# Marxist ideology, music and the 20th century...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This has been brewing in my mind recently, as I've been reading about these things. Also this recent thread has many opinions supporting Modernist music and the ideologies that go with it, which are to a large extent drawn from Marxist theory/ideology:
http://www.talkclassical.com/23043-tradition-20th-century.html

I do not aim to do anything more in this opening thread other than provide a stimulus for discussion & debate.

I think its fair to say that in the 20th century, esp. after 1945, ideologies and theories to do with music gained a lot of notoreity, especially with what where in hindsight mistakes with how these things played out in the musical world and beyond.

In music, as in other branches of the arts, you got the formation of these intellectual groups and cliques, esp. around universities. Many of these drew from Marxist ideology, views to do with issues of class and power structures. Its ironic that the bourgeoise (the middle classes) where basically hated by people pushing various agendas in these artistic groups, but they themselves largely came from middle class backgrounds. Its almost like a self loathing.

People here know a lot about the rest. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater had to be based on something, and like political ideologies of Communism, there had to be tabula rasa, a blank slate. So you got decontextualisation of art, its sanitisation and whitewash. One example of this is Modernist architecture, Le Corbusier's and Mies van der Rohe's white cubes signifying some type of purity. But in hindsight, their buildings have been criticised for various reasons. One is that they continued the old Eurocentric view. An architect who actually designed buildings that did fit in with their context, the American landscape, Frank Lloyd Wright bitterly joked that for every building Le Corbusier built, he also wrote a plethora of articles, books and did countless interviews. Its the same with music. I bet that it would take longer than 4 minutes and 33 seconds to read all the articles written about that piece of notorious music by John Cage (and yes, many people would not have even heard any or much of the actual music he wrote, which is much more interesting than his conceptual pieces).

In one field I am fairly well versed in, the visual arts, a type of left wing Marxist ideology ruined universities teaching painting and sculpture. Once the baby boomers came of age, they reformed the curriculum. The old skills of painting and sculpture where thrown out, they where seen as outdated and oppressive. So you had theorising replacing actual skills. Now the best place to learn traditional painting techniques, or things like bronze sculpture, is private art academies. I knew someone who had to pay to get the skills he wanted there, the public funded universities here do not teach these skills, or not as well and in depth.

Fortunately, education of musicians in our universities was not as badly affected by this type of approach which values ideology over practicality.

In schools, the ideologies of oppression and the evils of the bourgeoise resulted in grammar being thrown out of the curriculum. In recent years its been reinstated, because these are skills one needs, its not an optional thing.

Bottom line for me is that Marxism is like 150 years old now. The majority of people in Western countries are middle class. My view is that with the demise of the aristocracy as a big patron of the arts in the 19th century, you had music being consumed more by the middle classes. Late in their careers, Haydn and Mozart went into doing public concerts, which where concerts for those who could not afford their own orchestra like the aristocrats. Eg. the middle class, or maybe the lower rungs of the upper class. So music, in terms of Marxism, was 'tainted' by the holy dollar. The plebs, the hoi polloi, the great unwashed, call them what you want.

But then in the 20th century, esp. after 1945, you got classical (esp. new/newer classical) being consumed by another elite. Not an aristocratic one but an intellectual one, academia and their hangers on. So this is where Marxism, which loathed the ancien regime and its excesses, got applied to the middle class in the post-1945 period.

Today in the post industrial digital age, there's hardly any blue collar (proletariat) left. Among the most powerful unions in Australia are the teacher's and doctor's professional associations. Unions in anything but name. In Marxist theory, those who do not own their labour are proletariat. So, are teachers and doctors proles? Dunno.

All this long winded opening post just has the aim of questioning one of the talismans or protective fetishes some people have, esp. those whose beliefs are in line with some kind of Modernist ideology. Does it make sense for people today to rationalise their musical preference with an ideology (or a rehash of an ideology) that's over 150 years old? Even though most people today don't care about such things, its mainly academics and intellectuals who would debate such things?

This is aimed to be a broad debate (if you have got to reading this far, congratulations!)...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Well, this is a new one! "Modernism is a Communist plot!"



Sid James said:


> This has been brewing in my mind recently, as I've been reading about these things. Also this recent thread has many opinions supporting Modernist music and the ideologies that go with it, which are to a large extent drawn from Marxist theory/ideology:
> http://www.talkclassical.com/23043-tradition-20th-century.html


I interpreted Mahlerian's ideas in terms of musical thought, as conservatives trying to claim 20th century 'cred' by claiming that such composers as Debussy and Stravinsky are part of the Western Classical tradition, while rejecting later or more radical modernist and serial ideas.

As I've said many times before, there are plenty of correspondences between early 20th century musical thought (symmetry, interval projection) and serial thought, which simply takes these ideas further.



Sid James said:


> I do not aim to do anything more in this opening thread other than provide a stimulus for discussion & debate.


I think that you post contains certain assumptions, which biases it.



Sid James said:


> I think its fair to say that in the 20th century, esp. after 1945, ideologies and theories to do with music gained a lot of notoreity, especially with what where in hindsight mistakes with how these things played out in the musical world and beyond.


I think that is incorrect. Musical thought began going beyond tonality long before that, and no "ideology" caused it. It was already there.



Sid James said:


> In music, as in other branches of the arts, you got the formation of these intellectual groups and cliques, esp. around universities. Many of these drew from Marxist ideology, views to do with issues of class and power structures. Its ironic that the bourgeoise (the middle classes) where basically hated by people pushing various agendas in these artistic groups, but they themselves largely came from middle class backgrounds. Its almost like a self loathing.


Pure Marxism is more like an idealistic religion. Idealism is a good place for true art.



Sid James said:


> People here know a lot about the rest. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater had to be based on something, and like political ideologies of Communism, there had to be tabula rasa, a blank slate. So you got decontextualisation of art, its sanitisation and whitewash. One example of this is Modernist architecture, Le Corbusier's and Mies van der Rohe's white cubes signifying some type of purity. But in hindsight, their buildings have been criticised for various reasons. One is that they continued the old Eurocentric view. An architect who actually designed buildings that did fit in with their context, the American landscape, Frank Lloyd Wright bitterly joked that for every building Le Corbusier built, he also wrote a plethora of articles, books and did countless interviews.


Frank Lloyd Wright's ego was all he needed. But you're putting down the Bahaus?



Sid James said:


> It's the same with music. I bet that it would take longer than 4 minutes and 33 seconds to read all the articles written about that piece of notorious music by John Cage (and yes, many people would not have even heard any or much of the actual music he wrote, which is much more interesting than his conceptual pieces).


I think modern music, including 4'33", stands on its own, without writings, just like other music.



Sid James said:


> In one field I am fairly well versed in, the visual arts, a type of left wing Marxist ideology ruined universities teaching painting and sculpture. Once the baby boomers came of age, they reformed the curriculum. The old skills of painting and sculpture where thrown out, they where seen as outdated and oppressive. So you had theorising replacing actual skills. Now the best place to learn traditional painting techniques, or things like bronze sculpture, is private art academies. I knew someone who had to pay to get the skills he wanted there, the public funded universities here do not teach these skills, or not as well and in depth.


You make it sound like the "old masters" were the only ones with skill. Many modern artists can draw and paint very well (Picasso, Dali, Giacometti, Oldenburg, even Warhol was an excellent commercial illustrator). And the book "Vermeer's Camera" reveals that the "Dutch Masters" of realism used projection devices.



Sid James said:


> Fortunately, education of musicians in our universities was not as badly affected by this type of approach which values ideology over practicality.


Not a good metaphor, for reasons I won't go into.



Sid James said:


> Bottom line for me is that Marxism is like 150 years old now. The majority of people in Western countries are middle class. My view is that with the demise of the aristocracy as a big patron of the arts in the 19th century, you had music being consumed more by the middle classes. Late in their careers, Haydn and Mozart went into doing public concerts, which where concerts for those who could not afford their own orchestra like the aristocrats. Eg. the middle class, or maybe the lower rungs of the upper class. So music, in terms of Marxism, was 'tainted' by the holy dollar. The plebs, the hoi polloi, the great unwashed, call them what you want.


That all happened as a result of The Enlightenment, and the rise of democracy, not Marxism.



Sid James said:


> But then in the 20th century, esp. after 1945, you got classical (esp. new/newer classical) being consumed by another elite. Not an aristocratic one but an intellectual one, academia and their hangers on. So this is where Marxism, which loathed the ancien regime and its excesses, got applied to the middle class in the post-1945 period.


This has to do with art seeking purity of intent, away from consumerism (which is what the middle class wanted). Art as a pure pursuit was sheltered by academics, the new "monks" of the pure realm.



Sid James said:


> Does it make sense for people today to rationalise their musical preference with an ideology (or a rehash of an ideology) that's over 150 years old? Even though most people today don't care about such things, its mainly academics and intellectuals who would debate such things?


Nobody around here would agree with that, especially if they like modern music.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Another musical-political thread. It makes me wonder if some are interested in music or much, much more interested in the apparent (to them) pseduo-political mixture of confused music appreciation.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Sid --

I personally think certain of your presumptions are false, or at least misguided. As a midcentury baby who has lived through sixty years of art (in the broad sense) and been artistically aware for a large percentage of them, I haven't seen a prevalence of Marxist influence, although I've known Marxist artists who have tried to bring those principles to their work. Soviet realism died with Stalin (although Brezhnev tried to hang onto it); Maoist art died with the Cultural Revolution; a few Western artists, playing at being starving proles, tried to raise consciousnesses, but mostly unsuccessfully. Serial music was never Marxist. Nor was aleatory music. Nor Rzewski's "The People United . . ." or Crumb's "Ancient Voices . . ." Maybe in Europe or Australia Marxist ideology tried to remake education, but not here. 

I think you've got a straw man here.

george


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2012)

Sid James said:


> The majority of people in Western countries are middle class.
> This is aimed to be a broad debate (if you have got to reading this far, congratulations!)...


This is a bit off the mark Sid but I watched a TV doco last night that said the middle class was a quickly diminishing sector in western society which would not bode well for stability.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

GGluek said:


> Serial music was never Marxist.


I think this is right, though I sometimes wonder if the original idea of serialism wasn't basically Marxist. No tone of the scale to gain precedence over any other, all to occur with equal frequency...how very "fair" it sounds!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I think this is right, though I sometimes wonder if the original idea of serialism wasn't basically Marxist. No tone of the scale to gain precedence over any other, all to occur with equal frequency...how very "fair" it sounds!


If this were relevant in any way, it would be very strange that Schoenberg and his school were essentially social/political conservatives, whereas composers like Eisler (who was trained by Schoenberg, but turned to a simpler style) and Copland were on the left, and wrote populist music inspired partially by that philosophy.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Although Sid may have said some things that were presumptuous, he stirs up some deeper ideas. I think Individualism and Relativism are the key influences of music post 1945, and Marxism influence only part of all art. As nationalism was dying, all artists could think about was being unique and new, to be outstanding and original. Those aren't really Marxist ideas, since the Individual wasn't as important as the Collective, nor was everything new a good thing, since it could be Formalist.

If there is a Marxist influence on any 20th century music, it's the _decline _of all of classical music that we've seen. Classical music has for a long time been viewed as elitist, both socially and intellectually, and it probably will never lose that stigma. If Marxism stands for the common people, classical music in its opinion wouldn't be good for "common" people, it's for "extraordinary" people. (We enthusiasts would probably say that we _are _extraordinary, not for our social status or intellect, but our deep passion for this art form that is classical music). Classical doesn't compete with Folk or Pop, and that's not surprising, although it's sad. Classical (of all eras) simply doesn't fit into the ideal of Marxism, because Classical by nature hasn't proved itself as music for _all _people. As much as we like to wish it is...

Or, we can just stop following the Marxist ideal, and say Classical should be for all people, because everyone deserves to be extraordinary sometimes, and not "common."


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Or, we can just stop following the Marxist ideal, and say Classical should be for all people, because everyone deserves to be extraordinary sometimes, and not "common."


Classical music is for all.

How presumptuous to suggest today that (regardless of what original audiences and composers were), that classical music today should belong to any pseudo-political mentality.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I don't see how Marxism would view classical music in a negative way. Marxism isn't about banning things because it isn't popular with everybody. It is about freeing people from their labor through the collective in order for the individual to be in an optimal position to further his desires and to labor from free-will.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks to all your replies. I would say that I'm indeed biased. Not against new/newer music itself, but more sceptical of the ideologies that tend to go along with it. Of course I am seeing this from an Australian perspective. & with that perspective, that Eurocentric quality of Modernism which I think did so much damage here - eg. us trying to ape Europe (& now it seems to be aping America) - is what I think is relevant here. 

I often read opinions on this forum implicitly or explicitly conveying this idea that some class war is still going on. That seige mentality that Modernists had, esp. between the world wars. Then it was understandable, they where up against Nazism and Stalinism. But now that's all over. So what is there to fight against? Consumerism, and I see that as tied up with arguments about the supposed superiority and 'purity' of one type of music over another. Its a new elitism, ironically going back to Marxism. & of course Marxism has kind of accreted many things over the past 150 years or so, its got many offshoots. What I am questioining is the making of it into a religion (& was millionrainbows suggests about Modernism becoming a new religion, thats what I'm questioning). Bauhaus was a perfect example of what in theory was great but what in practice was not so great. In Australia we are fortunate to be the only continent without a building by Le Corbusier, but unfortunately we've got quite a few buildings rehashing his dodgy ideas of purity and all that other stuff I see as baloney basically.

So what I'm saying is this difference between reality and theory. Modernism is replete with these types of contradictions. Maybe more so than earlier eras of music. It has this aura of untouchability. & re the baby boomers and Australia, I think that generation did signal an end to many of the old ways here, which in some aspects was good. But as I said, the bad part was they threw out the baby with the bathwater. What I said about education is true, however today there have been strong moves to redress the mistakes done in the past. Another metaphor is that some of those Modernist eyesores of the 1960's (those 'pure' white cubes) have been demolished in our cities and replaced in some cases with more context friendly buildings.

As for the Enlightenment, I think Marx's view of all that was that it was instigated by - you guessed it - enlightened sections of the middle and upper classes. I don't think he viewed the Enlightenment with much respect. In any case, the Enlightenment seems to have had much less impact on history from then until now (or until at least recently) than Marxism. The Enlightenment bought little or no tangible changes in how Europe was governed in the 19th century, right up until the end of WW1. & after that of course we had the rise of Nazism and Bolshevism, hardly the embodiments of Enlightenment ideals (some say these where actually distortions of them). In some ways Marx was right that the Enlightenment bringing changes in music (eg. Beethoven being a big one there) and of course the other areas of the arts and philosophy and science had little impact on what he was concerned about, power relations and class struggle. For that to happen, we needed two cataclysmic wars and real revolutions, not paper based pseudo revolutions coming out of the universities.

I've tried to address at least some issues raised by all your responses.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> ....
> 
> If there is a Marxist influence on any 20th century music, it's the _decline _of all of classical music that we've seen. Classical music has for a long time been viewed as elitist, both socially and intellectually, and it probably will never lose that stigma. If Marxism stands for the common people, classical music in its opinion wouldn't be good for "common" people, it's for "extraordinary" people. (We enthusiasts would probably say that we _are _extraordinary, not for our social status or intellect, but our deep passion for this art form that is classical music). Classical doesn't compete with Folk or Pop, and that's not surprising, although it's sad. Classical (of all eras) simply doesn't fit into the ideal of Marxism, because Classical by nature hasn't proved itself as music for _all _people. As much as we like to wish it is...
> 
> Or, we can just stop following the Marxist ideal, and say Classical should be for all people, because everyone deserves to be extraordinary sometimes, and not "common."


What I'd add to what you say there is that basically now, the majority of consumers of music in the Western developed nations - and of course in emerging markets like Asia and South America - they're all middle class. Classical has a middle class consumer base (no matter if its tonal, atonal, serial, whatever) so too does rock, jazz, techno, etc. Even genres that signified rebellion when they originally emerged - eg. punk and metal - are now largely middle class. When I see a punk or goth in the street here, I think of it as an image or fashion thing, not as what this type of thing was originally related to and emerged from decades ago. Eg. punk emerging in the UK as a reaction against 'the establishment,' Thatcherism and all that stuff. Now it is basically establishment, or at least more establishment than it originally was. These things have been absorbed into & become part of the mainstream, basically. They're no longer fringe as they once where.

So that's what I'm saying. To argue like some people do, that certain types of classical music are better than others based on things related to an ideology that's like 150 years old, it doesn't make sense to me. Music composed for some intellectual elite in the universities is no better or worse than that which is more geared towards the masses (eg. film or musicals). Its things like Adorno's connection of leftist/Marxist views with trends to do with Modernism in music that really got the intellectual elites moving towards this (in the inter war period in Europe) and some people still seem to be stuck with this type of ideology. I see it as outdated and way past its use by date. Maybe a shield and a comfort against the harsh reality that music is just yet another product. The white cube decontextualised view, strongly connected to these offshoots of Marxist thought, is like an anachronism in today's consumerist and globalised world - whether we like it or not. & I for one am not a fan of consumerism and materialism personally, I am just stating facts/trends as I see them.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Everything ends up watered down and spread through the masses in a more superficial form of the original. (The Great Unwashed!) This is why things change and art continues to innovate.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> Everything ends up watered down and spread through the masses in a more superficial form of the original. (The Great Unwashed!) This is why things change and art continues to innovate.


Things do get absorbed into the mainstream its true (as I talked to re punk and metal).

But sometimes, to some people they don't matter, they never mattered. Eg. a good number of Australian composers turned their backs on serialism in the post war period and looked for other ways to innovate. Eg. Peter Sculthorpe, who is a favourite of mine, but also others of that generation who matured in the post war decades. He was more interested in our region, in things like gamelan, Asian music and also Australian Aboriginal music & respecting the environment (at a time when it was not yet politically trendy to do these things).

Of course in Europe you had composers who where similarly not interested in giving their audiences undiluted - if we go by the doctrine of 'purity'- stuff influenced by what I see as a fanatical view of Webern, or that short lived trend of 'total serialism,' etc. Messiaen was one of these, he was influenced by Webern, but distanced himself from the outbursts of his pupil Boulez. Messiaen was also pulled down or viewed with suspicion due to the obvious religious associations in his music (principally of Christianity, but not only that, he was quite ecumenical, having an interest in many religions/faith traditions). Again, Marxists view religion as the opiate of the masses, all that stuff. I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am basically saying that these types of views can underpin people's thinking about music. & in the case of Messiaen, as with any music, who cares if he didn't do total serialism or he was religious? Should that type of thing matter? Or if they matter, is it worth using them as a battering ram against him, or do we just use it to inform our appreciation of his art? I think these things are relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Interesting bit about peter Sculthorpe. I think I'll have to check him out... I wouldn't mind hearing more classical influenced by gamelan.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sculthorpe is more a second rank composer today. He is not terribly well known in the international scene, though he has some interesting pieces.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> Interesting bit about peter Sculthorpe. I think I'll have to check him out... I wouldn't mind hearing more classical influenced by gamelan.


Try Tabu-Tabuhan by Colin McPhee. (1st movement only here)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> Interesting bit about peter Sculthorpe. I think I'll have to check him out... I wouldn't mind hearing more classical influenced by gamelan.


Tabuh Tabuhan is a great example of Sculthorpe integrating gamelan into his music. He also has a work named it (I did not know of the Mcphee work). Also this thread I did on him might be of help to you:
http://www.talkclassical.com/5674-peter-sculthorpe.html



Rapide said:


> Sculthorpe is more a second rank composer today. He is not terribly well known in the international scene, though he has some interesting pieces.


Well he is getting commissioned to do works internationally. Recently he was commissioned by John Williams the guitarist (they've worked together in the past) to premiere a work by Sculthorpe in New York.

Sculthorpe did innovate in earlier times, in the 1960's. He was innovating in similar ways to Penderecki (in sonority) at the same time as him (the four Sun Music pieces are the best examples) but they did not know that eachother where doing the same thing.

Sculthorpe also studied in depth the musics of Asia and Australia-Pacific region, he was the first to teach it when he lectured at Sydney Conservatorium. He also taught serialism btw, even though he did not use it in his own mature works. He was influenced by Messiaen and Varese, but generally worked to fashion his own sound. He has steered clear of ideology, esp. of the extreme kinds.

But you know what? You can think what you want. This thread is more or less me putting on the table what I think about stuff I discussed in my opening post. If putting down one of my favourite composers makes you feel good, so be it. & he's the most well known and respected composer of Australia of his generation (he's in his early eighties now). There are others of course, like Nigel Butterley, another one was the late Richard Meale. I can go on. Australian composers have worked to fashion approaches in music that is about us, our landscapes, our histories and stories, not rehashing European or other overseas trends as was done in the past (just like what I said about Modernist architecture, our cities are blighted by some of those Modernist mistakes of the past, but it can also apply to trends in music like serialism which have never taken hold here to a great deal, even less so than in the cliques where it is popular in Europe). But I don't care.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

@Sid James, so Adorno is partly responsible for the current situation in music? He was a freelancer socialist/communist who had a book or two about music as I remember.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Tabuh Tabuhan is a great example of Sculthorpe integrating gamelan into his music. He also has a work named it (I did not know of the Mcphee work). Also this thread I did on him might be of help to you:
> http://www.talkclassical.com/5674-peter-sculthorpe.html
> 
> Well he is getting commissioned to do works internationally. Recently he was commissioned by John Williams the guitarist (they've worked together in the past) to premiere a work by Sculthorpe in New York.
> ...


The same could be argued in principle about Richard Wagner.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I think this is right, though I sometimes wonder if the original idea of serialism wasn't basically Marxist. No tone of the scale to gain precedence over any other, all to occur with equal frequency...how very "fair" it sounds!


I feel quite the contrary: I see serialism as "democracy," not communism: no longer is the chromatic scale "ruled" by a "king" tonic note or a "fascist dictator" root.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> What I'd add to what you say there is that basically now, the majority of consumers of music in the Western developed nations - and of course in emerging markets like Asia and South America - they're all middle class. Classical has a middle class consumer base (no matter if its tonal, atonal, serial, whatever) so too does rock, jazz, techno, etc. Even genres that signified rebellion when they originally emerged - eg. punk and metal - are now largely middle class. When I see a punk or goth in the street here, I think of it as an image or fashion thing, not as what this type of thing was originally related to and emerged from decades ago. Eg. punk emerging in the UK as a reaction against 'the establishment,' Thatcherism and all that stuff. Now it is basically establishment, or at least more establishment than it originally was. These things have been absorbed into & become part of the mainstream, basically. They're no longer fringe as they once where.
> 
> Music composed for some intellectual elite in the universities is no better or worse than that which is more geared towards the masses (eg. film or musicals). I for one am not a fan of consumerism and materialism personally, I am just stating facts/trends as I see them.


What you're observing about "punk" and other forms of "rebellion" is that they eventually become subsumed by the mass-marketing machine. The "first wave" punk bands (Sex Pistols, Clash, The Damned) were not commercially successful at first, because they did not have the backing of mass-marketing until (in the case of the Clash) until later, when the "second wave" of punk hit: Nirvana (whose success caused Cobain's suicide), Green Day, Billy Idol, etc.

However, I think there is still a faction of composers/works which are insulated from being absorbed into the mass-market because they don't participate, and because of their inherently "non-entertainment" and non-commercial qualities. Serialism and related music is a large part of this group. It is produced outside the consumer marketplace, and funded differently. The profit motive is not the consideration, only the work.

Although I embrace Adorno's idea of the "mass market" as being a manipulative force, I have much more faith than he does in the artists with pure intent, and their consumers, who manage to emerge and extract from this compost "authentic art:" The Beatles, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

When I think of Gamelon, I always think of Lou Harrison. I must be the only one...


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

I l ike Shostakovich...
Even his ''commmunsit works''


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> When I think of Gamelon, I always think of Lou Harrison. I must be the only one...


LOL. No, you're not the only one. Harrison, Partch, and later Terry Riley.

Earlier, Debussy heard the Gamelon ensemble at the Javanese pavilion of the Paris World Expo of 1889. and it was such a discovery-revelation for him that that 'satori' would not be inappropriate for that moment in the composer's life; hearing it was an ear opener that catalyzed another shift to his then already 'modern' approach.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Arsakes said:


> @Sid James, so Adorno is partly responsible for the current situation in music? He was a freelancer socialist/communist who had a book or two about music as I remember.


Well he definitely combined elements of left wing political ideology (eg. drawn from Marxism) with his views on Modern music. His trashing of Sibelius and corresponding elevation of Schoenberg was a notorious and extreme result of what I'm critiquing here. But there where others. In any case my target is not people like him, I mean he's dead. Its more to question and put a spotlight on how on this forum we constantly get this notion that somehow ideologies to do with the left allied with certain views on/of Modern music are more valid or better than other ideologies. Well they're not better or worse is what I'm saying. They're all just ideologies. & putting the boot into the middle class or into more famous or commercially successful composers is definitely an outgrowth of this ideology.



millionrainbows said:


> ...
> 
> However, I think there is still a faction of composers/works which are insulated from being absorbed into the mass-market because they don't participate, and because of their inherently "non-entertainment" and non-commercial qualities. Serialism and related music is a large part of this group. It is produced outside the consumer marketplace, and funded differently. The profit motive is not the consideration, only the work.
> ...


Well if you put that bias or simple preference for that type of music over others, I have no problem with that. My opinion is that these composers are writing for an intellectual elite, as I said its just another type of audience or another type of focus. I personally enjoy some of that type of music and more so called 'lowbrow' stuff. So I don't buy into this Marxist type of ideology of lack of commercial taint or more purity.

The various ideological battles over music (eg. on this forum and also on others) can bring out the basest of human instincts. Here, at one of our top music schools, there was a scandal that made it to the front page of the newspapers. The head of the school was apparently forced out by a clique of professors at the school. The case went to court. Commercialism might not taint the universities, but they're not immune to infighting and bitching thats for sure. I see Marx's valueing collectivism as negating what may well be basic human nature. Eg. it can be to make a buck or just be king of the (ideological?) castle, to be top dog, to rule the roost, etc. I don't buy into what I see as a shield against these realities, whether its a Marxist shield or any other shield. Better to face the truth.

& re The Beatles, they where involved in very long legal wranglings over who owned the rights to what after they split up. I didn't understand your exact point about them but what I'm saying is that money talks concerning their history too. Paul McCartney apologised for all the bitching in front of Yoko Ono, but that was recently, his musical collaborator and later rival John Lennon had long died.


----------

