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

[ahinton]

Alister, I was trying to deal with Ian's attributions towards Richard's views on David's symphony, in which he confusingly claimed:



What Ian seems to be suggesting here is that, apart from the popular, the contemporary composer of today - unlike his Haydn contemporaries - ineluctably has a wider range of musical inspirations and traditions to work into his or her own music which should be reflected to avoid being the the kind of state of denial he sees the avant-garde composer to be in.

I've heard this argument being deployed quite a number of times in recent years by composers and commentators, namely that the composer of today does not just have the Euroclassical tradition as his or her sole reservoir of reference, but will have been exposed to jazz, pop music, ethnic musics of all sorts that will be refracted through new music. So of course was Debussy, one might say; but far from resulting in some kind of magpie mishmash, all these elements were distilled into a recognisable personal style capable of expansion in his own hands and those of later composers.

Indeed - and those latter including David Matthews, at least for those prepared (as Richard and one of two others here seem reluctant to do for whatever reason/s) to allow for such a possibility...

[Serial_Apologist]

Indeed - and those latter including David Matthews, at least for those prepared (as Richard and one of two others here seem reluctant to do for whatever reason/s) to allow for such a possibility...

I did try unsuccessfully to incorporate Ian's comment to the effect that because of all these contingencies weighing on today's composer one should not be surprised if he or she writes music that might sound more in place were it to have been written 60 years ago, which could have been more clearly articulated as they were the most germane part of his contribution to the discussion, but it's not easy summarising another's views when these seem to be so contradictory!

[ahinton]

I did try unsuccessfully to incorporate Ian's comment to the effect that because of all these contingencies weighing on today's composer one should not be surprised if he or she writes music that might sound more in place were it to have been written 60 years ago, which could have been more clearly articulated as they were the most germane part of his contribution to the discussion, but it's not easy summarising another's views when these seem to be so contradictory!

No, indeed - that I well understand - but I return, if you will forgive me or perhaps even if you find that you cannot do so (at the risk of boring the pants off other people here) to the fact that no two people here or elsewhere will listen to DM8 in the same way, derive the same impressions from it or form like conclusions as to where they feel it stands (whether or not they might think it should do so) in the overall scheme of things where new music composition is concerned, including but not limited to what political, socio-cultural or other rôle they might believe that they and/or others might have some kind of right to think to expect of it.

[Quarky]

He is certainly strongly connected to the realities of our time is he not.

I would prefer to say he is strongly connected to his roots, having grown up near Epping Forest, and it seems he has an affinity with his neighbours, the Goldbaums in Temple Fortune Hill. He therefore seems to be in an optimum situation for continuing his compositional activities.

I've heard this argument being deployed quite a number of times in recent years by composers and commentators, namely that the composer of today does not just have the Euroclassical tradition as his or her sole reservoir of reference, but will have been exposed to jazz, pop music, ethnic musics of all sorts that will be refracted through new music. So of course was Debussy, one might say; but far from resulting in some kind of magpie mishmash, all these elements were distilled into a recognisable personal style capable of expansion in his own hands and those of later composers.

It is to be hoped that DM's vast experience will lead to this distillation, rather than some insipid English pastoral works.

Anyhow, getting back to Stockhausen, I don't know why he is bracketed with Boulez - an entirely different composer, I feel.

[Ian]

What Ian seems to be suggesting here is that, apart from the popular, the contemporary composer of today - unlike his Haydn contemporaries - ineluctably has a wider range of musical inspirations and traditions to work into his or her own music which should be reflected to avoid being the the kind of state of denial he sees the avant-garde composer to be in.

I am certainly not saying that.

I am saying music that sounds like DM’s makes up part of what contemporary music is - even if it is true that ,hypothetically, some other imaginary composer might have written something broadly similar 50 years previously. In other words the ‘fact’ that his style of music has been around 50 years doesn’t stop that style continuing to be contemporary - even though other things have happened since. There is no possible implication that in including such music I am, out of some sort necessity, excluding anything else.

[Richard Barrett]

Do you really think in that all the words you have written in this thread alone you have revealed nothing regarding your views and expectations?

No. I said they were not the issue under discussion.

[Richard Barrett]

So what? The point is that Richard ( and one or two others) are in denial regarding DM's reality as a contemporary composer (and I am taking into account what his music sounds like) Therefore his view about what constitutes being contemporary is obviously, objectively, incomplete.

Nonsense. I never questioned DM's "reality as a contemporary composer". Nor did anyone else. I think you would prefer to "have an argument" based on what you erroneously assert I have said, rather than attempt to engage with what I have said. (Or what Serial_Apologist has said, or ferneyhoughgeliebte.) The internet certainly brings out strange behaviours in people.

[MrGongGong]

Sadly (IMV) the phrase "contemporary music" now means this

http://www.lccm.org.uk

and not the music that is being discussed here.

[ahinton]

Nonsense. I never questioned DM's "reality as a contemporary composer".

No, you didn't; what you did question was the extent to which DM reflects or responds to his time and your conclusion that he does not do this (to paraphrase what you wrote) was that such as you've heard of his work suggests to you that he is in denial of most developments in Western "classical" music over the pat 60 years or so), which some would, I submit, quite understandably read as not entirely dissimilar.

[Ian]

Nonsense. I never questioned DM's "reality as a contemporary composer". Nor did anyone else. I think you would prefer to "have an argument" based on what you erroneously assert I have said, rather than attempt to engage with what I have said. (Or what Serial_Apologist has said, or ferneyhoughgeliebte.) The internet certainly brings out strange behaviours in people.

Ok, first let me assure you that I have been trying to engage with what you have said. Maybe I’m not succeeding, but perhaps you are not helping either. You have probably noticed that you spend a lot of words admonishing a fair number of people for not listening - not engaging with what you are saying, etc. I feel your pain, but there might be a better way to overcome this failure of communication than simply reprimanding people for their strange behavior.

For example, deconstructing one little micro-thread.

I wrote:

...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.”

Your reply:

“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.”

First off, you tell me what the argument is about. It might be true that it is not your argument - but you’re not the only person in this discussion - but that is by the way.

My main point is that you refer to an argument (the one that is more subtle...) without giving any indication what that argument actually is.

It’s true that you express the opinion that to ignore 60 years of music history embodies a pessimistic vision. Fair enough - that is not an unreasonable perception. But what is missing is a account of the argument that this perception/opinion is related to.

In order to gain more insight. I respond:

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

Here, I’ve given you an opportunity to expand and clarify what you mean about how and why ignoring so many innovations embodies a pessimistic view.

But all I get back is comment from you asserting that my photography analogy is inappropriate - no explanation - no attempt on your part to clarify your argument - just more admonishments and reprimands - and on it goes.

[Richard Barrett]

I really have nothing to add to my previous responses to you.

[Ian]

What we've been talking about is the implications of composers writing music like Matthews' 8th symphony in 2015. As you yourself admit, in previous times people didn't listen to non-contemporary music, nor did composers write what sounded like non-contemporary music. Now both of those things happen. The questions that have been under discussion here is why? and what does this mean?

Firstly, to what extent is it true that people don’t listen to, or compose contemporary music? In order to answer this question we need to establish what music should be classified as ‘contemporary‘ and what music should be classified as ‘non-contemporary’. For example, one view might be that pop music should be classed as contemporary in which case it’s simply not true that that listening to non-contemporary is relatively wide-spread. On the other hand if you think pop music is an example of non-contemporary then the question remains - although what this question ultimately comes down to is what you categorise as contemporary.

The same problem remains, even when you leave aside pop music.

For example it would be much less true that people are listening to non-contemporary if music that sounds like DM’s was classified as contemporary - and I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be. I know that there have been very many innovations and diversifications in music over the last 50 years but to what extent should those developments automatically (i.e. by the fact they merely exist) push DM’s music (for example) out of the contemporary bin and into the non-contemporary bin?

For me, therefore,the question of why people are listening/composing ‘non-contemporary‘ is based on a false premise. A false premise that has, to a large extent, come about through an irrelevant comparison to previous times, and an assumption that after a certain period of time styles have to be re-classed as 'non-contemporary' - irrespective of their current use by very many composers.

[kea]

"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."

I think this is a perfectly clear statement from Richard, tbh. He's saying that yes, one sort of contemporary music chooses to ignore everything that's happened in the arts, culture and society since (let's say) 1945, and that indicates a pessimistic view as it suggests that everything that has happened since then is just not worth addressing, and the cultural forces and values that produced symphonies (e.g. the spread of symphony orchestras, the birth of nationalism, a certain aesthetic around symphonies and "symphony cycles" as an elite "achievement" for composers-as-autocrats to express the glory of God, King and/or Country, etc, etc) are things we should be valuing instead.

Like to answer FHG's question long ago about composers writing in out-of-date styles... Catholic liturgical music. From the 1600s to the... 1900s?... Catholic liturgical works were written in the style outlined by Palestrina in his Missa Papae Marcelli—or something not too far removed from it—as that was what the church demanded. That was the stile antico in which heaps of composers had to prove themselves. Conservatives were numerous; we see a lot of critical reviews of early and mid romantic composers who didn't advance much beyond the style of Mozart and Beethoven, or late-romantic composers who didn't advance much beyond the style of Mendelssohn and Schumann. As late as the 1930s composers like Röntgen and Dohnányi were carrying on with the Brahmsian mid-romantic tradition; the late-romantic tradition never actually ended as its last survivor Korngold introduced it into film music where it has thrived ever since until recently being supplemented by rock, hip-hop, and early modernist techniques (e.g. serialism).

Why does commercial film music hold on to romantic music? Because the commercial film industry is by and large an expression of traditionalist, patriarchal values and that's another facet of the expression. No one's saying it's "wrong" for film composers to write romantic music, we're just looking at the reasons they might (consciously or unconsciously) be driven to do that.

(Still haven't listened to Matthews 8, the only symphony I have time for right now is Bruckner 5)

[Sir Velo]

I think this is a perfectly clear statement from Richard, tbh. He's saying that yes, one sort of contemporary music chooses to ignore everything that's happened in the arts, culture and society since (let's say) 1945, and that indicates a pessimistic view as it suggests that everything that has happened since then is just not worth addressing, and the cultural forces and values that produced symphonies (e.g. the spread of symphony orchestras, the birth of nationalism, a certain aesthetic around symphonies and "symphony cycles" as an elite "achievement" for composers-as-autocrats to express the glory of God, King and/or Country, etc, etc) are things we should be valuing instead.

One could surely make the counter argument that the "modernist/Darmstadt school" way has sought to ignore everything that's happened in diatonic music. It's not supportable that there have been no advances in the language of predominantly diatonic composers. No one who ever heard the music of Simpson or Maw (to name but two) could ever form the view that their music could have been composed in the 1920s or 30s for example.

[ahinton]

I think this is a perfectly clear statement from Richard, tbh. He's saying that yes, one sort of contemporary music chooses to ignore everything that's happened in the arts, culture and society since (let's say) 1945, and that indicates a pessimistic view as it suggests that everything that has happened since then is just not worth addressing, and the cultural forces and values that produced symphonies (e.g. the spread of symphony orchestras, the birth of nationalism, a certain aesthetic around symphonies and "symphony cycles" as an elite "achievement" for composers-as-autocrats to express the glory of God, King and/or Country, etc, etc) are things we should be valuing instead.

Like to answer FHG's question long ago about composers writing in out-of-date styles... Catholic liturgical music. From the 1600s to the... 1900s?... Catholic liturgical works were written in the style outlined by Palestrina in his Missa Papae Marcelli—or something not too far removed from it—as that was what the church demanded. That was the stile antico in which heaps of composers had to prove themselves. Conservatives were numerous; we see a lot of critical reviews of early and mid romantic composers who didn't advance much beyond the style of Mozart and Beethoven, or late-romantic composers who didn't advance much beyond the style of Mendelssohn and Schumann. As late as the 1930s composers like Röntgen and Dohnányi were carrying on with the Brahmsian mid-romantic tradition; the late-romantic tradition never actually ended as its last survivor Korngold introduced it into film music where it has thrived ever since until recently being supplemented by rock, hip-hop, and early modernist techniques (e.g. serialism).

Why does commercial film music hold on to romantic music? Because the commercial film industry is by and large an expression of traditionalist, patriarchal values and that's another facet of the expression. No one's saying it's "wrong" for film composers to write romantic music, we're just looking at the reasons they might (consciously or unconsciously) be driven to do that.

(Still haven't listened to Matthews 8, the only symphony I have time for right now is Bruckner 5)

It's not the lack of clarity in Richard's statement that bothers me; it's the suggestion that music such as DM8 "chooses to ignore everything that's happened in the arts, culture and society since (let's say) 1945" and that this is a manifestation of "pessimism" (your words, not his, but broadly conveying the same or similar message). The suggestion that DM is ignorant of all such things, or the implication in so saying that he either despises them or wishes to have no truck with them or both simply doesn't add up just because he writes as he does.

Listening to Bruckner 5 will give you much indeed, as I'm sure David Matthews himself would agree, but I do think that you'd be wise to listen to DM8 before adding more remarks on this thread, interesting as they nevertheless are. The implication that DM and perhaps a small côterie of other composers write with pen in hand and head in sand likewise doesn't ring true (and not only because DM uses Sibelius and the soil around Hampstead Garden Suburb is not especially known for its sandy qualities). The suggestion that he and a handful of others of allegedly similar antediluvian persuasion and unhealthily and unrealistically nostalgic bent write music that could have been written half a century or so ago bears closer scrutiny, methinks. Consider the following small random selection of works each written within over a dozen years that included WWI:

Schönberg: Five Orchestral Pieces
Stravinsky: Le Sacre du Printemps
Ornstein: Sonata for violin and piano
Roslavets: 3 Études for piano
Obuhov: Conversions / Revelation, for piano
Vermeulen: Symphony No. 2: Prélude à la nouvelle journée
Varèse: Amériques

Now I doubt that anyone would suggest that any composer could have written any of these pieces in the years leading up to 1871, but how many tens if not hundreds of thousands of works written by many hundreds of composers half a century later - in the years from, say, 1959 to 1971 - might be argued as having been possible to write at any time in the previous half century or so? Were their composers all somehow in denial of the developments that gave rise to works such as those on the above list? Did they all accordingly contrive to fail in their responsibility to reflect or respond to their time in appropriate ways?

I would have said - as indeed I think I did earlier in this thread - that the more developments in musical expression there are, the richer the diversity of music that there becomes and I'd rather appreciate the outcomes of that than risk espousing some kind of potentially divisive musical factionalism.