Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Re: Canon Versus Repertory
My initial responses to Jerry’s question, in no particular order:
- Is it possible to create a hierarchy of composers, ranking them in order from most to least important? If so, is it desirable?
- Programming is a complex art form, dependent on resources, relying on complementariness, hostage to accurate performance materials. Sometimes the number of performances reflects the importance of a composer, but sometimes it doesn’t.
- There is a false hierarchy of venues, in which large spaces with huge ensembles are seen as more important than small venues with intimate ensembles. Why should this be so? After all, both experiences are channeled through a pair of ears to a single brain.
- Ives is a fairly frequent feature on vocal recitals; Adams is not.
- Feldman's generation was more interested in changing the course of music history than Adams's. Changing the course of music history is, of course, very impressive, but is it always the most important thing one can do? Surely, "importance" is a relative term, depending on cultural factors outside of the individual composer's control.
That's my somewhat disorganized response of the moment. I'm curious to know what others think.
posted by Lawrence Dillon
12:07 PM
|
