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

[clive heath]

There seems to be an assumption that compositions which ( whether intended to or not ) seem to alienate an otherwise open-minded lover of music are of themselves and unarguably superior to music that seeks to explore soundscapes that tread more familiar paths. This does not seem to have been justified in any of the above except by words like "brave" and "challenging". Why is it superior? and why is there a sort of totalitarianism/cultism/cliquishness against those who don't think it is superior?

[Serial_Apologist]

Try a bit harder maybe!

S_A, I'm not sure about organisms in an evolving ecosystem inevitably becoming more complex. Some certainly do, but the most numerous life-forms in the world by far are bacteria (their biomass exceeds all plants and animals on the planet put together), and while they continue to evolve often rather quickly they're no more complex than they were a couple of billion years ago. But in any case care should be taken in extrapolating from something like organic evolution to something like musical composition! - what does "complexity" actually mean in this context? As it happens I was talking to a colleague about this earlier today. An idea we tried out was that it's a measure of how many different pathways and perspectives a listener can take through a piece of music, though this idea of course begs many questions.

I was also thinking of evolving complexity in networks of interconnection between organisms, and finding analogy with what happens as music has progressed through our history. But I dare say I probably pushed this analogy too far, and in ways not particularly helpful in the context of this discussion.

I've just listened to the second symphony, courtesy Teamsaint's useful link early on in the thread, and I have to say I'm massively impressed. It is as if the second and the eighth are by two entirely different composers. The idiom of No 2 may not overtly acknowledge post-1945 developments, it is nevertheless a powerful, original and as Jayne says, unsettling experience - one I would go so far as to say might well have mirrored the time in which it was written (1983), though I have not seen Matthews' notes on it nor do I know anything of his politics.

[Richard Barrett]

There seems to be an assumption that compositions which ( whether intended to or not ) seem to alienate an otherwise open-minded lover of music are of themselves and unarguably superior to music that seeks to explore soundscapes that tread more familiar paths

There is no such assumption. There is no claim of superiority. There is no "totalitarianism/cultism/cliquishness" (whatever that is). Where exactly do you see these things?

[Richard Barrett]

I've just listened to the second symphony, courtesy Teamsaint's useful link early on in the thread, and I have to say I'm massively impressed.

OK - if you say that I shall have to give it a try!

[jayne lee wilson]

I was also thinking of evolving complexity in networks of interconnection between organisms, and finding analogy with what happens as music has progressed through our history. But I dare say I probably pushed this analogy too far, and in ways not particularly helpful in the context of this discussion.

I've just listened to the second symphony, courtesy Teamsaint's useful link early on in the thread, and I have to say I'm massively impressed. It is as if the second and the eighth are by two entirely different composers. The idiom of No 2 may not overtly acknowledge post-1945 developments, it is nevertheless a powerful, original and as Jayne says, unsettling experience - one I would go so far as to say might well have mirrored the time in which it was written (1983), though I have not seen Matthews' notes on it nor do I know anything of his politics.

Yes and as I keep saying, surely with striking implications for what he chooses to do or is inspired to do in 4,5,6,7 and 8.... I don't want to repeat myself ad infinitum, but 7-and-8-after-6 is another dizzyingly pleasurable reorientation....

Just got here after a long day in the parallel universe of The Real World... can't catch up with all of it, I'll have a quick look...

[jayne lee wilson]

It can - but, in the Matthews Eighth, it hasn't.

I can't imagine how it could - but I keep listening to new works called "Symphony" by their composers in the hope that revelation will emerge.

So, D Matthews' 1-7 already ruled out then?
Have you an idea at all of what such a revelational symphony would be like? Saying "it can" be done, but you "can't imagine how" suggests a barrier somewhere; or maybe just impossibly high standards...
In 1967 Boulez said - opera is dead, blow up the opera houses etc; but operas went on being written; and an older Boulez performed Wagner and Debussy in those same, venerable edifices...

Ferney - said with the smile of the music-lover, honest - are you really sure you wouldn't hear DM's 8th differently later on?
As I said in my #177 (last paragraph of which has been largely ignored...), I'm already finding (and feeling) more in it, after a week's absence, despite 3 hearings quickly after the concert...

You're very clear about your own high standards of musical and aesthetic judgement & perception. OK. I think other readers here can see that I'm not nearly as insistent on my own views as you make out...mostly I just like to say, go listen...take time, maybe think about it later...
But if I find the David Matthews Symphonies, or the Max Davies' - (9th and 10th are two of the best!), to be "brave and meaningful" creations relating to and renewing a symphonic tradition, then it's no less valid than any other serious listener's, is it? There's often the problem of confusion or - undefined interrelation, between personal response and a supposedly more objective artistic judgment...

THAT's why I keep saying I'm a music-lover, open-minded and pleasure-seeking, why I remind other listeners of how irrational & subjective our individual musical response is.... an insight into any given piece may flash before you unexpectedly, at any moment of further listening, maybe years hence...
Two successive years, I tried and failed to find a "way in" to Roussel. Years later the Testament CD of Cluytens' 3 & 4 came out.... lifelong love affair thereafter. I can't explain why. Suddenly I just CONNECTED...

[Richard Barrett]

I must say I find all the handwringing about symphonies - whether it's still a viable form, what it means in 2015 and so on - somewhat quaint. Some of the music I most treasure comes with this title. What does that have to do with my feelings about it, and the supposed tradition it belongs to, seemingly (from the tenor of some posts here, especially Jayne's) proudly independent from other (less "important"?) strands of musical tradition? Nothing. I suppose my bemusement here is partly due to the fact that much of the music that interests me most was written before 1750. Whether something is a symphony or not is really of relatively little interest to me, and I do find it hard to deal with the obvious fact that it seems to be of very great interest to someone like David Matthews, whose work seemingly not only ignores musical developments post-1950, as has been extensively discussed, but also the entire tradition of western music up to the invention (second only to that of fire or the wheel! ) of the symphony in the mid-18th century, not to mention other traditions, with the supposed exception of the tango, but surely that's cultural tourism on the level of wearing a souvenir T-shirt. It's all just so parochial, is my feeling, so closed-minded. NB to Clive Heath et al: I am (in my unwitty way) advocating greater openness here! What's important is that no assumptions should go unchallenged.

[clive heath]

see #122 and #135 above. By whose authority do composers have to reflect anything at all?

[Barbirollians]

see #122 and #135 above. By whose authority do composers have to reflect anything at all?

Exactly - it seems unless they have to refer to selected cultural templates they are parochial and closed minded regardless of their ability to reward listeners like JLW above .

[ahinton]

I must say I find all the handwringing about symphonies - whether it's still a viable form, what it means in 2015 and so on - somewhat quaint.

Whatever you think about that, I'm sure that most of this "handwringing" has only come about as consequence of suggestions that one thing tht's deemed unacceptable by some about what they perceive to be Matthews' failure or unwillingness to engage with post-19050s developments in Western music, with which not everyone here agrees by any means.

Some of the music I most treasure comes with this title. What does that have to do with my feelings about it, and the supposed tradition it belongs to, seemingly (from the tenor of some posts here, especially Jayne's) proudly independent from other (less "important"?) strands of musical tradition? Nothing. I suppose my bemusement here is partly due to the fact that much of the music that interests me most was written before 1750. Whether something is a symphony or not is really of relatively little interest to me

Well, I did speculate earlier on what some people might hav e thought about the work had he instgead gien it the albeit so last century title Three Pieces for orchestra; the music would, aftr all, be no different.

and I do find it hard to deal with the obvious fact that it seems to be of very great interest to someone like David Matthews, whose work seemingly not only ignores musical developments post-1950, as has been extensively discussed

By you, yes, and one or two others, with others again either disagreeing with that or finding it not to be the most important aspect of the work by which it should be judged.

with the supposed exception of the tango, but surely that's cultural tourism on the level of wearing a souvenir T-shirt

I don't know what's behind Matthews' tango obsession but it's certainly not that!

It's all just so parochial, is my feeling, so closed-minded.

To you, evidently.

It will be interesting (and I do genuinely mean that) to hear what you think of his second (and/or sixth) symphony if and when you get around to listening to it/them, not least in whether you find it/them broadly to accord to the same things that you find so unexciting in no. 8

[P. G. Tipps]

I really don't know.

Neither do I ...

[Richard Barrett]

By whose authority do composers have to reflect anything at all?

Exactly - it seems unless they have to refer to selected cultural templates they are parochial and closed minded regardless of their ability to reward listeners like JLW above .

What on earth are you two talking about?

[ahinton]

What on earth are you two talking about?

I cannot say that I find it especially difficult to figure that out - and I'm very far from the best brain on the forum!...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

see #122 and #135 above. By whose authority do composers have to reflect anything at all?

Seeing that you quote one of my posts, I'd point you also in the direction of #145 above - particularly the last two paragraphs.

(The quotation in #122 is from David Matthews himself, by the way.)

[ahinton]

By whose authority do composers have to reflect anything at all?

It's not about anyone's "authority"; a composer must surely reflect (or rather express, but I think that in the present context the words are broadly interchangeable) something in his/her work otherwise it would presumably lack substance or even motive.What a composer reflects / responds to / expresses or whtever is a matter for him/her.

What seems to be lost here all too often is that there are no correct or hard and fast anwers about the issues that appear to have given rise to argument, not least because we all listen and responmd to any piece of music differently.