David Matthews SYMPHONY NO. 8 First Performance 17/04/15

[Quarky]

I am in sympathy with the feeling that music should be new in spirit and not just in name, if it is to be called new, and that it does something quite different than music that broadly bathes (very alluringly sometimes) in the energy of a previous time. However couldn't it be said that the above is quite a conservative argument itself? That because one cannot think of an historic example of writing successfully in a style from a previous time, it argues against trying it now? Any possibility exists in an a priori sense surely, and one can judge the results on their newness, but not really the means.

.

Listened at last to Matthews symphony several times, and apart from the opening 3 or 4 minutes, I felt it was a rewarding listen. I have a prejudice against certain symphonic sounds/ conventions, no doubt on account of listening in my formative years, and for that reason I tend to avoid symphonies.

I think Schnittke shows that old music can "sound new". This is even more true of baroque and earlier music. I recall attending a concert where Claire Booth and a young counter tenor were singing some new compositions and some Purcell. The Purcell aria sounded every bit as new as the new compositions.

Perhaps the trick is for the composer to avoid convention where possible, so as to present to the listener fresh sounds and musical thoughts, but to prevent the listener falling into old listening habits.

[eighthobstruction]

Here's a first performance that I rather liked....Elias Quartet : Afference by Emily Howard....http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05sy2z4

ED: already a thread I now notice....

[Richard Barrett]

Perhaps the trick is for the composer to avoid convention where possible, so as to present to the listener fresh sounds and musical thoughts, but to prevent the listener falling into old listening habits.

I see your point but I wouldn't put it like that - I would prefer not to see composition as ever involving "avoiding" anything. Speaking personally I've never encountered a situation where I've thought "no I can't do that, it would be too (insert supposedly inappropriate style)". I would hope rather that the composer's desire for "fresh sounds and musical thoughts", to make the process of composition a process of unending discovery, is something that can express itself directly to listeners, and that this freshness isn't something that evaporates after the novelty of an initial acquaintance with something being heard for the first time.

Another angle on the main strand of discussion: music with a sufficiently strong sense of its own identity is able to let its influences and precedents express themselves without becoming overbearing and (in David Matthews' case IMO) submerging or stifling that identity.

[ahinton]

I see your point but I wouldn't put it like that - I would prefer not to see composition as ever involving "avoiding" anything. Speaking personally I've never encountered a situation where I've thought "no I can't do that, it would be too (insert supposedly inappropriate style)".

Fair comment.

I would hope rather that the composer's desire for "fresh sounds and musical thoughts", to make the process of composition a process of unending discovery, is something that can express itself directly to listeners, and that this freshness isn't something that evaporates after the novelty of an initial acquaintance with something being heard for the first time.

Indeed - but "express(ing) itself directly to listeners" and "the composer's desire for "fresh sounds and musical thoughts"" seems to be just what have came across to some listeners! OK, not every first performance or every first hearing of a piece is necessarily guaranteed to maintain its interest in subsequent listenings - some pieces keep their interest going almost irrespective of how many times they're listened to, whereas others don't.

Another angle on the main strand of discussion: music with a sufficiently strong sense of its own identity is able to let its influences and precedents express themselves without becoming overbearing and (in David Matthews' case IMO) submerging or stifling that identity.

But the fact that only a few here have expressed reservations about DM8's lack of a sense of its own identity or its influences wearing themselves overbearingly and uncomfortably like some ill-fitting garment that contrives to submerge or stifle that identity illustrates yet again that we don't all hear and respond to the same things in the same ways.

[Richard Barrett]

I just wanted to say that I thought the Schnittke piece Suite in the Old Style fell into a somewhat different category than the Stravinsky and Schoenberg. (...)
Particularly in the Schoenberg I thought, there was rather palpably 20C blood running in its veins. The Pulcinella could have one wondering for longer about its provenance, but various orchestrations, syncopations for example, seem rather aware of the motor car's existence. The Finale for example (or the Tarantella or Gavotte). But I'm sure you're both well aware of this, I'm just articulating (in neo-prolix style) why I found the Schnittke so curious.

Yes of course you're right about the Schoenberg and Stravinsky - Schoenberg was interested in writing a not-too-difficult introduction to twentieth-century music for student performers, Stravinsky in a somewhat (affectionately) ironic use of pastiche and the effect of throwing in all those syncopations, errant harmonies etc.

As for Schnittke, the piece under discussion has a relatively straightforward backstory, it turns out. It was based on material written for the soundtrack of a 1965 film called Adventures of a Dentist (Schnittke, of course, like Shostakovich, wrote a considerable body of film music where he would have been expected to write in whatever style was appropriate to the film). Apparently, Adventures of a Dentist met with some disapproval for its implicit criticism of Soviet society and the way in which it failed to reward talent, and wasn't widely shown in the USSR, so Schnittke might have just wanted to give it somewhat wider currency by releasing it as a concert piece, while maybe at the same time bolstering his credentials as a composer not irrevocably committed to avant-garde experimentation. (David Matthews of course has no such excuse, apart from the fact that his "capitalist realism" is indeed an officially approved style, so to speak! )

[ahinton]

As for Schnittke, the piece under discussion has a relatively straightforward backstory, it turns out. It was based on material written for the soundtrack of a 1965 film called Adventures of a Dentist (Schnittke, of course, like Shostakovich, wrote a considerable body of film music where he would have been expected to write in whatever style was appropriate to the film). Apparently, Adventures of a Dentist met with some disapproval for its implicit criticism of Soviet society and the way in which it failed to reward talent, and wasn't widely shown in the USSR, so Schnittke might have just wanted to give it somewhat wider currency by releasing it as a concert piece, while maybe at the same time bolstering his credentials as a composer not irrevocably committed to avant-garde experimentation. (David Matthews of course has no such excuse, apart from the fact that his "capitalist realism" is indeed an officially approved style, so to speak! )

Who's laughing?...and at whom and why?...and in what aspects or characteristics of the music is this "capitalist realism" that you ascribe to David Matthews? Somehow I feel sure that he would not recognise or give credence to it!

[clive heath]

I dare say there are these composers irrevocably committed to avant-garde experimentation and haven't they been around for quite a while now? Are their compositions automatically specimens of "socialist realism" whether officially approved or not or is that just a random thing, they might be or not? How does anyone tell whether a piece of music will meet with the approval of the grand arbiter?

[Serial_Apologist]

I dare say there are these composers irrevocably committed to avant-garde experimentation and haven't they been around for quite a while now? Are their compositions automatically specimens of "socialist realism" whether officially approved or not or is that just a random thing, they might be or not? How does anyone tell whether a piece of music will meet with the approval of the grand arbiter?

Defining your terms might help clarify what you mean, clive.

[kea]

I see your point but I wouldn't put it like that - I would prefer not to see composition as ever involving "avoiding" anything. Speaking personally I've never encountered a situation where I've thought "no I can't do that, it would be too (insert supposedly inappropriate style)".

Would you say that if one does encounter those situations with frequency, it is important to radically rethink one's approach to composition?

It has always seemed to me like Matthews's approach is born from a desire to create things similar to things he already knows and likes, rather than a craving for 'fresh sounds and musical thoughts', if that makes sense. I don't know if he'd see it that way though!

[Richard Barrett]

Would you say that if one does encounter those situations with frequency, it is important to radically rethink one's approach to composition?

Good question, kea... as you imply, people compose music for all kinds of different reasons. All I'm saying is that making compositional decisions on the basis of trying not to do something is probably not a particularly creative way to think. It seems to me that the way basic compositional skills are taught often gives rise to thinking in terms of strategies of avoidance (avoiding parallel fifths in traditional counterpoint, avoiding tonal formations in serial composition, and so on) rather than in terms of what one is actually trying to focus on (in these examples, a certain sense of harmonic and textural consistency). I think that focusing on one's own vision as clearly and precisely as possible, rather than worrying about other people's visions, other people's idea of beauty, and so on, the "sense of identity" I mentioned earlier doesn't suppress or hide the influences but puts them in context and perspective, if that makes sense.

[Richard Barrett]

I dare say there are these composers irrevocably committed to avant-garde experimentation and haven't they been around for quite a while now? Are their compositions automatically specimens of "socialist realism" whether officially approved or not or is that just a random thing, they might be or not? How does anyone tell whether a piece of music will meet with the approval of the grand arbiter?

Clive, I would be happy to address your question if I could make head or tail of it!

[ahinton]

Good question, kea... as you imply, people compose music for all kinds of different reasons. All I'm saying is that making compositional decisions on the basis of trying not to do something is probably not a particularly creative way to think.

I can see that, in principle, at least - but is that one of the ways in which you believe David Matthews goes about his work?

It seems to me that the way basic compositional skills are taught often gives rise to thinking in terms of strategies of avoidance (avoiding parallel fifths in traditional counterpoint, avoiding tonal formations in serial composition, and so on) rather than in terms of what one is actually trying to focus on (in these examples, a certain sense of harmonic and textural consistency).

Well that might be one of the ways in which basic compositonal skills are taught but, for one thing, not all composers teach in the same ways (any more than all listeners listen in broadly similar ways and derive broadly similar impressions what what they hear) and, for another "strategies of avoidance" do not have only to be negative by nature - if one avoids certain pitfalls that might otherwise undermine or demean what one's trying to do, that does not in itself have to be a bad thing, surely? For what it may or may not be worth in the present context, neither David nor Colin Matthews underwent what might be thought of as conventional education as composers in any case. For the record, though, what in particular might you perceive David Matthews' "strategies of avoidance" to be?

I think that focusing on one's own vision as clearly and precisely as possible, rather than worrying about other people's visions, other people's idea of beauty, and so on, the "sense of identity" I mentioned earlier doesn't suppress or hide the influences but puts them in context and perspective, if that makes sense.

It does indeed!

[ahinton]

Clive, I would be happy to address your question if I could make head or tail of it!

I might try, too, if I thought that it even had a head or a tail. I may just be dense, but I cannot perceive any kind of indelible connection between, on the one hand, approved or unapproved "specimens of socialist realism" as exemplified in musical terms (whatever, if anything, they may be) and, on the other, composers' "irrevocable commitment to avant-garde experimentation"; Clive also asks how anyone can tell whether a piece of music will meet with the approval of the grand arbiter without explaining what he means by "the grand arbiter", let alone revealing wht he believes to be the rôle and importance of approbation in creative motivation and process.

[clive heath]

Well, I was just doing a de bono on ahinton's query in the previous post. Apart from the fact that no composer has any duty to anyone but himself, least of all champions of alternative musical structures, I was asking not what would qualify as "capitalistic realism" with its implied denigration of DM and his world views whatever they are, as ahinton was, but what would constitute the basis of an analysis of the implied alternative "socialist realism" (should either term have any meaning or indeed value). It seems to me to play in a game that has very few if any rules is a heck of a lot easier than to try to create an interesting and valuable new work in an area where the accretion of previous tradition has limited the possibilities of entertaining the listening public. There was a time toward the end of the 50s when I thought that after the great musicals of the 30s, 40s and 50s and with the early days of R'n'R ( OK by me, but not musically riveting) and pap in the hit parade, I wondered whether there would ever be good songs written again........ and then !! Bacharach and David. Jobim, the Beatles.. which is why I hope no composer who values his view of musical tradition and lives by it would receive anything but encouragement.

[ahinton]

Well, I was just doing a de bono on ahinton's query in the previous post. Apart from the fact that no composer has any duty to anyone but himself, least of all champions of alternative musical structures

OK, so no "grand arbiter" after all, then? (unless I've misunderstood something)...

I was asking not what would qualify as "capitalistic realism" with its implied denigration of DM and his world views whatever they are, as ahinton was, but what would constitute the basis of an analysis of the implied alternative "socialist realism" (should either term have any meaning or indeed value).

I was, at least by intended implication, asking both questions and fo the same reasons, i.e. what would qualify as "capitalist realism" or "socialist realism" in music, be it that of David Matthews or of anyone else and your aside as to whether either term has "any meaning or indeed value" seems to me to be very much to the point.

It seems to me to play in a game that has very few if any rules is a heck of a lot easier than to try to create an interesting and valuable new work in an area where the accretion of previous tradition has limited the possibilities of entertaining the listening public.

Speaking personally, it's very b****y difficult whichever way one approaches it!