Great Music
“We write symphonies”, President Trump proclaimed on July 6 (2017) in Warsaw.
Anthony Tommasini in the New York Times (July 30) was not pleased. He accused Mr Trump of extolling “the richness, history, and, indeed, the superiority of Western culture”. The context was the rise of terrorism and whether the West has the “will to survive”. The President apparently thinks that survival has something to do with cultural greatness.
I have no interest in taking sides in a political dispute, but a stopped clock is right twice a day. I support what Mr Trump said on that occasion. It may have seemed “smug” to Mr Tommasini, but it seems perfectly sensible to me. Symphonic music may very well be the greatest thing our culture has produced–and quite possibly the greatest thing any culture has produced. And producing something that good argues a rich culture with a lot of resources and will.
The NY Times critic said that nothing impedes the appreciation of classical music and keeps potential listeners away more than the perception that it is an elitist art form, that people who favor it consider it the greatest, loftiest, and most ingenious kind of music.
Well, it is. Mr Tommasini mentions Indian ragas, Indonesian gamelan, the Beatles, and Guys and Dolls as music that is “just as profound as” Beethoven or Mahler. That is simply nonsense. One can assert such a thing, but what are the reasons behind it? All the music mentioned has moments of inspiration, but that is not the point. How many of them sustain the inspiration and erect a complex edifice upon it–and bring it to a life-shaking conclusion? How much of that other music affects you deeply, spiritually? How much of it can you play over and over again and never get tired of it? One of the clearest distinctions between classical and popular music is that the latter normally cannot endure over a long period–cannot continue to thrill and inspire people 20 or 100 years later. That’s almost part of the definition of “classical”.
The New York Times critic does acknowledge that what makes classical music different is its scale, its sheer dimension. It is “ambitious and demanding”. That gives classical works “monumentality”, but he doesn’t think it imparts any inherent artistic superiority.
Beethoven’s greatness probably encouraged the idea of the composer as a heroic visionary, creating symphonic works for the ages. But we who listen to his music find that simply true.
One of our reviewers, Roger Hecht, had the following reply to the nonsense we get from the Tommasinis of this world:
Has he ever tried to write a symphony or an opera–and if so, is it a great one?
I have long wondered how great musical masterpieces of such dizzying complexity and inspiration were written down by the human hand with a pen and paper. It has to be one of the, if not the hardest creative thing for a human being to do–harder than drawing or painting or writing a novel. And the greatness of most of it is more than the painting or novel. Western classical music is the pinnacle of all arts anywhere. It’s one of those things Westerners–those who appreciate and understand it, anyway–can justly lay claim to. Of course, difficulty does not necessarily translate to greatness, but in this case it so often does. Tommasini trivializes those results, and in the process makes me wonder why he writes about something whose magnificence he does not truly appreciate.
I am still regularly sampling hundreds of “new music” CDs, to weed out the ones not worth reviewing. It strikes me that they fall into two categories. There are the “new minimalism” composers, who repeat the same phrase over and over again, sometimes with tiny variations, sometimes eventually adding something on top of it. That’s really the same thing as the rock bands that I am forced to hear every weekend (in good weather), who play at an outdoor bar on the Ohio River not far from where I live. They drive me crazy, largely because rock is so repetitive and so dull rhythmically. These minimalist composers do the same thing: establish a basic rhythmic phrase that essentially never changes. At least they seldom have the miserable “singers” the rock bands have–I call them moaners and groaners, because they don’t really sing; they bellow.
Tweet tweet, bip bip, bang bang! Why should we expect anything more from our composers in the age of Rock? This is simply not a musical age, and very few “composers” are writing anything that is worth hearing. It often surprises me that a few are! Or at least I think a few are on the verge of writing something worthwhile if they can only escape the zeitgeist and follow their own star. Those are the ones I send to our writers–who often end up saying “well, no; not really”.
The only other pattern I hear repeatedly is to start loud and shocking, then follow it with something hazy and heavy. (Once in a while a very “original” composer reverses the order of the movements and starts with the hazy. Quite a thrilling innovation!) This is “new music”? I hear hundreds of pieces like that–all alike, utterly boring, predictable, and unlistenable.
Some composers of “new” music are still infatuated with complexity, I suppose–at least the older ones. Someone should tell them that complexity in itself has no value and often distracts the listener from what you are trying to say. In fact, learning the inherently complex art of composing only makes sense if you first have something to say–and even then, the best way to say it may be simply.
The academic world turns out “composers” by the hundreds–and they only get the stamp of approval if they conform to one of the currently acceptable patterns. It has always been that way–and in my lifetime the only new composers worth bothering with are ones who either drove their professors crazy or simply got the hell out of the academic environment because they couldn’t conform. Obviously, conformity destroys creativity–so why, then, is there so much conformity? Probably because people who think of themselves as “creative” are flattering themselves immensely. They live in the age of “self-esteem”, and no one will tell them that their imagination is bankrupt. Besides, they are customers–the music schools make lots of money by encouraging people with little or no talent.
I wonder why composers haven’t figured out that what you do in the first minute is crucial. If it sounds like hundreds of other “avant-garde” (that is, conformist) pieces, how many listeners will go on to the next track? I always do–give the guy a chance–but I am always disappointed. So it is not unreasonable, I have found, to judge the whole album from the first minute or so.
You realize, I am sure, that what these people want from a magazine like ARG is praise and affirmation. Who are we to question their genius? And it is easy to find critics who praise everything. They are the ones who are well liked and are quoted on album covers and in publicity. Have you noticed how seldom ARG is quoted in publicity?
There are very few music critics left; they used to be at every major newspaper, but the papers are getting smaller and smaller. In Cincinnati the local paper (unfortunately part of the national Gannett chain) essentially covers only sports. At least that is the only local coverage. In September they told their part-time “music critic” to go away. She was very useful publicity for local music groups–and she cared; she wanted them to thrive. But newspapers certainly don’t care, and even “critics” loved by the local orchestra are disappearing. It was fairly common 20 or 30 years ago that these critics simply became part of the publicity machine. It was not unusual to find that they would never write something openly critical of the local orchestra or opera company–why discourage people from going? (I remember one critic whom I knew well; I could read between his lines when he didn’t like something, but the general public could not.) And think of Cleveland (you probably know the story).
But classical music is no longer news. Our culture is about sports and politics and greed, violence and noise. Yes, there is always some kind of local paper (usually free) that praises the neighborhood rock bands and tells people what bar they are playing in this weekend. Never mind that they all sound alike–the rockers find that reassuring.
I read a lot of theology. Stanley Hauerwas is a stimulating writer in that field. I recently came across this in one of his essays about “contemporary” worship: “There is nothing wrong in itself with worship being entertaining, but the difficulty is the kind of entertainment necessary to attract large numbers. If worship must compete with TV, then TV always wins.”
I have always said that religion and classical music are very much alike in terms of their place in our lives and what they do to promote themselves. And, unfortunately, well-meaning advocates of both promote them stupidly–one can only call it “dumbing down”–and you see it in most churches and from most orchestras and opera companies. The general public gets stupider by the hour, and therefore the promotional and marketing activities get stupider to match–because they feel they have to entertain large numbers. Judging by letters I get from readers, it is a very serious problem all over the country. Publicity people don’t seem to know that this kind of thing cannot be promoted like lipstick or rock bands. It’s a different genre altogether. Classical people even speak a different language! (The English of the masses is extremely debased.)
At this point I tell myself, “Don’t go on–as you could for pages. The readers have heard all this before.” But it just gets worse–all the time! We may not be able to stop the degeneracy, but we certainly must protest it–loudly and often! Worship services designed to increase attendance are a disaster for religion, as are concerts and music series designed to increase attendance. You cannot “market” truly great things–and the people who will appreciate them are very few in a mass culture. It gets fewer every generation, and almost no one seems to realize that passing on the great things in our culture is vital. No one has a sense of responsibility about culture; everyone assumes that it’s just a matter of what you happen to like–which of course is a function of how lazy you are and how bad your education has been. Sometimes friendship with an older person helps to fill in those educational gaps. But again, we live in a society that no longer values age, wisdom, life experience–so how many young people do you know who care about what their elders consider important?
We have been applying the rules of marketing–the essence of the consumer culture–to high culture, thus commodifying classical music, religion, and art. Those things should not be made a division of consumerism. In all consumerism (look at your local fast-food chains), there is a constant need to produce novelty and hype. It’s a sick culture that is fixated on the latest new thing–and, let’s face it, classical music cannot produce real innovation (no matter how often the publicity people use the word “innovative”). Nor can religion or painting–or even literature. It has all been done before and usually better.
Entertainment is a big American industry, raking in millions of dollars and making millionaires right and left. Actually, that’s why people create entertainment: for money. Art has a higher purpose. People absorb entertainment passively, but art requires mental participation–asks something of the recipient. It is sad when the people who promote our orchestras and opera companies treat it as just another choice, another entertainment, another consumer commodity. It is infinitely more than that, and even if it is entertaining it does not (even cannot) compete on the level of mere entertainment. Yet that is how it is being “sold” to the public.
And that is the way the public generally responds to it–as they are programmed to respond to anything they like–by jumping up and yelling and cheering. One of our readers says, “who are these yahoos?” Hard-core classical music lovers are really turned off by the yelling. That’s one reason we avoid football games. Civilized applause is one thing, but the concert hall is increasingly invaded by noisy audiences, which (at least partly) spoil it for us. But notice: these are the very people the marketing department has been trying to get to concerts! They are certainly not the loyal core that supports the orchestra year after year. As in religion, the marketers are in danger of eliminating some of the reasons committed people are there in their mad, misguided rush to “win new audiences”.
In Cincinnati the renovated Music Hall is in this category. Some of us really loved being in a 19th Century hall, but it has been modernized to appeal to a different audience–and already it’s a noisier, more unruly crowd (mob?). That’s the way it is going, and I suspect it is all dying as a result. Be grateful for recordings!
I might add that the Cincinnati Symphony has joined the ranks of orchestras that no longer have a “green room” where the public can greet the musicians after the concert. In fact, even reporters like me are not allowed backstage at any time without an escort from the symphony staff. (I wonder if they make exceptions for big donors.) Orchestras are always talking about relating to people and connecting with the community, but now the community has been banished. The excuse–of course!–is “security”. That is the excuse for our whole society becoming more uptight every day. And it is pure nonsense. Almost all the rules and restrictions made in the name of “security” have no security value whatever. They are accepted by the public because of fear.
And fear is the product of “news”. If you watch TV news, you are a fearful person–they can count on that. The more you fear, the more readily you will give up your freedoms–and we are, every day.
VROON