies are very engaging. I recently was introduced to the captivating Clarinet Concerto by Magnus Lindberg. There's two to get on with.


Wait...there's some definition under which Ligeti is not considered a modernist?????


----------



## millionrainbows

I *said*, "Pass the biscuits!"


----------



## quack

Mahlerian said:


> Wait...there's some definition under which Ligeti is not considered a modernist?????


Was he a modernist composer or was he a composer who wrote some of his works in a modernist idiom, some in an avant garde idiom and some less easily classified?

What biccys would you like million, digestives suit you?


----------



## Crudblud

quack said:


> What biccys would you like million, digestives suit you?


Hobnobs please, Mr Quack!


----------



## millionrainbows

quack said:


> Was he a modernist composer or was he a composer who wrote some of his works in a modernist idiom, some in an avant garde idiom and some less easily classified?
> 
> What biccys would you like million, digestives suit you?


Hell, for all I know, Higdon may be right, and "Bluegrass-Classical Fusion" will be the next development in "art" music. After all, witness the Yo-Yo Ma project "Goat Rodeo Sessions" with Edgar Meyer and other bluegrass string players; Mark O'Connor's Fiddle Concerto (currently the most performed recent work) and his "Appalachian" project. Plus, it's got "America" written all over it; you can trace it back to Copland's pirouetting Cowboys in "Billy the Kid."

The players are certainly good; perhaps popular music has caught-up to "art" music in terms of technical proficiency, since these "farmers and biscuit-eaters" have less plowing and more practice time.

Plus, isn't "Western assimilation" what all relatively recent immigrant-descended citizens desire? This gives Yo-Yo Ma a type of "good-old-boy" street cred that he never had before, back when he was the new kid on the block and Isaac Stern stood by his side in tacit endorsement.

Maybe I missed something; maybe Higdon is doing more than simply diss-ing European modernism; perhaps she's asserting a new emerging American dominance in classical "art" music, and making it independent and tied to American folk forms and traditions, and taking it away from Europe.


----------



## starry

Though were did American folk forms arise from in the first place?


----------



## millionrainbows

starry said:


> Though were did American folk forms arise from in the first place?


Technically, that's a valid criticism, since much of "white" folk or Appalachian music can be traced back to Irish fiddlers; but "bluegrass" as we now know it was literally "invented" by Bill Monroe in the 1930's as a viable, emergent popular form.

Thus far, jazz is the only indigenous American music to emerge, originating and developing in post-Civil War New Orleans, and tracing its roots back to African sources.

So why not a "jazz-classical" fusion of "art music" as the next big thing? To an extent, jazz and world influences are present in Minimalism: the improvisation of Terry Riley, and Steve Reich's assimilation of African cross-rhythms; but perhaps jazz is too different in its pentatonic African origins to be properly force-mated with Western Art music.

Bluegrass, on the other hand, is diatonic and uses traditional song-forms.

Additionally, jazz is already just as harmonically complex and developed as Western "art" music, so it doesn't "need" anything from "art" music.

Bluegrass, on the other hand, is just recently becoming more & more complex and hybridized; witness the complex time signatures of "Newgrass" fusion compositions. Bluegrass has remained acoustic, as well, which facilitates assimilation. The timing seems right.

Jazz, on the other hand, became more and more electric with Miles Davis, who seemed to resent the assimilation of jazz (in TV themes and with white players such as Dave Brubeck making it more complex & Western, and Bill Evans with his Debussy-esque piano style), and its commercial decline in the face of the rising popularity of Rock and Roll; he decided to fuse it with Rock and Funk forms, and went after the larger "Rock" audiences at the Fillmore, etc.


----------



## starry

Progressive jazz in the past has already dabbled with orchestral forces.

I don't tend to see the point of nationalism and classical music, that's so 19th century.  We live in an even more global world now. Minimalism and world music I definitey see as a possible route for classical. Quite a lot of experimental and ambient stuff now is minimalist anyway, and that is starting to blend into the classical genre perhaps.


----------



## science

Just worth a mention - there's never been a time in the history of jazz music when it was entirely free of classical influence. New Orleans was loaded with classical influence. Joplin influenced the early jazz pianists, and he was influenced by Brahms. Stride pianists (like Art Tatum) were familiar with classical piano. Ellington studied Debussy, Bennie Goodman was in touch with all kinds of classical stuff, Charlie Parker studied Stravinsky. Grofé was originally a jazz guy. And so on. 

This doesn't mean that jazz is any less creative - none of the above means it was a small step from Liszt to Tatum or whatever. Jazz isn't, after all, classical music in any normal sense, it is a new and distinct tradition. It is just as distinct from any known African tradition, of course.


----------



## starry

Jazz can have more experimental and so classical tendencies, classical in general I think could fuse with some 'popular' (in a very loose sense) forms in the future


----------



## science

starry said:


> Progressive jazz in the past has already dabbled with orchestral forces.
> 
> I don't tend to see the point of nationalism and classical music, that's so 19th century.  We live in an even more global world now. Minimalism and world music I definitey see as a possible route for classical. Quite a lot of experimental and ambient stuff now is minimalist anyway, and that is starting to blend into the classical genre perhaps.


I think this is right. The kind of musicians who are interested in doing really innovative stuff now are using electronic equipment and searching for influences from world music, intentionally crossing boundaries between genres. Labels like ECM put out a lot of that stuff, and it sells well enough, especially when it can cross over as new age music. I'm a big Kronos Quartet fan too, and of course they've always been pioneering that stuff, and they're surely one of the most popular string quartets in the world, so it can work out after all. Golijov and Tan Dun are making fine livings doing world/crossover stuff.

The big deal about globalization means we now have a global elite. They hang out together not only in New York and London, but in Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, Tokyo. They want global music. Putumayo does well with people who aspire to be in that elite.

By the way, I won't get too high on Karl Jenkins, but he was on to something with _Adiemus_, right? How well did that sell?


----------



## starry

What's held the old classical together has really been the old strings/woodwind/brass combo as well, but that has been slowly being questioned over the last few decades as other techniques have been introduced. Scrap that and classical music may as well just be renamed experimental music.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Just worth a mention - there's never been a time in the history of jazz music when it was entirely free of classical influence. New Orleans was loaded with classical influence. *Joplin* influenced the early jazz pianists, and he was influenced by Brahms. Stride pianists (like *Art Tatum*) were familiar with classical piano. *Ellington* studied Debussy, *Bennie (sic) Goodman* was in touch with all kinds of classical stuff, *Charlie Parker* studied Stravinsky. Grofé was originally a jazz guy. And so on.


Jazz was originally horn music, in imitation of a voice, using "bent" notes (Louis Armstrong). The piano cannot bend notes. I consider Scott Joplin to be "ragtime" which aspired to Western "art" music.

But your position does not surprise me, since the piano is the main instrument responsible for "Westernizing" jazz, making it more harmonically complex (be-bop).

Be bop was, basically, the result of black musicians (Charlie Parker) feeling they had to prove that blacks were as intelligent as whites. This yearning for "upward mobility" was the impetus behind much of the direction the development of jazz took. Be-bop was too harmonically complex, and too fast. There was no time for horns to "bend" notes, and the saxophone became a linear instrument, devoid of any vocal inflection or "growling."

In the 1960s, Sonny Rollins & Ornette Coleman both dropped the use of pianos, and Miles Davis dropped the use of complex be-bop changes, instead playing over "grooves" and drones, to get jazz back to a "black voice" and the self-determined black man. Later-era work of John Coltrane shows this as well.

BTW, all this coincided with the "black power" movement in the 1960's, and blacks wanted to reclaim the black legacy of jazz which had been assimilated by white culture in the form of TV themes, "respectability," etc., and get back to an idea of the "self-determined black man."

Art Tatum, Ellington, Goodman, while all good music, were complicit in the "de-bluesing" and the "Westernizing" of black jazz to make it more accessible and "upwardly mobile."

Of course, jazz has always had this capacity for assimilation, as the Bossa Nova craze showed. But by this time, jazz had become a "world" music. There are major black jazz figures who disagreed with this, and wanted jazz to retain its black roots.

Do you dispute that jazz was invented by black men in New Orleans, and its elements (pentatonic scales, bent notes, compound 12/8 shuffle rhythmic base dividing the beat into three) are primarily African?


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Jazz was originally horn music, in imitation of a voice, using "bent" notes (Louis Armstrong). The piano cannot bend notes.
> 
> Your position does not surprise me, since the piano is the main instrument responsible for "Westernizing" jazz, making it more harmonically complex (be-bop).
> 
> Be bop was, basically, the result of black musicians (Charlie Parker) feeling they had to prove that blacks were as intelligent as whites. This yearning for "upward mobility" was the impetus behind much of the direction the development of jazz took. Be-bop was too harmonically complex, and too fast. There was no time for horns to "bend" notes, and the saxophone became a linear instrument, devoid of any vocal inflection or "growling."
> 
> In the 1960s, Sonny Rollins & Ornette Coleman both dropped the use of pianos, and Miles Davis dropped the use of complex be-bop changes, playing over "grooves" and drones, to get jazz back to a "black voice" and the self-determined black man. Later-era work of John Coletrane shows this as well.
> 
> BTW, all this coincided with the "black power" movement in the 1960's, and blacks wanted to reclaim the black legacy of jazz which had been assimilated by white culture in the form of TV themes, "respectability," etc., and get back to an idea of the "self-determined black man."
> 
> Art Tatum, Ellington, Goodman, while all good music, were complicit in the "de-bluesing" and the "Westernizing" jazz to make it more accessible and "upwardly mobile."


My position?

Anyway, Jelly Roll Morton is right there at the beginning of jazz. The first jazz recording had a piano. Not that I'm saying the piano is essential to jazz, but it's certainly not a foreign element imposed from the outside. Way before jazz but in the New Orleans context there's Lucien Lambert, Louis Gottschalk. There were pianists. There was a classical connection - Edmond Dede. Joplin wasn't from New Orleans but he and other ragtime pianists had a huge influence on early jazz.

It sounds kind of like you think the old brass bands were "pure jazz" and everything else was imposed from outside.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> My position?
> 
> Anyway, Jelly Roll Morton is right there at the beginning of jazz. The first jazz recording had a piano. Not that I'm saying the piano is essential to jazz, but it's certainly not a foreign element imposed from the outside. Way before jazz but in the New Orleans context there's Lucien Lambert, Louis Gottschalk. There were pianists. There was a classical connection - Edmond Dede. Joplin wasn't from New Orleans but he and other ragtime pianists had a huge influence on early jazz.
> 
> It sounds kind of like you think the old brass bands were "pure jazz" and everything else was imposed from outside.


Well, like you said, piano was there right from the start, but this was America, and pianos were everywhere; but so was the desire for upward mobility by blacks. I see jazz as developing from blues, sharing the African elements, but jazz was from the beginning trying to "rise above" blues.

Blues was a solitary form, usually one man with a guitar. Jazz was inherently social; large groups of horn had to play together, so naturally notation & arrangement creeped in.



> It sounds kind of like you think the old brass bands were "pure jazz" and everything else was imposed from outside.


Not always from the outside; as I said, many black musicians were complicit in this development into Western music values (harmonic complexity, no bent notes). All I'm saying (like Miles Davis, Coltrane, and Ornette) is that jazz went too far in the other direction, away from Africa.

Ragtime was always a hybrid form; it was a modification of the "march" form made popular by John Philip Sousa, with additional polyrhythms coming from African music.

Jelly Roll was a crossover figure between ragtime & jazz; ragtime was superceded by jazz, so Jelly Roll Morton did not "invent" jazz as he claimed.

Sure, ragtime had an influence; but even "blues" was being changed & assimilated. Bessie Smith is called "The Empress of the Blues," the first "blues star," but her songs were expanded progressions from 3-chord blues, already using I-II-IV-V-VI jazzy type progressions, largely determined by her pianist.


----------



## arpeggio

*Eight year old interview.*

One of the concerns I have with this thread is that it is based on an interview that is at least eight years old. I checked out the Drexel InterView website and the interview was from their 2005-2006 season: see http://www.drexel.edu/thedrexelinterview/guests/alphabetized/seasonal/Season3/

A lot can happen in eight years. People change. There is a lot music that I disliked ten years ago that I like now and vice-versa.

There are many observations composers make that people dislike and they end up having them hanged around their necks like an albatross for the rest of their lives. I know of quotes made by Babbitt and Boulez many years ago that some members still take issue with. Ms. Higdon may no longer agree with this statement. I wonder how long people will take issue with her remark whether it is true or not.


----------



## millionrainbows

arpeggio said:


> One of the concerns I have with this thread is that it is based on an interview that is at least eight years old. I checked out the Drexel InterView website and the interview was from their 2005-2006 season: see http://www.drexel.edu/thedrexelinterview/guests/alphabetized/seasonal/Season3/
> 
> A lot can happen in eight years. People change. There is a lot music that I disliked ten years ago that I like now and vice-versa.
> 
> There are many observations composers make that people dislike and they end up having them hanged around their necks like an albatross for the rest of their lives. I know of quotes made by Babbitt and Boulez many years ago that some members still take issue with. Ms. Higdon may no longer agree with this statement. I wonder how long people will take issue with her remark whether it is true or not.


I think you're right, Bassoon. I think they put it up because it slams serialism as "lacking melody." A typical "appeal to authority" strategy.


----------



## Guest

Thanks for the suggestions of work by Higdon I might like to try.

It's a side issue of course, so I wouldn't want to dwell long on it (there's no need to comment on Higdon's work itself if the question was about her observation about general musical trends in the US and Europe.)

I'm listening to Haydn at present, just discovering how delightful his London symphonies are, and I heard nothing in Higdon that compelled me to set him aside.


----------



## KenOC

Uh...is American music "ahead of the Europeans"? Does that mean we'll finish first? Is there a prize? Not sure what this means, or even what "ahead" means. Confused over here...


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Well, like you said, piano was there right from the start, but this was America, and pianos were everywhere; but so was the desire for upward mobility by blacks. I see jazz as developing from blues, sharing the African elements, but jazz was from the beginning trying to "rise above" blues.
> 
> Blues was a solitary form, usually one man with a guitar. Jazz was inherently social; large groups of horn had to play together, so naturally notation & arrangement creeped in.
> 
> Not always from the outside; as I said, many black musicians were complicit in this development into Western music values (harmonic complexity, no bent notes). *All I'm saying (like Miles Davis, Coltrane, and Ornette) is that jazz went too far in the other direction, away from Africa.*
> 
> Ragtime was always a hybrid form; it was a modification of the "march" form made popular by John Philip Sousa, with additional polyrhythms coming from African music.
> 
> Jelly Roll was a crossover figure between ragtime & jazz; ragtime was superceded by jazz, so Jelly Roll Morton did not "invent" jazz as he claimed.
> 
> Sure, ragtime had an influence; but even "blues" was being changed & assimilated. Bessie Smith is called "The Empress of the Blues," the first "blues star," but her songs were expanded progressions from 3-chord blues, already using I-II-IV-V-VI jazzy type progressions, largely determined by her pianist.


I don't see how your two posts make sense together. Is the part in bold the point you mean to make?


----------



## Petwhac

I just posted a link to Ken Burns's Jazz Docu that was on youtube but it seems to have been removed.
Shame, there was about 10 hours of great historical analysis and archive footage. If you never saw it, seek it out.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> I don't see how your two posts make sense together. Is the part in bold the point you mean to make?


Basically, yes. I wish to emphasize that jazz is non-Western in origin, not only in a geographic sense, but in the African musical elements which constitute both jazz and blues; and that by gradually removing the "African" elements, jazz went too far in the Westerly direction, away from Africa.

My position is in contrast to yours, which seeks to emphasize the Western, non-African elements of jazz, as it was assimilated:

"...There's never been a time in the history of jazz music when it was entirely free of classical influence. New Orleans was loaded with classical influence. Joplin influenced the early jazz pianists, and he was influenced by Brahms. Stride pianists (like Art Tatum) were familiar with classical piano. Ellington studied Debussy, Bennie Goodman was in touch with all kinds of classical stuff, Charlie Parker studied Stravinsky. Grofé was originally a jazz guy. And so on."

While these points are valid, I think this historical view is biased.

Just in case this is not clear, here are the basic "African" elements which blues and jazz are founded on, and which jazz has gravitated away from during its 100-year assimilation by the West:

1. Harmonic factors: Use of the pentatonic and blues scales, rather than our 7-note diatonic leading-tone scale. Blues and jazz use a flat-seventh (derived from the minor pentatonic) rather than a natural or sharped "leading tone" seventh, on all chord types (I-IV-V).

The "major seventh" chord was not introduced into jazz until later, identical to a standard Westernized version of the I and IV chord. Basically, this amounts to a gradual removal of the blues elements in jazz, which transformed it into a harmonically complex "jazz chamber music."

2. Rhythmic factors: Jazz is based on an African, non-Western division of the main pulse beat. This is called a "shuffle" in Blues, and is used in jazz. Our Western notation system cannot properly convey this, and instead arrangers will notate in 4/4 and specify "shuffle feel." This jazz rhythm is not a "feel," it is a division of the main pulse into three rather than two.

To explain further, the main pulse of a blues or jazz song divides the measure into 4 parts, exemplified by the "walking" bass, which plays in 1-2-3-4. However, there are accents which are divisions of 3 which cannot be notated properly in 4/4, because our time signature system does not allow for "3" values to be placed in the bottom number of the time signature. Everything goes in multiples of two: Whole, half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth, and so on. To get a "three" value, we must place a "dot" after the note. You can't put a "dotted" note in the bottom of a time signature.

Notating 3 divisions as "triplets" is too cluttering. The only truly accurate way to notate this shuffle is to use a "compound" time signature, 12/8. This is counter-intuitive, because the main bass-pulse (with the bass drum) is on 1-4-7-10. It's counter-intuitive to count to 12 in this manner, because the main pulse is still felt as 1-2-3-4.

"Compound" rhythms allow the beat to be subdivided into 2 or 3 parts (factors of 12). African drummers "played" with this ambiguity, creating complex interplay, which Steve Reich studied closely.

New cross-cultural elements in jazz' assimilation took this even further, to change, alter, and thus assimilate jazz into their existing rhythmic cultural norms. *Bossa Nova,* for example, transformed the African-derived 3-division of black jazz into an evenly-divided 4/4, common in South America.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Basically, yes. I wish to emphasize that jazz is non-Western in origin, not only in a geographic sense, but in the African musical elements which constitute both jazz and blues; and that by gradually removing the "African" elements, jazz went too far in the Westerly direction, away from Africa.
> 
> My position is in contrast to yours, which seeks to emphasize the Western, non-African elements of jazz, as it was assimilated:
> 
> "...There's never been a time in the history of jazz music when it was entirely free of classical influence. New Orleans was loaded with classical influence. Joplin influenced the early jazz pianists, and he was influenced by Brahms. Stride pianists (like Art Tatum) were familiar with classical piano. Ellington studied Debussy, Bennie Goodman was in touch with all kinds of classical stuff, Charlie Parker studied Stravinsky. Grofé was originally a jazz guy. And so on."
> 
> While these points are valid, I think this historical view is biased.
> 
> Just in case this is not clear, here are the basic "African" elements which blues and jazz are founded on, and which jazz has gravitated away from during its 100-year assimilation by the West:
> 
> 1. Harmonic factors: Use of the pentatonic and blues scales, rather than our 7-note diatonic leading-tone scale. Blues and jazz use a flat-seventh (derived from the minor pentatonic) rather than a natural or sharped "leading tone" seventh, on all chord types (I-IV-V).
> 
> The "major seventh" chord was not introduced into jazz until later, identical to a standard Westernized version of the I and IV chord. Basically, this amounts to a gradual removal of the blues elements in jazz, which transformed it into a harmonically complex "jazz chamber music."
> 
> 2. Rhythmic factors: Jazz is based on an African, non-Western division of the main pulse beat. This is called a "shuffle" in Blues, and is used in jazz. Our Western notation system cannot properly convey this, and instead arrangers will notate in 4/4 and specify "shuffle feel." This jazz rhythm is not a "feel," it is a division of the main pulse into three rather than two.
> 
> To explain further, the main pulse of a blues or jazz song divides the measure into 4 parts, exemplified by the "walking" bass, which plays in 1-2-3-4. However, there are accents which are divisions of 3 which cannot be notated properly in 4/4, because our time signature system does not allow for "3" values to be placed in the bottom number of the time signature. Everything goes in multiples of two: Whole, half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth, and so on. To get a "three" value, we must place a "dot" after the note. You can't put a "dotted" note in the bottom of a time signature.
> 
> Notating 3 divisions as "triplets" is too cluttering. The only truly accurate way to notate this shuffle is to use a "compound" time signature, 12/8. This is counter-intuitive, because the main bass-pulse (with the bass drum) is on 1-4-7-10. It's counter-intuitive to count to 12 in this manner, because the main pulse is still felt as 1-2-3-4.
> 
> "Compund" rhythms allow the beat to be subdivided into 2 or 3 parts (factors of 12). African drummers "played" with this ambiguity, creating complex interplay, which Steve Reich studied closely.


What does this have to do with anything I actually wrote?

I wrote: "There's never been a time in the history of jazz music when it was entirely free of classical influence. New Orleans was loaded with classical influence. Joplin influenced the early jazz pianists, and he was influenced by Brahms. Stride pianists (like Art Tatum) were familiar with classical piano. Ellington studied Debussy, Bennie Goodman was in touch with all kinds of classical stuff, Charlie Parker studied Stravinsky. Grofé was originally a jazz guy."

You haven't disagreed with a single thing there.

Biased?

Look, if I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong. If I say something like, "There is no African influence on jazz harmonies or rhythms," you can show me that I'm wrong.

If I say, for example, "New Orleans was loaded with classical influence," and you think that's wrong, show me that it's wrong.

If I say, for example, "Joplin influenced the early jazz pianists, and he was influenced by Brahms," and you think that's wrong, show me that it's wrong.

And so on.

Looks to me like your entire problem is nothing actually about jazz, but that you've got a racial ideology to promote, and I said something about jazz without promoting it, so you're trying really hard to find a fight.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> What does this have to do with anything I actually wrote?
> 
> I wrote: "There's never been a time in the history of jazz music when it was entirely free of classical influence. New Orleans was loaded with classical influence. Joplin influenced the early jazz pianists, and he was influenced by Brahms. Stride pianists (like Art Tatum) were familiar with classical piano. Ellington studied Debussy, Bennie Goodman was in touch with all kinds of classical stuff, Charlie Parker studied Stravinsky. Grofé was originally a jazz guy."
> 
> You haven't disagreed with a single thing there.
> 
> Biased?
> 
> Look, if I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong. If I say something like, "There is no African influence on jazz harmonies or rhythms," you can show me that I'm wrong.
> 
> If I say, for example, "New Orleans was loaded with classical influence," and you think that's wrong, show me that it's wrong.
> 
> If I say, for example, "Joplin influenced the early jazz pianists, and he was influenced by Brahms," and you think that's wrong, show me that it's wrong.
> 
> And so on.
> 
> Looks to me like your entire problem is nothing actually about jazz, but that you've got a racial ideology to promote, and I said something about jazz without promoting it, so you're trying really hard to find a fight.


I disagree with that, and maintain that this is not a matter of "right or wrong" but of emphasis and perspective. Your posts & responses have been short, and show little engagement with the ideas presented here. This indicates to me that _you_ are the one who wants conflict. Have a nice day.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree with that, and maintain that this is not a matter of "right or wrong" but of emphasis and perspective. Your posts & responses have been short, and show little engagement with the ideas presented here. This indicates to me that _you_ are the one who wants conflict. Have a nice day.


Well, it's true that I'm much, much less interested in "emphasis and perspective" than in objective description. If I'd been unfamiliar with the pentatonic or blues scale or swing rhythms, for example, that would've interested me very much. Your opinion that "jazz went too far in the Westerly direction, away from Africa" doesn't interest me at all. Even when someone like Wynton Marsalis says something like that, I'm not interested in debating whether he's right, but in knowing the fact that he thinks so and how it affects his music.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Well, it's true that I'm much, much less interested in "emphasis and perspective" than in objective description. If I'd been unfamiliar with the pentatonic or blues scale or swing rhythms, for example, that would've interested me very much. Your opinion that "jazz went too far in the Westerly direction, away from Africa" doesn't interest me at all. Even when someone like Wynton Marsalis says something like that, I'm not interested in debating whether he's right, but in knowing the fact that he thinks so and how it affects his music.


That's an excellent example; Marsalis could have been a classical trumpeter. He's very big on Louis Armstrong, as well. As far as I'm concerned, the future of jazz is in good hands with him.


----------



## KenOC

If John F. Runciman were alive today, he might write: "In the end, Ms. Higdon's music reminds me of a meal better avoided, served at a place the children love because of the little plastic toys that come with their food: filling, bland, unremarkable in texture, and vaguely unhealthy."


----------



## starry

Are artists of any type really the best people to judge other artists? They are to busy creating their own works to have the wider view that some others may have. You can get some strange opinions from them sometimes.


----------



## millionrainbows

Runciman, John F., 1866-1916...cough, cough...lotta dust in here...


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Runciman, John F., 1866-1916...cough, cough...lotta dust in here...


Runciman was from only a century ago. Guess that makes Bach one grimy rascal, eh? :lol:


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> Basically, yes. I wish to emphasize that jazz is non-Western in origin, not only in a geographic sense, but in the African musical elements which constitute both jazz and blues; and that by gradually removing the "African" elements, jazz went too far in the Westerly direction, away from Africa.
> 
> My position is in contrast to yours, which seeks to emphasize the Western, non-African elements of jazz, as it was assimilated:
> 
> "...There's never been a time in the history of jazz music when it was entirely free of classical influence. New Orleans was loaded with classical influence. Joplin influenced the early jazz pianists, and he was influenced by Brahms. Stride pianists (like Art Tatum) were familiar with classical piano. Ellington studied Debussy, Bennie Goodman was in touch with all kinds of classical stuff, Charlie Parker studied Stravinsky. Grofé was originally a jazz guy. And so on."
> 
> While these points are valid, I think this historical view is biased.
> 
> Just in case this is not clear, here are the basic "African" elements which blues and jazz are founded on, and which jazz has gravitated away from during its 100-year assimilation by the West:
> 
> 1. Harmonic factors: Use of the pentatonic and blues scales, rather than our 7-note diatonic leading-tone scale. Blues and jazz use a flat-seventh (derived from the minor pentatonic) rather than a natural or sharped "leading tone" seventh, on all chord types (I-IV-V).
> 
> The "major seventh" chord was not introduced into jazz until later, identical to a standard Westernized version of the I and IV chord. Basically, this amounts to a gradual removal of the blues elements in jazz, which transformed it into a harmonically complex "jazz chamber music."
> 
> 2. Rhythmic factors: Jazz is based on an African, non-Western division of the main pulse beat. This is called a "shuffle" in Blues, and is used in jazz. Our Western notation system cannot properly convey this, and instead arrangers will notate in 4/4 and specify "shuffle feel." This jazz rhythm is not a "feel," it is a division of the main pulse into three rather than two.
> 
> To explain further, the main pulse of a blues or jazz song divides the measure into 4 parts, exemplified by the "walking" bass, which plays in 1-2-3-4. However, there are accents which are divisions of 3 which cannot be notated properly in 4/4, because our time signature system does not allow for "3" values to be placed in the bottom number of the time signature. Everything goes in multiples of two: Whole, half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth, and so on. To get a "three" value, we must place a "dot" after the note. You can't put a "dotted" note in the bottom of a time signature.
> 
> Notating 3 divisions as "triplets" is too cluttering. The only truly accurate way to notate this shuffle is to use a "compound" time signature, 12/8. This is counter-intuitive, because the main bass-pulse (with the bass drum) is on 1-4-7-10. It's counter-intuitive to count to 12 in this manner, because the main pulse is still felt as 1-2-3-4.
> 
> "Compound" rhythms allow the beat to be subdivided into 2 or 3 parts (factors of 12). African drummers "played" with this ambiguity, creating complex interplay, which Steve Reich studied closely.
> 
> New cross-cultural elements in jazz' assimilation took this even further, to change, alter, and thus assimilate jazz into their existing rhythmic cultural norms. *Bossa Nova,* for example, transformed the African-derived 3-division of black jazz into an evenly-divided 4/4, common in South America.


To say that Jazz is non-western in origin is quite wrong. Unless you don't consider the USA to be western.
Quite plainly the music would not have come into existence without dual influence of European harmonic thinking and African rhythms and melodic shapes. I believe Jazz to be the offspring of these two parents.

You seem to imply that the gravitation away from it's purely African constituents is not a good thing. Whereas to me the musical fusion of two civilisations/continents is one of the happiest events in human history. Please don't misconstrue that as meaning I think slavery was a good thing!!

What I really can't abide is bringing skin colour into the topic of music. People hear the music that is around them and make music according to what has influenced them. Once Benny Goodman heard Jazz, he was never going to play anything else. The Duke brought the influences of the classical music he loved into his own output.

The notation of Jazz is even more of a short-hand than is the notation of European classical music. They are both imprecise ways of writing down what is actually played. Since Jazz is not really in essence a 'written' music, it's notation only ever serves as a very loose guide for performers.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Runciman was from only a century ago. Guess that makes Bach one grimy rascal, eh? :lol:


One bundle of dust immortalized and revered; the other until very recently introduced to this forum, just a bundle of dust.

I know, it _is_ just a shocker that so many here know so much of the artists and pay so little attention to the critics


----------



## millionrainbows

Of course, jazz was born in New Orleans, but the _musical elements_ of jazz are African in origin, brought over.

When Western I-IV-V song structures were used, it became jazz, but initially, that's all.

"Skin color," meaning white racism, has always been relevant to this topic.

While it's true that jazz is largely aural, the notation issue was used to explain the non-Western nature of jazz rhythm, since it was not understood.


----------



## PetrB

starry said:


> Are artists of any type really the best people to judge other artists? They are to busy creating their own works to have the wider view that some others may have. You can get some strange opinions from them sometimes.


I will trust the clinical judgement of the practiced artist, who readily and clearly can hear what was done, has the matter-of-fact technical understanding of music, the working vocabulary (highly specialized, like for any craft) to speak about it clearly, and that more abstract sense of where something is 'wrong' or 'weak' and can quickly point it out.

Who better?

Too, I value the lay listener's opinion actually as much, but for entirely different reasons.

If I could have but only one, without hesitation I choose the assessment and advice as coming from the professional.


----------



## Selby

millionrainbows said:


> I think you're right, Bassoon. I think they put it up because it slams serialism as "lacking melody." A typical "appeal to authority" strategy.


Seeing how I would be that "they" you are referring to I would be inclined to believe that you must not have read anything I posted. I posted it because I thought it would be an interesting discussion piece, which was partly successful. This post, however, feels personal.


----------



## starry

PetrB said:


> I will trust the clinical judgement of the practiced artist, who readily and clearly can hear what was done, has the matter-of-fact technical understanding of music, the working vocabulary (highly specialized, like for any craft) to speak about it clearly, and that more abstract sense of where something is 'wrong' or 'weak' and can quickly point it out.
> 
> Who better?
> 
> Too, I value the lay listener's opinion actually as much, but for entirely different reasons.
> 
> If I could have but only one, without hesitation I choose the assessment and advice as coming from the professional.


I just don't think they always have a wider view in mind, and they are even more likely to be biased to some things common in their own work. Others may put more time into listening to a greater variety of work, artists are likely to be more single minded. Also the perspective of history pretty much trumps everyone.

There can be some strange comments from composers on others, Stravinsky comes to mind.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> One bundle of dust immortalized and revered; the other until very recently introduced to this forum, just a bundle of dust.


So Runciman's views are valueless because he was only recently introduced to this forum? You must make quite a welcome for new members!


----------



## PetrB

starry said:


> I just don't think they always have a wider view in mind, and they are even more likely to be biased to some things common in their own work. Others may put more time into listening to a greater variety of work, artists are likely to be more single minded. Also the perspective of history pretty much trumps everyone.
> 
> There can be some strange comments from composers on others, Stravinsky comes to mind.


Well, I was speaking more of people like this, though this world famous teacher was not, really a composer, there are composers with exactly the same qualities who teach, and with whom to consult. They get themselves completely out of the way, and see your work for what it is -- no projecting their style, aesthetic or preferences upon it. Less rare than you may think.


----------



## starry

She was as much a teacher as a composer, most composers only do teaching through necessity, they are way more interested in the development of their own work.


----------



## PetrB

starry said:


> She was as much a teacher as a composer, most composers only do teaching through necessity, they are way more interested in the development of their own work.


You are projecting way too much of being self-centered and egocentricity onto artists in general. That is not a guess, but from an actual lifetime's long direct experience of having studied with, worked with, and knowing many artists, both musical and in other creative disciplines.

Student maybe going to be artists? Rife with what you say. The non-student actual accomplished artists? Generally, just not true.

None of it would matter to me but for this 'notion' being spread about by those who have not had the experience, or as much of the experience, that notion another highly exaggerated and 'romanticized' -- and false -- portrait of artists in general, which 'disses,' _en masse_, a group of genuinely humble and very hard-working people.

A very few high-profile exceptions, always a good catch for the press, an engaging character that makes a good story, are the few exceptions, not the rule.

"Enough, already!" is what I think whenever I hear such unfounded palaver.


----------



## starry

Great artists perhaps have to be single minded. And I certainly never really used really negative words like egocentricity or self-centered anyway. Obviously not all artists will be fully concentrated on their work, but most who achieve a certain level of fame and their remarks therefore more widely propogated are in general probably among the more single minded I would say. I certainly wouldn't put the opinion of a composer necessarily above someone who has a wide knowledge of listening to music through their lifetime, it's conceivable such a person may have a wider musical experience in some instances.


----------



## PetrB

starry said:


> Great artists perhaps have to be single minded. And I certainly never really used really negative words like egocentricity or self-centered anyway. Obviously not all artists will be fully concentrated on their work, but most who achieve a certain level of fame and their remarks therefore more widely propogated are in general probably among the more single minded I would say. I certainly wouldn't put the opinion of a composer necessarily above someone who has a wide knowledge of listening to music through their lifetime, it's conceivable such a person may have a wider musical experience in some instances.


If you prefer your guesses to concrete experience, mine and a host of others I have known, well, then, whatever rationale makes you comfortable, I guess. Be my guest and take / make your own choice there. It seems you have, anyway.

P.s. I would recommend keeping your day job, though: it is unlikely anyone is going to call you for advice on how to strengthen their in-progress composition based on empirical listening experience alone.


----------



## starry

You seem to be confusing technical compositional help with general musical judgement across styles of music. You don't necessarily need to know technical details to appreciate good music within a style or alternatively tell when music isn't being that creative. And creativity is about way more than technical details. Still if you think any composer (whatever their biases ) will be a better judge of whether another piece is good or not than anyone else then you can think that if you wish.

I'm also sure some composers will have little idea of teaching a style that is outside of their own anyway. And of course in modern times there are many styles.


----------



## Sudonim

millionrainbows said:


> That's an excellent example; Marsalis could have been a classical trumpeter. He's very big on Louis Armstrong, as well. As far as I'm concerned, the future of jazz is in good hands with him.


Of course, Wynton _has_ been a classical trumpeter at times (I'm sure you know that).

I appreciate his reverence for the roots of jazz, but his outlook is too conservative - almost reactionary - for me. Ken Burns' over-reliance on his opinions made the _Jazz_ documentary a total bust with respect to post-1960 jazz. He (and his brother Branford, too) seems to believe jazz died around that time - or no later than middle-period Coltrane, at any rate. Just as with classical music, it's the modern developments ("difficult" though they often are) that keep the music fresh and moving forward. I don't necessarily need to hear yet another iteration of some old Cole Porter tune, no matter how well-played (and -improvised) it may be.


----------



## BurningDesire

starry said:


> You seem to be confusing technical compositional help with general musical judgement across styles of music. You don't necessarily need to know technical details to appreciate good music within a style or alternatively tell when music isn't being that creative. And creativity is about way more than technical details. Still if you think any composer (whatever their biases ) will be a better judge of whether another piece is good or not than anyone else then you can think that if you wish.
> 
> I'm also sure some composers will have little idea of teaching a style that is outside of their own anyway. And of course in modern times there are many styles.


Firstly, generally speaking I think musicians and composers definitely have more authority when discussing music. They are the ones who are researched and experienced in the subject. Not that a non-musician has nothing worthwhile to contribute, I don't think that at all, but they should generally defer to an expert.

Secondly, teaching of composition really isn't about teaching a style. A good composition teacher teaches a variety of techniques, some of which are more conducive to a particular idiom, but primarily things that composition teachers teach can be applied to just about any kind of composition, whether you're writing some serialist work or an electro tune. My former composition teacher writes in a very minimalist-influence manner, whereas my style... is very not minimalist XD and yet, I have learnt so much from him, and he isn't steering me towards minimalism at all.


----------



## starry

A composer in a particular style will not necessarily like something in other styles, words from composers demonstrate that frequently. And I'm talking primarily about composers here, I never mentioned musicians or non-musicians. Though you can get musicians who are quite limited in their taste too I guess, such as Gould. 

Anyway I've heard enough strange comments not to take opinions from famous composers as gospel, even if some obviously would. And if people think Jennifer Higdon here is an absolute authority on the direction of American and European music then let them, I don't though. It might give you a bit of a problem when composers violently disagree over something though, because they can't all be right then.


----------



## millionrainbows

Sudonim said:


> Of course, Wynton _has_ been a classical trumpeter at times (I'm sure you know that).
> 
> I appreciate his reverence for the roots of jazz, but his outlook is too conservative - almost reactionary - for me. Ken Burns' over-reliance on his opinions made the _Jazz_ documentary a total bust with respect to post-1960 jazz. He (and his brother Branford, too) seems to believe jazz died around that time - or no later than middle-period Coltrane, at any rate. Just as with classical music, it's the modern developments ("difficult" though they often are) that keep the music fresh and moving forward. I don't necessarily need to hear yet another iteration of some old Cole Porter tune, no matter how well-played (and -improvised) it may be.


It's still possible to retain the African elements which made it jazz in the first place, and blues must be considered as almost totally synonymous with that.

I'm not familiar with *Marsalis'* views, but by post-1960, jazz had assimilated so many other characteristics that it was almost unrecognizable.

Note that *Miles Davis* is also a trumpet player; there may be a degree of competition there.

_Perhaps what Marsalis laments is the post-be-bop discarding of harmonic complexity, as Miles Davis led the way to, playing melodically over "drones" or melodically only, _like *Ornette Coleman, *who rarely used a pianist, as Sonny Rollins began to do. This non-chordal, harmonically static style of melodic playing, or more accurately, the lack of harmonic root-movement, is what I think Marsalis is objecting to.

Analyzing this "no chord" way of playing, the connection to African music, and other non-harmonic/melody only "world" musics is inescapable. Realistically, Marsalis may have a point here, since *jazz, *originating in America, *became "jazz" only when the African elements* (pentatonic scales, bent notes, division of beat into three) *were combined with Western rudimentary harmonic progressions, *beginning with the blues use of I7-IV7-V7, and progressing from there into "I Got Rhythm" type progressions, I-VI-ii-V-I and so on, using popular "standards" as harmonic templates for melodic/pentatonic overlays.

One more time: *Jazz **became "jazz" when the African elements* *were combined with Western rudimentary harmonic progressions and played on Western instruments. *

So, yes, jazz has always had Western influences, but these became bigger and bigger, especially with the *almost total removal of the African/blues melodic features,* and *removal of 3-division African rhythm*, as Bossa Nova did, changing it to a evenly-divided 4/4 beat. *If you take these African features away, it is no longer jazz, but a hybrid form.

*For the "pro-assimilation" argument, I counter by saying:* The African elements of jazz were just as essential as the Western rudimentary harmonic progressions.
*
But for the "new jazz" revolutionaries, the Western rudimentary harmonic progressions of jazz had been increasingly emphasized, while the African elements had been slowly removed.
These harmonic progressions are what modern players like Miles Davis and others removed, in order to take jazz back to the more "black," more African elements.

So why did they do this, and why would Wynton Marsalis disagree? Because, *removing the chord progression made jazz sound more like actual African music, which was melodic only, using no chords, like many non-harmonic "world" musics. 
*
Was this fair? Admittedly, it took jazz in the opposite direction of Western harmony, transforming it into an even more "Africanized" form. A form of "cultural revenge" on America, perhaps, on the part of black jazz players?

And Marsalis is a "newer" generation of black man, more assimilated, less angry, more successful, unlike the angry Black Panther "hippie" afo-haired radicals of the 1960s.

Race aside, Marsalis is also the product of the "post-modern" era, in which we become aware of "histories" which did not really exist as commodities or "discrete objects" which could be used in various ways; to meld and cross-breed with other discrete histories, or to adopt wholesale as an artist direction, such as "roots music" movements for blues (The Fabulous Thunderbirds) or bluegrass (Brother Where Art Thou), or, Marsalis himself and his "Jazz at Lincoln Center" series. In this case, Marsalis is a "roots" traditionalist who has adhered to a strict historical model of jazz, as a fusion of African and Western elements, but still strictly American.

Also, Louis Armstrong the Man plays a factor in this; his unflagging good nature, his feeling that he did truly belong to America, the love audiences had for him, and, generally, that he was coming from a place of love, rather than anger or hate. Malcolm X also gravitated to a more "loving" position and tried to start a less hateful form of Islamic religion.

But in this sense, are Malcolm X and Miles Davis seeing themselves as more "world citizens?" Is this their motivation? And does this validate Davis' transforming of jazz into a more African, more "world," less American form? Perhaps this is just as valid as Marsalis' more conservative view. The "world" view, however, takes jazz away from America, away from the slavery and poverty from which it was created.

In this sense, "jazz" was just as "artificially created" as anything else; a "fusion" hybrid music from the beginning, created from the results of dislocation, aggression, and a people literally ripped from its cultural roots. Is it any wonder?

I guess Ken Burns is strictly an American historian, after all, so it makes good historical sense that his PBS documentary series took the form it did, and avoided these types of controversies. Perhaps "History" did end by the pst-1960s. "It's the End of the World As We Know It," as REM sang.


----------



## starry

And if you don't trust a composer's judgement concerning their own work (the case concerning Higdon here with most it seems), why would you trust their judgement on somebody else's? And again I'm not talking about technicalities, I'm talking about creative inspiration.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I've skimmed thorough about half of this thread and from that I've worked out.......

Europe=Art
USA=mass produced consumerism


----------



## Guest

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Europe=Art
> USA=mass produced consumerism


Ah, 'twas ever thus!


----------



## millionrainbows

*ComposerOfAvantGarde* 


> Europe=Art
> USA=mass produced consumerism





MacLeod said:


> Ah, 'twas ever thus!


I'm gonna go get me an Mc-escargot Big Mac next time I'm over there in France.


----------



## Mahlerian

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've skimmed thorough about half of this thread and from that I've worked out.......
> 
> Europe=Art
> USA=mass produced consumerism


You forgot a lengthy debate about the origins and divergence points of Jazz...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Mahlerian said:


> You forgot a lengthy debate about the origins and divergence points of Jazz...


I didn't get to that bit


----------



## science

Europe=Art
USA=mass produced consumerism
Africa=true jazz


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

science said:


> Europe=Art
> USA=mass produced consumerism
> Africa=true jazz


South Korea:....what would you say, Science?


----------



## Crudblud

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> South Korea:....what would you say, Science?


Whoops, misread that as North Korea...


----------



## aleazk

science said:


> Europe=Art
> USA=mass produced consumerism
> Africa=Ligeti and Reich


Fixed that for you.


----------



## BurningDesire

Crudblud said:


> Whoops, misread that as North Korea...


I thought you were making a subtle commentary on how absurd the analyses were of other places by deliberately saying something wrong


----------



## Crudblud

BurningDesire said:


> I thought you were making a subtle commentary on how absurd the analyses were of other places by deliberately saying something wrong


No, I just can't read.


----------



## BurningDesire

Crudblud said:


> No, I just can't read.


It's just you're generally quite witty. So I just assumed... :3


----------



## science

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> South Korea:....what would you say, Science?


South Korea = Gangnam Style

Can't believe this even needed to be said.


----------



## violadude

science said:


> Africa=true jazz


----------



## millionrainbows

Europe: MacDonald's
USA: Taco Bell
Africa: Burger King


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I actually bothered to watch the interview and listen to some of her music and to me it wouldn't sound out of place in the 1940s. :lol:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Oh yeah and I can't believe she said that Europe is behind America in terms of music. Music does not evolve in a linear fashion!!! Even time isn't linear...People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but _actually_ from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.








Jennifer Higdon, your argument is invalid.


----------



## millionrainbows

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Oh yeah and I can't believe she said that Europe is behind America in terms of music. Music does not evolve in a linear fashion!!! Even time isn't linear...People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but _actually_ from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.


I can't wait for you to get old. And you will, heh heh heh...when you reach age 55, you'll know what "cause and effect" means.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

millionrainbows said:


> I can't wait for you to get old. And you will, heh heh heh...when you reach age 55, you'll know what "cause and effect" means.


What do you mean by that.....???


----------



## Guest

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Oh yeah and I can't believe she said that Europe is behind America in terms of music.


It's not a matter of belief. Listen to the clip.


----------



## KenOC

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I actually bothered to watch the interview and listen to some of her music and to me it wouldn't sound out of place in the 1940s. :lol:


Does this make it better or worse? Please compare and contrast...


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Does this make it better or worse? Please compare and contrast...


It means it's not European serialism, but "old fashioned" music, like from the 1940s. You need to learn to understand "Dude-ese," Ken.

What did I mean by that? And who the hell is Matt Smith? I only have rabbitt-ears. Those are the antenna-thingys...


----------



## arpeggio

*The Singing Rooms*

Right now I am listening to Higdon's _The Singing Rooms_. Right now I am hearing some neat harmonic progressions. I really like it. I am glad I have in my collection.


----------



## PetrB

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Oh yeah and I can't believe she said that Europe is behind America in terms of music. Music does not evolve in a linear fashion!!! Even time isn't linear...People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but _actually_ from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jennifer Higdon, your argument is invalid.


Love the misspell, "concidered." LOL. _with_ - _cider_, past tense? Does this mean one is already drunk?


----------



## millionrainbows

Is contemporary American music "ahead of the Eurpeans" as Jennifer Higdon claims?

Yes, it's ahead, but she doesn't have a thing to do with it. America has Minimalism, the most significant music movement since serialism; and I consider female composer Ellen Taffe Zwillich to be more innovative.


----------



## arpeggio

*Americans are second rate composers??????*

Millions,

I can not objectively prove this but it appears to me that many still consider Americans to be second rate composers. Of course there are a few exceptions. In another thread where a member requested recommedations for music that was composed after 1980, there were plenty suggestions for European composers or minimalists. The only post modern romantics listed was a work by Liebermann and one by Morten Lauridsen. There may have been one or two others.

As I mentioned above, I was listening to Higdon's _Singing Rooms_. This work was composed a few years after the interview. It sounded OK to these flawed bassoony ears. And you friend Ellen Taffe Zwillich has composed some near stuff. One of my favorites is Richard Danielpour. He also teaches at Curtis. I could only find thirteen posts about him.

I would have worded it differently but I wonder if Ms. Higdon was reacting to this animus.

Note: As I stated earlier, the interview is at least eight years old. In spite of the reactions of some of the members, she appears to be a more high regarded composer today that she was in 2004. Hillery Hahn commissioned the _Violin Concerto_. I doubt that Ms. Hahn's musical judgement is that flawed.


----------



## starry

arpeggio said:


> I can not objectively prove this but it appears to me that many still consider Americans to be second rate composers.


Really? I'm not sure that is the case. American composers obviously have had some advantage in being in the richest country in the world, so they could get into more academic or musical posts and have more chance of their works being recorded or performed than maybe _some_ other places. But it is interesting to know about composers outside of America as well, particularly in smaller places.


----------



## millionrainbows

arpeggio said:


> Millions,
> 
> I can not objectively prove this but *it appears to me that many still consider Americans to be second rate composers. * Of course there are a few exceptions. In another thread where a member requested recommedations for music that was composed after 1980, there were plenty suggestions for European composers or *minimalists.* The only post modern romantics listed was a work by Liebermann and one by Morten Lauridsen. There may have been one or two others.


*Yeah, many Americans!* Well, Minimalism is American, and I consider them very highly. But I know what you mean, America has always thought Europe was superior in arts, especially very early American art music, like Horatio Parker at Yale, Charles Ives' teacher. Ives bucked that trend, and used American hymn tunes, etc.



arpeggio said:


> As I mentioned above, I was listening to Higdon's _Singing Rooms_. This work was composed a few years after the interview. It sounded OK to these flawed bassoony ears. And you friend Ellen Taffe Zwillich has composed some near stuff. One of my favorites is Richard Danielpour. He also teaches at Curtis. I could only find thirteen posts about him.
> 
> I would have worded it differently but I wonder if Ms. Higdon was reacting to this animus.


And John Harbison, John Corigliano, Schwertner, etc. All good.



arpeggio said:


> Note: As I stated earlier, the interview is at least eight years old. In spite of the reactions of some of the members, she appears to be a more high regarded composer today that she was in 2004. Hillery Hahn commissioned the _Violin Concerto_. I doubt that Ms. Hahn's musical judgement is that flawed.


This is probably true. Maybe Higdon was still speaking from that old "American sense of inferiority." Screw Europe! We have California wine and barbeque!


----------



## arpeggio

*I would love to be wrong about this.*



starry said:


> Really? I'm not sure that is the case. American composers obviously have had some advantage in being in the richest country in the world, so they could get into more academic or musical posts and have more chance of their works being recorded or performed than maybe _some_ other places. But it is interesting to know about composers outside of America as well, particularly in smaller places.


If I am wrong, I am wrong. I would love to be wrong about this.


----------



## starry

I don't think it really matters where something comes from for the listener anyway, as long as it's good.

And Higdon's comment seems irrelevant as there aren't teams of composers competing against each other across different geographic areas. I wonder if she was just trying to make out that classical music in America deserves even more funding by saying it was particularly good.


----------



## arpeggio

millionrainbows said:


> And John Harbison, John Corigliano, Schwertner, etc. All good.


Si! I have met both of the above Johns (I do not know if that sounds right) and they are cool guys.


----------



## millionrainbows

arpeggio said:


> Si! I have met both of the above Johns (I do not know if that sounds right) and they are cool guys.


Wow, Bassoon! Your "street cred" with me just got a huge boost.


----------

