Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: the "canon"

From: "Rosati" <dante@pop.interport.net>

>Now wait a minute...nobody faults, say, the Chinese for having a "canon" of
>great painting from their past, so why should Europeans be bashed for having
>a musical canon which represents the best of what was composed in Europe
>during those centuries?

Because only a tiny cabal of music critics with very specific tastes
decided what "the best" of European music was. This "masterpiece syndrome"
has produced generations of music listeners who think that these tastes
define classical music and reinforces the elitist snobbery that turn people
away from what otherwise might be an introduction to beautiful experiences.

Even today one can find liner notes declaring that Beethoven's ninth
symphony was the greatest piece of music ever written with the conviction
of religious dogma. An easily intimidated but well-meaning novice might
conclude, if this piece was not to her taste, that classical music was
therefore not to her taste without ever having sampled the sublime
pleasures of Josquin, Montiverdi, Revueltas or Harrison.

A canon supposedly arrived at by some mythical consensus of listeners
serves only to narrow tastes, and if that is the case with Chinese
painting, I would fault it the same way. Who cares what future generations
might make of our music. The important thing is to find music that moves
YOU, regardless of the pronouncements of snobbish classical or jazz radio
DJs.

>The American canon consists of the Ellingtons, Parkers, Hollidays,
>Hendrixs...etc.
>
>The attempts at carrying on the European "classical canon", mostly found in
>academic settings in America and Europe, are largely failures because they
>are too self-consciously >trying< to gain admittance for themselves to the
>"Canon". Thus they lose their authenticity in nostalgia and become overly
>abstract. This is proved by the fact that, for the most part, nobody gives a
>shit about it except the few participants.
>
>Calling "dots on paper" a tyranny, or something similar, is perhaps
>hyperbolic, and any limitations posed by it are only in the minds of those
>who chose to be limited. The dots are a tool, nothing more, useful for
>notating certain aspects of some kinds of music.

To say that composers lose some sort of "authenticity" (which from your
self-apotheosized "American canon" means distinctive folk roots or other
sort of nationalism) by writing for concert audiences with traditional
classical media is just the sort of "limitation" that exists in the minds
of those who choose to be limited. Why is an abstract piece by a dead
European more "authentic" that that of an American?

You may not give a shit about contemporary classical composers (I
personally don't care much for a lot of contemporary jazz), but that
doesn't change the fact that their music is for many people (more than the
"few participants") a powerful and wonderful experience. I have known a lot
of contemporary "art music" composers, both in and out of academia, and I
have never met one that I thought was composing to be in some sort of
war-horse gallery.

Though the establishment of The Canon is a rallying cry for postmodernists
these days, I'm not here to argue that it should be wiped out by some kind
of equalizing relativism, but by the spirit of celebrating individual
taste. I know it can be argued that having some kind of short list of
"great" pieces can help guide the novice. However, establishment of the
canon has also meant that classical music has accumulated some undeserved
and misleading associations and that the 1812 Overture is recorded and
performed with mind-numbing frequency while (in my opinion) equally or more
deserving works go unheard. On balance, I would happily blow up the Canon.

>As far as it being eurocentic and male dominated, there is a funny/sad quote
>(maybe Anthony Burgess?): "When the Zulus have a Tolstoy, I will read him."

How does he or you know that the Zulus don't have a Tolstoy? Aside from the
ignorance about the different types and roles of art among the Europeans
and traditional Africans that this quote belies, I would only take it
seriously if it came from someone familiar enough with Zulu literature to
categorically state that this is not the case.

However, I can state that I prefer Zulu traditional music to Tolstoy any
day of the week and find much of it just as artistically sophisticated.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

🔗Rick McGowan <rmcgowan@xxxxx.xxxx>

Bill Alves said...

> The important thing is to find music that moves YOU, regardless of
> the pronouncements of snobbish classical or jazz radio DJs.

Part of the problem, if we want to admit it's sort of a problem, is one of
human nature. Real people, most people, "the masses" out there, are only
experimental to a very small degree. They rely almost exclusively on
recommendations and peer pressure of one type or another to form their tastes
and influence their buying/listening decisions -- ultimately resulting in
what Bill called the "masterpiece syndrome". I.e., people mostly listen to
what other people they like or respect or trust tell them is cool or good or
chic. Few people go far enough in exploratory mode to ignore the DJs,
friends, newspapers, TV, etc, to find out what they really might like out of
all available music. Same applies to art and literature, and even food...
most people just don't wander out into the jungle and start eating all plants
& animals randomly to find out what tastes good.

> classical music has accumulated some undeserved
> and misleading associations and that the 1812 Overture is recorded and
> performed with mind-numbing frequency while (in my opinion) equally or more
> deserving works go unheard.

That's an effect. One could probably say that most things which wind up
being vastly popular have some redeeming characteristic. Not all of them
have enough redeeming enough characteristics to render them perennially
popular. It also seems to be the case, at least in America, that popularity
begets more popularity -- and that is always detrimental to things which
maybe be equally good or better, but just don't have a "90 percent market
share".

A good question for microtonalists, in particular, who might want to have
their stuff listened to, would be "How can we counteract the public tendency
toward conservative listening?"

Rick

🔗Zhang2323@xxx.xxx

🔗Rosati <dante@xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

>From: alves@orion.ac.hmc.edu (Bill Alves)
>
>Because only a tiny cabal of music critics with very specific tastes
>decided what "the best" of European music was. This "masterpiece syndrome"
>has produced generations of music listeners who think that these tastes
>define classical music and reinforces the elitist snobbery that turn people
>away from what otherwise might be an introduction to beautiful experiences.
>
>Even today one can find liner notes declaring that Beethoven's ninth
>symphony was the greatest piece of music ever written with the conviction
>of religious dogma. An easily intimidated but well-meaning novice might
>conclude, if this piece was not to her taste, that classical music was
>therefore not to her taste without ever having sampled the sublime
>pleasures of Josquin, Montiverdi, Revueltas or Harrison.

I don't know what you consider the european canon, but Josquin and
Monteverdi would figure prominently in any eurpoean canon I could imagine.
Do you really think there are composers from Beethoven's time that we don't
know about that wrote music on his level? Is Czerny's music on his level?
No, desperate grad students have unearthed all the extant composers from
this period, and if there were any other Beethovens we would know about it.
I should know, as a classical guitarist by training I've played TONS of
third rate music from this time period.

Why do you have a problem with discerning and appreciating what is best in
an art form? If you cant tell good music from bad or mearly pleasant, then
how do you go about composing? Of course individual tastes vary, but lets
not take this to the extreme of solipcism. Composers like Bach and Beethoven
are put on pedestals for a reason and cranks like Partch (who as a composer
is not worthy to undo Bach's sandlestrap) only show their own crankishness
by trying to pull them down. (I admire Partch for alot of reasons, but his
music criticisim is not one of them.)

The >european< >classical< canon only defines >european< >classical< music.
Nobody said it should limit appreciation of other kinds of music.

>
>A canon supposedly arrived at by some mythical consensus of listeners
>serves only to narrow tastes, and if that is the case with Chinese
>painting, I would fault it the same way. Who cares what future generations
>might make of our music. The important thing is to find music that moves
>YOU, regardless of the pronouncements of snobbish classical or jazz radio
>DJs.

For those un-musical enough to not be able to tell the difference, at least
it gives them a start. For those who can tell the difference, it will not
limit them but only confirm what they know anyway. For snobs it may be
something to hang their hats on, but who cares about them?

>To say that composers lose some sort of "authenticity" (which from your
>self-apotheosized "American canon" means distinctive folk roots or other
>sort of nationalism)

nope. What characterizes the best of the "american canon" is originality and
power. What characterizes most academic composing is overintellecualized
abstraction and ennervation. Not all, but alot that I've heard.

>
>You may not give a shit about contemporary classical composers (I
>personally don't care much for a lot of contemporary jazz), but that
>doesn't change the fact that their music is for many people (more than the
>"few participants") a powerful and wonderful experience.

ok. so maybe "many" is 5-10. The jazz canon seems to be closed, at least for
now. Contemporary jazz is mostly rehashing.

. However, establishment of the
>canon has also meant that classical music has accumulated some undeserved
>and misleading associations and that the 1812 Overture is recorded and
>performed with mind-numbing frequency while (in my opinion) equally or more
>deserving works go unheard. On balance, I would happily blow up the Canon.

And what "equally or more deserving works" from Tchaikovsky's time are there
not enough recordings of?

>
>>As far as it being eurocentic and male dominated, there is a funny/sad
quote
>>(maybe Anthony Burgess?): "When the Zulus have a Tolstoy, I will read
him."
>
>How does he or you know that the Zulus don't have a Tolstoy? Aside from the
>ignorance about the different types and roles of art among the Europeans
>and traditional Africans that this quote belies, I would only take it
>seriously if it came from someone familiar enough with Zulu literature to
>categorically state that this is not the case.

Thats why I think the quote is interesting/sad- it may be that the zulus
have an oral tradition of epic poetry on the level of Homer, just that its
not written down. Burgess (or whoever the quote is from) wants a novel
printed on paper. Now, I believe this quote was delivered in the context of
the multicult movement when minority studies departments were calling for
the expulsion of great works by dead white males in favor of less than great
works by other catagories of writers. If you want to play the game-
submitting >your< novel printed on paper for admission to the canon - then
it better stack up against Dostoievsky (I never liked Tolstoy as much,
although Anna Karenina was great). Otherwise its a joke. You can't throw out
something that anybody with a modicum of discernment can tell is a great
creation of the human spirit simply out of resentment that your particular
ethnic group has not yet produced anything on this level >in this genre<.
Imagine a white person wanting to throw out Parker and Coltrane and just
listen to Stan Getz simply because he's white. Seems pretty dumb when the
shoe is put on the other (not politically correct) foot.

So, if yer gonna write music with dots for classical instruments and
ensembles to be performed in concert halls, maybe on the same program with a
work by Beethoven, then you are trying to fit in, to play a certain game.
All I'm saying is that if you're trying to play that game then you've
already lost some authenticity cause you're playing by somebody else's
rules. To write a "symphony" today, and take Beethoven or Sibelius as your
model, and want to have it performed by the Philharmonic Society of
Boredomthroughstagnationsville, is to be a wannabe - a wannabe "classical"
composer. History will have no qualms about assigning this kind of stuff to
the dustbin.

>
>However, I can state that I prefer Zulu traditional music to Tolstoy any
>day of the week and find much of it just as artistically sophisticated.

Thats the other neat possibility - the Zulu's "Tolstoy" is a musician, not a
wordsmith at all! I'd rather listen to Zulu traditional music than Brian
Fernyhough or Milt Babbitt any day of the week.

dante

🔗William S. Annis <wsannis@xxxxxx.xxxx>

>From: Zhang2323@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 10/13/99 10:08:01 PM, you wrote:
>
>rmcgowan@apple.com wrote:
><<A good question for microtonalists, in particular, who might want to have
>their stuff listened to, would be "How can we counteract the public tendency
>toward conservative listening?">>

I'm not sure there is such a tendency. Why else do we have so
many sorts of "oldies" stations if not to provide a warm, safe
acoustic home for people who can't cope with what their younger
siblings or children are listening to? Within certain limits (the
blues/pop common practice, if you will) all sorts of new and wild
things are happening, and will doubtless continue to happen. As
others have said, only time will tell if people will still be
listening to The Beatles or Autechre 200 years from now.

>Subversion of "popular" music forms is one strategy... Another somewhat
>related strategy is the continued "appropriation" of noise (recommended
>reading: 'Noise' by Jacque Attali).

I'm definitely in favor of subversion of popular forms. I've
never understood why more people haven't gone for this idea
lately... I mean, who can dance to one of Chopin's waltzes or one of
Bach's minuets? Also, infecting your musician friends with at least
an awareness of other possibilites helps, too. I have a friend who
makes very good electro (synth-pop-esque, a litle darker sometimes,
with a dash of techno or industrial). In a recent post to
rec.music.makers.synth he said this in response to someone's complaint
about how hard some synths are to use:

<quote>
Message-ID: <nrMM3.1880$C8.553641@homer.alpha.net>

And let's not even start about tuning. You start mentioning "perfect
musical tunings" and "standard note values" and folks from the Just
Intonation Network will descend upon ye like lions on a gimpy
wildebeast.
</quote>

So, while he is not (currently :) using any sort of alternate tuning
in his music, I have no doubt he'll eventually come around as I
continue to harp on certain issues, and as my own music matures and I
inflict it on him. Of course, I don't think he'll ever be as excited
about finding Chalmers' "Divisions of the Tetrachord" as I am, but you
have to start somewhere.

I certainly intend to subvert popular forms like mad as I
continue to get a better handle on the problems JI presents to a
composer new to it.

--
William S. Annis wsannis@execpc.com
Mi parolas Esperanton - La Internacia Lingvo www.esperanto.org

🔗Judith Conrad <jconrad@xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxxx>

🔗William S. Annis <wsannis@xxxxxx.xxxx>

>From: Judith Conrad <jconrad@sunspot.tiac.net>
>
>On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, William S. Annis wrote:
>
>> >Subversion of "popular" music forms is one strategy... Another somewhat
>> >related strategy is the continued "appropriation" of noise (recommended
>> >reading: 'Noise' by Jacque Attali).
>>
>> I'm definitely in favor of subversion of popular forms. I've
>> never understood why more people haven't gone for this idea
>> lately... I mean, who can dance to one of Chopin's waltzes or one of
>> Bach's minuets?
>
>'Noise' by Attali happens to be one of my very favorite books; it's nice
>to see it mentioned on list.
>
>But, um, ***I*** can dance to Bach's Minuets, and Chopin's Walzes. With
>pleasure. What are you saying here?

You can dance to the Minute Waltz?! That's got to be some
enthusiastic dancing. :)

My point is that a lot of western art music forms started out
as a dance or popular form, and was then subverted by art musicians
using these forms as a vehicle for their musical expression. How many
people taking piano lessons dutifully plugging away at pieces from
Anna Magdelena's Notebook know they're playing dances these days?
Many of these forms outlive the dance or folk genre they started from,
and take on a life of their own, often becoming quite abstracted from
the originals. I leave rants about corporeality and musical
abstraction to the Partch fans.

I was simply trying to say that pop form subversion is a well
established practice, and IMHO, keeps art music vital. In (my) ideal
world, there would always be a healthy dialog between pop/folk and art
musics, pop keeping the art music vital and the art music keeping pop
from becoming junk food. I should also say that I *like* junk food
from time to time, but you can't live on it.

--
William S. Annis wsannis@execpc.com
Mi parolas Esperanton - La Internacia Lingvo www.esperanto.org

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@xxx.xxxx>

>Composers like Bach and Beethoven are put on pedestals for a reason and
>cranks like Partch (who as a composer is not worthy to undo Bach's
>sandlestrap) only show their own crankishness by trying to pull them down.
>(I admire Partch for alot of reasons, but his music criticisim is not one of
>them.)

Dante, I've followed the thread and despite denying the existence of a
cannon, I agree with almost everything you've said. But... First off,
when did Partch ever try to tear down Bach or Beethovan? He called them
daring. He was a classically-trained performer, and according to Gilmore
had strong feelings about how Chopin, for one, should be played.

Second, and most importantly, it is my considered opinion that Partch is to
be listed with Bach and Beethovan among the greatest, say 30, composers in
history. This would probably still be the case if his music were
transcribed for the piano. Have you listened to his music?

>And what "equally or more deserving works" from Tchaikovsky's time are there
>not enough recordings of?

Not many that I know of. There is Nielsen, who was the next generation,
but whose career intersected T's for five years.

The point stands that there are many works more deserving than, say, the
1812, in other periods and even in T's own output, that have been recorded
far less. Beethovan had trouble getting past Moonlight, much to his
chagrin. How many times have you heard Sonata 28, which fits in the "no
better organization of sound known to man" department?

Tuesday night I saw the Philadelphia orchestra. They're doing a season of
entirely 20th century works. A great idea. What did they play? The
Planets and Honegger 3. The Planets is fantastic, and they nailed it, but
have you ever heard anything else by Holst in concert? They deserve credit
for playing Honegger, but they picked his most famous symphony, and
butchered it.

I can hardly get recordings of Honegger's other symphonies. When the
orchestra plays Cowell and Koechlin (most of which has never been recorded)
I'll call their season innovative.

>To write a "symphony" today, and take Beethoven or Sibelius as your
>model, and want to have it performed by the Philharmonic Society of
>Boredomthroughstagnationsville, is to be a wannabe - a wannabe "classical"
>composer. History will have no qualms about assigning this kind of stuff
>to the dustbin.

How (except maybe when they like Sibelius :) do you get off making this
claim? Just because a composer wants to write for an orchestra means he's
a wannabe, his stuff going in the historical dustbin?

-C.

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

[Carl Lumma:]
>Second, and most importantly, it is my considered opinion that Partch
is to be listed with Bach and Beethovan among the greatest, say 30,
composers in history. This would probably still be the case if his
music were transcribed for the piano.

I too have no problem ascribing Partch Bach and Beethoven the same
kinds of esteem as composers, but I really don't see the "transcribed
for the piano" part of your argument. That his music (and all that is
seemingly inseparably lumped together with that) could inspire someone
to 'compose' anew for the piano (or whatever medium or specific
instrument one would care to substitute "piano" with), I can certainly
see... but one of the reasons I would hold Partch in the same kind of
composerly company as a Bach or a Beethoven is because his music is
such an accomplishment on its OWN terms. And certainly one part (among
many) of those "terms" (as I see it), would be happily kissing the
ease of instrument interchangeability goodbye.

I think that it's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of the
admirers (or students of one sort or another) of Bach or Beethoven
will forever (to some degree) scoff & smirk at the form (etc., etc.,
etc.) of Partch's music when these kinds of direct comparisons are
invoked - and I say fair enough... Though I think that Partch probably
did more to bypass "the canon" (and more to the point, all the
potentially beneficial equilibrium's of its orthodoxy) than any
composer that I can think of, he also did a hell of a lot more than
just bypass "the canon," and the particulars of *that* will always be
there to inspire those that it will inspire.

Dan

🔗Rosati <dante@xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>Dante, I've followed the thread and despite denying the existence of a
>cannon, I agree with almost everything you've said. But... First off,
>when did Partch ever try to tear down Bach or Beethovan? He called them
>daring. He was a classically-trained performer, and according to Gilmore
>had strong feelings about how Chopin, for one, should be played.

Hey Carl-

Unless I'm hallucinating, I remember seeing in "Bitter Harvest" writing
about Bach that was negative.

>
>Second, and most importantly, it is my considered opinion that Partch is to
>be listed with Bach and Beethovan among the greatest, say 30, composers in
>history. This would probably still be the case if his music were
>transcribed for the piano. Have you listened to his music?

I dunno, Carl- I admire the guys originality and vision, his inventiveness
and industry, but the actual music? I played Guitar One in two performances
of Revelation at the Courthouse Park, and of course have heard other stuff.
Let's take one of his most frequently performed works- US Highball. Do you
really consider this "great music" on the same creative level as (forget
Bach and Beethoven) the best of Lou Harrison, Stravinsky, Shostokovitch etc?
I must be missing something. I'd say the work is "cute" but thats about all.
In general I find his vocal writing banal and even irritating. And whats
more (I'm sure Ill have no more friends on this list after this, but I have
to be honest!) I don't think he really had any sensitivity to the subtleties
of the intervals he was using, especially vertically. Too much of it sounds
random and jangly. Maybe you could recomend what you consider his best piece
and I could check it out (if I haven't heard it).

>
>
>>And what "equally or more deserving works" from Tchaikovsky's time are
there
>>not enough recordings of?
>
>Not many that I know of. There is Nielsen, who was the next generation,
>but whose career intersected T's for five years.

I think there's plenty of recordings of Nielsen available. And lets face it,
T might lack depth sometimes but his melodic invention is second to none.
Nielsen is not on the same level.

>
>The point stands that there are many works more deserving than, say, the
>1812, in other periods and even in T's own output, that have been recorded
>far less. Beethovan had trouble getting past Moonlight, much to his
>chagrin. How many times have you heard Sonata 28, which fits in the "no
>better organization of sound known to man" department?

I think you can walk into any record store and find dozens of recordings of
all the Beethoven Sonatas. How many do there really need to be?

>
>>To write a "symphony" today, and take Beethoven or Sibelius as your
>>model, and want to have it performed by the Philharmonic Society of
>>Boredomthroughstagnationsville, is to be a wannabe - a wannabe "classical"
>>composer. History will have no qualms about assigning this kind of stuff
>>to the dustbin.
>
>How (except maybe when they like Sibelius :) do you get off making this
>claim? Just because a composer wants to write for an orchestra means he's
>a wannabe, his stuff going in the historical dustbin?

I don't think I'm being very clear here, and I don't seem to be able to
clarify what I meant even to myself, so just scrap it as a stupid thing I
said. :-) Some people fault Brahms for writing in "masterpiece style", that
is, being too selfconscious in his desire to be in the same catagory as
Beethoven and Mozart. Maybe its something like this that I was trying to get
at.

Sibelius? I remember a time many years ago when I listened to Sibelius'
Second every day for a couple of months and derived great spiritual
sustenance from it.

dante

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Bill Alves <alves@orion.ac.hmc.edu>

>From: "Rosati" <dante@pop.interport.net>
>
>Do you really think there are composers from Beethoven's time that we don't
>know about that wrote music on his level?

No, I don't (though I'm open to the possibility that others might
disagree), but I'm sure that there is good and deserving music from many
time periods (not to mention other cultures) that is at a much higher level
than "Wellington's Victory" but is never recorded. If you look at the
repertories of orchestras, especially relatively small orchestras, you will
see the same pieces over and over again and the representation of certain
time periods out of all reasonable proportion. Does the fact that Beethoven
was the best composer of his period mean that we should never (or rarely)
have a chance to hear Carlos Chavez's wonderful symphonies or the
orchestral works of Ben Johnston or a concerto of Benedetto Marcello?

>Why do you have a problem with discerning and appreciating what is best in
>an art form? If you cant tell good music from bad or mearly pleasant, then
>how do you go about composing?

The only "problem" I have is with people presenting me with a judgement of
what good or authentic music is as objective fact, or with someone implying
that my openness to differences of opinion results from a "problem" with
discernment or appreciation. As I said, I have no intention of using
relativism as the Great Equalizer.

In my job as a teacher, I get students all the time who picture classical
music as an endless stream of sonomulent Mozart divertimenti to accompany
cocktails. It is one of my great delights to turn them on to Antheil or
Dresher or Reich or Perotin or whomever. Rewardingly often their reaction
is "Wow! This is *cool*. Why didn't I know that classical music could be
like this?"

Part of the answer, of course, lies in the sad state of arts education in
this country, and part of it lies in the ever-encroaching hegemony of
market-driven culture in our society. But I believe a lot of it lies in the
self-feeding myth of a pantheon of culture that was erected by a few
critics and the impression that trickles down to these students that
classical music is an esoteric practice presided over by high priests who
use terms like "tonic recapitulation" in a vaguely foreign accent.

I have had students who, after having taken a music intro course, couldn't
stand Verdi but liked Babbitt. I have had students who found Bach too busy
but loved Copland. I have had students that shook their heads at
Stockhausen but luxuriated in Debussy. To them all I have to explain that,
while they can probably find a recording of every scrap of hackwork that
Beethoven ever produced and can hear 15 performances of him within driving
distance this month, if they want to go much further in an interest in,
say, microtonal music, their options are rather limited.

>The >european< >classical< canon only defines >european< >classical< music.
>Nobody said it should limit appreciation of other kinds of music.

So it should only limit appreciation of European music? The fact is that
record companies limit all of our choices every time they record yet
another performance of the Four Seasons.

>nope. What characterizes the best of the "american canon" is originality and
>power.

Leaving aside for the moment the questionable hypothesis that originality
necessarily makes good music and vice-versa, my "American Canon" is
apparently very different from yours.

>And what "equally or more deserving works" from Tchaikovsky's time are there
>not enough recordings of?

Why do you think that the rather questionable exaltation of the 1812
Overture only limits our access to music from Tchaikovsky's contemporaries?

>So, if yer gonna write music with dots for classical instruments and
>ensembles to be performed in concert halls, maybe on the same program with a
>work by Beethoven, then you are trying to fit in, to play a certain game.
>All I'm saying is that if you're trying to play that game then you've
>already lost some authenticity cause you're playing by somebody else's
>rules. To write a "symphony" today, and take Beethoven or Sibelius as your
>model, and want to have it performed by the Philharmonic Society of
>Boredomthroughstagnationsville, is to be a wannabe - a wannabe "classical"
>composer. History will have no qualms about assigning this kind of stuff to
>the dustbin.

As you later seem to have retracted this paragraph, I will refrain from
airing a vigorous dissent. However, I will offer the following story:

I was at a lecture by a pianist at a music school one time and this
particular lecturer encouraged the student performers to seek out and
perform music by their student composer colleagues. During the question
period, one student asked, "But how do I know that their work will be a
masterpiece?"

The lecturer asked the student what instrument he played. The answer was
violin. "Well," came the reply, "that composer doesn't know that you're
going to be Jascha Heifetz either."

The more germane point to this discussion is that this student had been
brainwashed into believing 1) that only "masterpieces" were worth his time,
and 2) that he was powerless to judge what might make a new piece a
"masterpiece" -- that such a honorific could only be handed down by a
hundred years of cultural consensus. (It's a good thing that few of
Beethoven's contemporary performers took this point of view.)

Unfortunately, this attitude, in my experience, is hardly uncommon, and it
is a direct result of our culture's regrettable preoccupation with the idea
that musical quality (at least for classical music) is an attribute that is
elected, not felt.

Bill

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@xxx.xxxx>

[Dan Stearns]
>I too have no problem ascribing Partch Bach and Beethoven the same
>kinds of esteem as composers, but I really don't see the "transcribed
>for the piano" part of your argument.

When I think about a work of music, I often find myself grouping thoughts
into three areas. They very much inseparable, but often I think it's
useful to try and seperate them: Notes, Sound, and Concept.

Notes? Imagine transcribing the work as you listen. Is that part cool?
Sound? How do your ears feel? Is the performance a vehicle or a barrier
for the notes? Concept? What's the point?

Partch was a genius of all three of these. His concept: the virtue of
early man. His sound: a custom orchestra, a general attention to
intonation, and in many cases, extended just intonation. His notes? Not
quite on the level of Beethovan, but very close. My comment was just
addressing the notes part.

>I think that it's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of the
>admirers (or students of one sort or another) of Bach or Beethoven
>will forever (to some degree) scoff & smirk at the form (etc., etc.,
>etc.) of Partch's music when these kinds of direct comparisons are
>invoked - and I say fair enough...

Bleck! The vast majority of fans of any given style are notorious for
smirking at other styles. Partch disciples especially. This is an
unfortunate symptom of lazy listening. It is obvious that music goodness
depends on the musical intelligence of the composer, not than the style
he's working in. Until recently the style he's working in was more or less
determined by geography. So unless you buy into some sort of Bell curve
argument for "musical intelligence", you've only got your laziness to blame
for the holes in your CD collection.

Unless, of course, you listen to music you like, rather than music you
evaluate as good. Which is fine, so long as you note the difference; if
you listen to anything long enough you'll like it (unless you're
depressed). Got it?

-C.

Re: the "canon"

🔗alves@xxxxx.xx.xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

🔗Rick McGowan <rmcgowan@xxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Zhang2323@xxx.xxx

🔗Rosati <dante@xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗William S. Annis <wsannis@xxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Judith Conrad <jconrad@xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxxx>

🔗William S. Annis <wsannis@xxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@xxx.xxxx>

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Rosati <dante@xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Bill Alves <alves@orion.ac.hmc.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@xxx.xxxx>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@xxx.xxxx>

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>