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

[ahinton]

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.

But who's to say that this piece is identifiably and to all and sundry a "symptom" of anything? "Symp", yes - but Dave, not Tom. Some of the debate sounds to me rather too much like trying to force a particular piece into a rôle tht it was never intended or inherently destined to occupy - i.e. tht of a statrter to open up discussions of issues other than the première of a symphony.

To be fir to fhg, he did indeed make positive comments on the work in question in addition to others which were - er - shall we say less so...

[Richard Barrett]

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.

The argument is not that it "belongs to a previous era", but that one aspect of what might be called its contemporaneity is its denial of the last (let's say) at least 60 years of music history, which as you will know has seen a great deal of change, innovation, expansion, questioning and so on, and that this embodies a rather (consciously or subconsciously) pessimistic vision of the present and future. In other words the argument is not of the form "this music good, that music bad", although JLW does try to drag it back in that direction, it's more subtle and general than that.

[Ian]

while some are opening up the discussion to talk about more general issues of which this piece may be a symptom,

There seems to be a (rhetorical) contradiction here. On one hand you imply that even a child could see the obvious truth that DM can write whatever he likes. Yet on the other you categorize his music as a ‘symptom’. The term ‘symptom’ is usually used to describe an undesirable departure from the happy norm - something that the sufferer has no control over.

It follows, therefore, that in this climate DM’s freedom to write what he like should not be taken for granted. Partly because DM’s ‘illness’ prevents him from doing what he would really like to do, and partly because society should be doing what it can to relieve him of his symptoms.

[Richard Barrett]

The term ‘symptom’ is usually used to describe an undesirable departure from the happy norm

symptom
noun
1. any phenomenon or circumstance accompanying something and serving as evidence of it.
2. a sign or indication of something.
3. Pathology: a phenomenon that arises from and accompanies a particular disease or disorder and serves as an indication of it.

[Ian]

symptom
noun
1. any phenomenon or circumstance accompanying something and serving as evidence of it.
2. a sign or indication of something.
3. Pathology: a phenomenon that arises from and accompanies a particular disease or disorder and serves as an indication of it.

Are you saying that the term 'symptom' does not carry the baggage I suggest?

[Ian]

The argument is not that it "belongs to a previous era", but that one aspect of what might be called its contemporaneity is its denial of the last (let's say) at least 60 years of music history, which as you will know has seen a great deal of change, innovation, expansion, questioning and so on, and that this embodies a rather (consciously or subconsciously) pessimistic vision of the present and future. In other words the argument is not of the form "this music good, that music bad", although JLW does try to drag it back in that direction, it's more subtle and general than that.

Like the way a photographer working on film in black and white is ‘denying...etc, etc

[Richard Barrett]

Are you saying that the term 'symptom' does not carry the baggage I suggest?

I am saying I was not using it in that way. If you had followed the discussion, which has by now become quite long so you'd be excused for not doing so, this would be clear to you I think, as would the inappropriateness of your allusion to colour/B&W photography.

[Ian]

I am saying I was not using it in that way. If you had followed the discussion, which has by now become quite long so you'd be excused for not doing so, this would be clear to you I think, as would the inappropriateness of your allusion to colour/B&W photography.

Yet somewhere you make a distinction between something being a ‘symptom’ as opposed to a ‘response’ What is the point (i.e. meaning) behind making that distinction apart from invoking the rhetoric of one being ‘negative’ and the other ‘positive’.

You might have to explain the inappropriateness of my allusion - I can't take anything at face value, don't you know.

[Richard Barrett]

Yet somewhere you make a distinction between something being a ‘symptom’ as opposed to a ‘response’ What is the point (i.e. meaning) behind making that distinction apart from invoking the rhetoric of one being ‘negative’ and the other ‘positive’.

The point is that one is passive, the other active.

[Ian]

The point is that one is passive, the other active.

I was going to qualify my ‘negative’ by adding in parenthesis ‘(or at least passive)’

I wonder what you response would have been had you done that?

In any case I don’t understand what is revealed about DM by characterizing him as ‘passive’ How can his music be anything other than his (positive) response to his particular circumstance. It could just as easily be argued (although equally pointless) that constantly consciously attempting to be relentlessly ‘new‘ is simply a passive acceptance of the ‘received wisdom‘ that music must 'progress'.

I don’t know anything about DM’s career as a whole - but given his age I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he once considered himself to be out on a bit of a limb. Not someone passively acquiescing to the demands of the market place.

[Richard Barrett]

I think you need to read the discussion, Ian.

[ahinton]

I think you need to read the discussion, Ian.

Whilst that might indeed be advisable, I am unconvinced that it would enlighten him as to how it might be that David Matthews' Eighth Symphony evidences a conscious and wilful denial on the composer's part of all developments in Western "classical" music of the past six decades or so (this, of couse, to include minimalism, the appallingly termed "neo-Romanticism" and the rest including what might be thought of as "various expressions of avant-gardism); I also take leave to doubt that he would gain meaningful understanding of how Matthews either reveals himself (in the manner in which he chooses to write) as a specific "symptom" of anything in particular, or recognisably does or does not reflect and/or respond to his time, or exhibits any kind of allegiance with socialist or capitalist practice and/or expectations. What I would hope, however, is that one outcome of such a traversal of an almost 400 post thread is an understanding that not everyone listens to any partcular work in the same or similar ways and that therefore not every listener will derive the same or similar thoughts and/or feelings about it or arrive at the same or similar conclusion about it or about its place in the canon. All that said, whatever Ian might derive from reading through this thread (should he indeed take up your recommendation) will be up to him, of course.

[clive heath]

I agree.

[Ian]

I think you need to read the discussion, Ian.

Are you saying that hidden somewhere in these 386 posts there is a meaningful response to my 385?

[Richard Barrett]

I'm saying that my answers to the questions you're posing would involve me repeating myself. If you're not convinced by what you'd find looking through the thread I'm unlikely to be able to convince you now. On the other hand you might think about coming up with a contribution of your own, rather than just attempting to pick holes in other people's.