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

[Richard Barrett]

Because your pet sounds are not as out there as you would wish, it is " the system"'s fault.

You are putting words in people's mouths again, as well as rolling out old political chestnuts as if there were no tomorrow. Where to begin? I think the biggest mistake you're making in your reply is assuming a self-centredness that isn't there. Yes, many people including myself benefit from capitalism in many ways, as Marx of course remarked, adding that the point was to extend those benefits to everyone, something that capitalism will never do. Secondly, this isn't about "my pet sounds" and whether or not they're "out there", wherever "there" is. I haven't been using politics to justify my personal musical tastes. If anything the opposite is the case: most of the time I've been trying to use various musical examples, and David Matthews' symphony in particular, as a means of discussing cultural-political issues, starting indeed from the standpoint of believing in the possibility and desirability of a society characterised by equality and social justice. As S_A says, "one starts off asking questions and ends up finding a plausible theory or at any rate plausible explanations which may well place received wisdoms in question." And of course this questioning of received wisdoms is something that plays its part in the formation of musical tastes and, if one is a creative artist, in the way those tastes inform the imagination.

[ahinton]

most of the time I've been trying to use various musical examples, and David Matthews' symphony in particular, as a means of discussing cultural-political issues, starting indeed from the standpoint of believing in the possibility and desirability of a society characterised by equality and social justice

Where does David Matthews' new symphony fit into a discussion of cultural-political issues arising from the belief in the possibility and desirability of a society characterised by equality and social justice? Specifically, (a) what is there in that symphony that draws attention, or otherwise contributes, to such a discussion and how does it do so and (b) what specific position does it adopt (and how does it adopt it) vis-à-vis that belief and what does it have to say about it? I'm not putting words in your mouth here; on the contrary, I am responding ones that have already emerged therefrom...

[Serial_Apologist]

Where does David Matthews' new symphony fit into a discussion of cultural-political issues arising from the belief in the possibility and desirability of a society characterised by equality and social justice? Specifically, (a) what is there in that symphony that draws attention, or otherwise contributes, to such a discussion and how does it do so and (b) what specific position does it adopt (and how does it adopt it) vis-à-vis that belief and what does it have to say about it? I'm not putting words in your mouth here; on the contrary, I am responding ones that have already emerged therefrom...

Well I think all this discussion is widening the debate around David Matthews - not just limiting it to his latest symphony but drawing on issues people from both and indeed all sides of the developing discussion see as germane. A plant for instance does not only exist in relation to its immediate soil but to everything acting upon it, and being acted upon by it, in its environment.

One way of mystifying is to delimit discussion around any topic to very narrow, often merely self-referencing desiderata.

Comprehensivity is the very thing clive is accusing me and Richard of ruling out by advocating socialist ideas!

[clive heath]

I don't remember ever using the word "comprehensivity" or any phrase that implies it or denying anybody's views on anything merely suggesting that these views are not sacrosanct, albeit honestly and sincerely held.

[Richard Barrett]

these views are not sacrosanct

Which is exactly what S–A and I are saying: nothing is so sacrosanct that it can't be subjected to intense and systematic questioning. Where the differences here lie is in whether it is or isn't possible for human beings to observe their situation and make objective inferences based on those observations which can serve as a guide to action.

[Beef Oven!]

One way of mystifying is to delimit discussion around any topic to very narrow, often merely self-referencing desiderata.

If you could hear how this sounds, you wouldn't write stuff like this.

[Ian]

Have listened to the Matthew’s 8 - enjoyed it.

Sounded to me as if it could only have been written by David Matthews at the time when he wrote it.

In any case, as to accusations/approvals that it belongs to a previous era - I wonder what the ‘official’ length of an era is - 50 years seems pretty short to me.

[Serial_Apologist]

If you could hear how this sounds, you wouldn't write stuff like this.

Written is not necessarily the same as spoken text, as you well know. But thanks for taking the time.

[Serial_Apologist]

Have listened to the Matthew’s 8 - enjoyed it.

Sounded to me as if it could only have been written by David Matthews at the time when he wrote it.

In any case, as to accusations/approvals that it belongs to a previous era - I wonder what the ‘official’ length of an era is - 50 years seems pretty short to me.

50 years is certainly a generous estimate for when he could have written it.

[jayne lee wilson]

So simple-seeming a symphony, so wide-ranging and divergent the discussion...
Isn't it just the case that RB and fhg have failed to understand David Matthews' Symphony No.8 on a simple, visceral level? Because it failed to meet any of their evidently multiple expectations of a modern work of musical art?

When John Adams' Grand Pianola Music was premiered at the New York Contemporary Music Festival in 1982, the response was much booing, walking out, etc., from an audience attuned to serialist or postserialist works of the soi-disant Columbia-Princeton school, Sessions, Babbit etc. They didn't expect that - and the insults thrown at it were similar to those against the DM 8th here - outworn, superficial, just a rejig of older idioms. But of course the fact that it did create such a stir is surely in its artistic favour: the audience had become complacent within their own artistic milieu. Adams' piece threw that back at them, reminded them of the outrageous, painful joy of - repetition, tonal pleasures, a big tune.
"The piece could only have been conceived by someone who grew up with the detritus of mid-20th century recorded music" as Adams said. Adding that he - of course - never intended it as any kind of thumb-to-the-nose against "the state of new music". It came out the way it would. It just had to be that way.

Matthews' symphony is very different, but - hasn't something similar happened here? Any symphony written today is by definition "contemporary". "Tradition" is a tree of many branches; some continue, some die; some unexpectedly sprout new greenery. Let it grow, let it flow...
There is then a problem if one tries to use any artwork as an exemplar of a political or cultural position: it is very easy to end up forcing the text: that literary critical approach which seeks meanings (scarcely detectable in the work itself) to serve and support its own theoretical position. I think RB's idea of "capitalist realism", and fhg's of the DM 8th as artistically"pessimistic" are examples of this. Would many listeners hear this, find these meanings, while listening, or on reflection?

This is why I said, long long ago in a galaxy far away, that a work of art can be what it jolly well wants to be... most of us can and will make of it what we want. You can make it an exemplar of a given cultural position. Why not? It might be of some interest. But insisting on the correctness of that position may weaken, not strengthen, your argument.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

the insults thrown at it were similar to those against the DM 8th here.

A very respectable piece, I thought - the most immediately attractive work (IMO) from this composer, written in a Musical language not far removed from, say, Rubbra or Martinu - with flavours from the post-RVW pastoralists and Mahler #10 at various points. Well worth hearing.

(#25 - the first post to actually comment on the work)

Maybe not tomorrow - but surely for today. More substance worth paying attention to than in other works whose focus is on "audience accessibility", I thought.

(#34)

Just trying to add some wit which along with vigour, grace and charm seem to elude those who spend inordinate amounts of time eliminating any such attributes from their compositions in the name of modernity which isn't better just different.

(#207)

Two farts and a raspberry

To which specific "insults" do you refer?

[Serial_Apologist]

So simple-seeming a symphony, so wide-ranging and divergent the discussion...
Isn't it just the case that RB and fhg have failed to understand David Matthews' Symphony No.8 on a simple, visceral level? Because it failed to meet any of their evidently multiple expectations of a modern work of musical art?

When John Adams' Grand Pianola Music was premiered at the New York Contemporary Music Festival in 1982, the response was much booing, walking out, etc., from an audience attuned to serialist or postserialist works of the soi-disant Columbia-Princeton school, Sessions, Babbit etc. They didn't expect that - and the insults thrown at it were similar to those against the DM 8th here - outworn, superficial, just a rejig of older idioms. But of course the fact that it did create such a stir is surely in its artistic favour: the audience had become complacent within their own artistic milieu. Adams' piece threw that back at them, reminded them of the outrageous, painful joy of - repetition, tonal pleasures, a big tune.
"The piece could only have been conceived by someone who grew up with the detritus of mid-20th century recorded music" as Adams said. Adding that he - of course - never intended it as any kind of thumb-to-the-nose against "the state of new music". It came out the way it would. It just had to be that way.

Matthews' symphony is very different, but - hasn't something similar happened here? Any symphony written today is by definition "contemporary". "Tradition" is a tree of many branches; some continue, some die; some unexpectedly sprout new greenery. Let it grow, let it flow...
There is then a problem if one tries to use any artwork as an exemplar of a political or cultural position: it is very easy to end up forcing the text: that literary critical approach which seeks meanings (scarcely detectable in the work itself) to serve and support its own theoretical position. I think RB's idea of "capitalist realism", and fhg's of the DM 8th as artistically"pessimistic" are examples of this. Would many listeners hear this, find these meanings, while listening, or on reflection?

This is why I said, long long ago in a galaxy far away, that a work of art can be what it jolly well wants to be... most of us can and will make of it what we want. You can make it an exemplar of a given cultural position. Why not? It might be of some interest. But insisting on the correctness of that position may weaken, not strengthen, your argument.

The words Pot and Kettle come to mind...

[jayne lee wilson]

(#25 - the first post to actually comment on the work)
(#34)
(#207)

To which specific "insults" do you refer?

"Cutting a sorry figure", ill-fitting old socks, stuffing his fingers in his ears, lacking grace and vigour, 80 years out of date (or was it 50, or 60?)....someone said those things, and more, about David Matthews' work...
It may even have been fhg himself, assuming he exists.

I guess we'll never really know...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The words Pot and Kettle come to mind...

Indeed. The myth of a group of an ageing band of avant-gardistas booing the work of a young genius that jlw is trying to create just doesn't fit the facts as evident on this Thread. Nobody has booed the Matthews' 8th Symphony - there's been little beyond polite applause even from those who have supported the work, and then moved on to a discussion of matters and ideas to which even those supporters have found more to contribute than those arising from the work itself.

[Richard Barrett]

Jayne, this has become a very wide-ranging discussion, in case you hadn't noticed, in which the David Matthews piece was the starting point. If you think it's been no more than a mud-slinging session at the piece you haven't been paying much attention.

failed to understand David Matthews' Symphony No.8 on a simple, visceral level?

What is this "simple, visceral level"? Something calling itself a symphony and existing within such a long and complex tradition can only seem to appeal on such a level to those who have embedded themselves in that tradition and know their way around it. Nothing "simple" about that at all.

insisting on the correctness of that position may weaken, not strengthen, your argument

Indeed; and nobody is more insistent, if you don't mind me saying, than yourself; while some are opening up the discussion to talk about more general issues of which this piece may be a symptom, others are repeatedly just hammering away at the same "arguments" - "a piece of music can be whatever it likes", "David Matthews can write whatever he likes", which though they might be trivially true are really not much more than playground talk.