Comments on: Is Classical Music Too Arty-Farty for Its Own Good?

By: Rob Huebsch

Rob Huebsch — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:57:53 +0000

As a life-long lover of Bach –after having gotten over my initial reaction at age 8 or so that he was “so old-fashioned”– my considered opinion now is that his art is probably the best example we have of a music that “has it all.” Duke Ellington used the term “beyond category” to refer to his own things, which it doesn’t, but it does for that of Bach. (I forced myself to listen to some of Ellington’s big “serious” works, amused to find them the same old big band same old. He seems to have had but ONE category.) In Bach, we find an art that makes much of the forgoing discussion moot: questions of style, intention, elitism, audience reaction, what-have-you, simply transcended by the expressive value and quality of the IDEAS. In caps because it’s the What’s Being Said that’s all-important, regardless of any other considerations. That the ideas can come through to us today –assuming we’ve given ourselves a chance to know them– over the distance both of time and of a style that’s nothing if not archaic, raises some interesting and possibly dangerous questions. What’s the difference between style and the idea? Can we have one without the other? Does the populist/elitist debate merit deeper consideration beyond mere personal preference? Must there be a politics of music? What constitutes musical integrity? Or authenticity? (See comments on “wrong notes.”) Going to school to Bach has helped clarify many of these issues for me, in part by rendering them moot though interesting, and probably not worth any more time. Lately have been acquiring all the John Eliot Gardiner Canata recordings, reacquainting myself with many long known –but made utterly new in these superb performances!– as well as discovering new ones soon to become favorites. There’s a universe here, the farthest thing from “same old,” as fresh and alive today as when they were written, and a terrific lesson for any composer. Might as well aim high, though fail we will! It’s no accident that knowing Bach well has helped me know Bartok and the other modern giants –and many a lesser light– much better, it functions as a kind of universal solvent. I recommend it especially to young composers coming along today, who seem too eagar to be dismissive, not realizing that dues have to be paid, one way or another. If one is concerned with writing valuable music, not just “successful” music, perhaps taking a vacation from all these secondary considerations might pay dividends in the long run. OK, that’s my rant for the day.

By: celebrity morgue

celebrity morgue — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:45:15 +0000

showrooms online

By: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz

Dennis Bathory-Kitsz — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:42:15 +0000

Dread, disorder, chaos… “Io pur respiro” or “Moro lasso”?

By: CB

CB — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:44:02 +0000

to answer jeff’s earlier question-

if John Adams fits in your definition of “minimalist,” then Hallelujah Junction (specifically part 2) makes me feel like I’m in love.

…that was easy…

counter-challenge: name a renaissance era piece that creates an intense feeling of dread, disorder, and chaos.

Different musical systems styles are more suited for creating certain textures and emotions. You’re point about the limited emotional vocabulary of “atonal and minimalist” musics is moot.

I’m surprised the argument continued continued for so long.

By: CB

CB — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:41:33 +0000

Cage’s 4:33 is pretty damn pretentious.

Not saying Cage’s piece embodies art music, but its infamy isn’t helping any.

just throwing it out there…

By: Evan Johnson

Evan Johnson — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:23:51 +0000

This has nothing to do with arty-fartiness, but do look again at the preludes in the second book of the Well-Tempered Klavier, or compare the Art of the Fugue with the early keyboard music, and then think again about whether Bach “kept composing in the same vein for his whole life.”

By: us2

us2 — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:29:24 +0000

they would have gotten “wellington’s victory”

By: Karl Hungus

Karl Hungus — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 06:36:33 +0000

I would like to see what would happen to someone
who would have dared to tell Beethoven to “lighten up and go
for the pop hit.”

By: Walter Ramsey

Walter Ramsey — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:52:21 +0000

I think it is a little misleading to call Bach reactionary, and probably either a case of wishful thinking or projection! Bach belongs to the category of “last in the line.” You cannot call Horowitz reactionary because he played in a freer romantic style that was against the trend of the times, and so it is with Bach. The way he composed is the way he learned, in a tradition that derived from the Franco-Flemish school and incorporated later styles from nationalities all over. He said towards the end of his life, “People will forget the old way to compose.” He refers to the old masters and counterpoint, the numerable secrets and rituals that relate the horizontal and vertical in ways at once deeply mathematical and spiritual.
Had he been reactionary, he would have started with one style and ended up with another. But he kept composing in the same vein for his whole life! Definitely he was out of the mainstream.

Walter Ramsey

By: david toub

david toub — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 12:01:41 +0000

Dan, I agree re: minimalism. I also view Bach as a reactionary, which to me, implies that he bucked the trends, but I’m not a Bach scholar by any means, so who knows? I was always under the impression that Bach was very different from his contemporaries. In any case, my point was only that in every era, most composers follow the prevailing trends, while only a select few carve out new territories.