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

[Richard Barrett]

Morning Leigh ;-)

I do think you are right here though

The holy word of Landy is never wrong.

Another way of putting it is to say that music can be more or less in this stylistic zone or that, but (this is maybe one of the aspects of absorbing the lessons of more recent music history) if it sounds as if it's stuck in that zone through choice or by default, or ignorance, or denial, then perhaps something is wrong. As in Paul Griffiths' words on Arvo Pärt's music: There is a great deal that something - what? - has forbidden it to say . . . [His] music, however simple in substance, is complex in that it stands before us inexplicably tongue-tied. We may feel that we have nothing to say in return."

[ahinton]

Another way of putting it is to say that music can be more or less in this stylistic zone or that, but (this is maybe one of the aspects of absorbing the lessons of more recent music history) if it sounds as if it's stuck in that zone through choice or by default, or ignorance, or denial, then perhaps something is wrong.

Once again, I cannot but question certain premises of this argument on the grounds on its dependence upon a belief, evidently shared by a few but not by others, that certain music is stuck in its stylistic zone and unable to move from it in any direction (i.e. admitting of little or any possibility of development or maturing of any kind); the problem that remains here is who is to be the ultimate arbiter of whether any particular music is or has become stuck in its stylistic zone, not least because we don't all hear the same things in music or derive identical impressions from it when we listen to it.

Furthermore (and given that David Matthews' Eighth Symphony is the subject of this thread), you have said that you have listened to that work but also that you are not familiar with his music as a whole, so who is to say (not that I'm suggesting that you are doing so in this particular instance) that this symphony is somehow stuck in a stylistic rut into which Matthews drove his antediluvian ox-cart almost half a century ago and from which he has subsequently declined or been unable and/or unwilling to extract himself? For that matter, one might even argue (not that I am doing so) as to whether Brian Ferneyhough's music of the past 15 years or so is likewise stuck in something of a stylistic rut, albeit one that could hardly be more different from that of which some might appear to accuse David Matthews'.

As in Paul Griffiths' words on Arvo Pärt's music: There is a great deal that something - what? - has forbidden it to say . . . [His] music, however simple in substance, is complex in that it stands before us inexplicably tongue-tied. We may feel that we have nothing to say in return."

Much as I respect Paul Griffiths as a writer on music and much as most of Pärt's music does little for me, I would be wary of speculating that something that Griffiths himself at least admits to being unable to identify has somehow "forbidden" the composer to say what he might otherwise have felt more able to say; I also don't understand what he means about what strikes him as the "inexplicably tongue-tied" results of this unspecified external (or internal?) stricture or set of strictures upon Pärt as making his music "complex" in a way quite different to that which most of us might think of when assuming "complexity" of musical expression. Rightly or wrongly, I suspect that Griffiths might well have a point and what he expresses here is never less than interesting in principle insofar as it goes, yet he leaves me none the wiser as to what that point actually is!

There is indeed a surface "simplicity" in much of Pärt's work which is not to be found in Ferneyhough (said he, stating the b***d**g obvious!) but it's not to be found in Matthews either, so I'm even less convinced that Griffiths' statement about it does much to enlighten his readership in arriving at of conclusions about if, whether or why anyone's music might be thought of as being stuck in a stylistic rut. Supposing Matthews' Eighth Symphony had actually been his first (had that been possible) and one of his earliest works rather than his Op. 131 (not in C# minor!); would anyone then have thought to assume that it was stuck in such a rut or that it was somehow in denial of this or that?

[Serial_Apologist]

Once again, I cannot but question certain premises of this argument on the grounds on its dependence upon a belief, evidently shared by a few but not by others, that certain music is stuck in its stylistic zone and unable to move from it in any direction (i.e. admitting of little or any possibility of development or maturing of any kind); the problem that remains here is who is to be the ultimate arbiter of whether any particular music is or has become stuck in its stylistic zone, not least because we don't all hear the same things in music or derive identical impressions from it when we listen to it.

My answer would be: the music that comes in its wake - namely, whether or not its innovations are taken up, whether by the composer him/herself or by others, regardless of any time-lapse.

Furthermore (and given that David Matthews' Eighth Symphony is the subject of this thread), you have said that you have listened to that work but also that you are not familiar with his music as a whole, so who is to say (not that I'm suggesting that you are doing so in this particular instance) that this symphony is somehow stuck in a stylistic rut into which Matthews drove his antediluvian ox-cart almost half a century ago and from which he has subsequently declined or been unable and/or unwilling to extract himself? For that matter, one might even argue (not that I am doing so) as to whether Brian Ferneyhough's music of the past 15 years or so is likewise stuck in something of a stylistic rut, albeit one that could hardly be more different from that of which some might appear to accuse David Matthews'.

To respond to that I would have had to listen to and familiarise myself with a lot more of Ferneyhough's music than I actually have. What I would say however is that the Ferneyhough I find easier to approach is the more recent stuff in which it is more possible (for me, at any rate) to hear its connections with 20th and pre-20th century models. This is not, as far as I am concerned, to say that Ferneyhough has abandoned innovation in ways that others mentioned have. On the contrary, his music looks back and re-connects by way of his previous advances, without which he would not have been able to accomplish this in the singular way that he has, while continuing to advance on his own terms. This is closer, perhaps - albeit at several steps further in advance - to Bartok in his finest works composed after 1937: the Divertimento, the Sixth Quartet, the Contrasts and the solo violin sonata, could not have been written without the prior experience of the two violin and piano sonatas of 1921/2, and the third, fourth and fifth quartets, imv.

Much as I respect Paul Griffiths as a writer on music and much as most of Pärt's music does little for me, I would be wary of speculating that something that Griffiths himself at least admits to being unable to identify has somehow "forbidden" the composer to say what he might otherwise have felt more able to say; I also don't understand what he means about what strikes him as the "inexplicably tongue-tied" results of this unspecified external (or internal?) stricture or set of strictures upon Pärt as making his music "complex" in a way quite different to that which most of us might think of when assuming "complexity" of musical expression. Rightly or wrongly, I suspect that Griffiths might well have a point and what he expresses here is never less than interesting in principle insofar as it goes, yet he leaves me none the wiser as to what that point actually is!

There is indeed a surface "simplicity" in much of Pärt's work which is not to be found in Ferneyhough (said he, stating the b***d**g obvious!) but it's not to be found in Matthews either, so I'm even less convinced that Griffiths' statement about it does much to enlighten his readership in arriving at of conclusions about if, whether or why anyone's music might be thought of as being stuck in a stylistic rut. Supposing Matthews' Eighth Symphony had actually been his first (had that been possible) and one of his earliest works rather than his Op. 131 (not in C# minor!); would anyone then have thought to assume that it was stuck in such a rut or that it was somehow in denial of this or that?

Though I haven't seen the Griffiths article referred to, in using the term "complexity" surely he is referring, not to musical as much as to psychological complexity here? - otherwise one is merely assessing the music qua music... while illustrating another difference characterising our discussion here.

[Richard Barrett]

I haven't seen the Griffiths article referred to

My quote is from his book Modern Music and After.

[Serial_Apologist]

My quote is from his book Modern Music and After.

Aha.

[ahinton]

My answer would be: the music that comes in its wake - namely, whether or not its innovations are taken up, whether by the composer him/herself or by others, regardless of any time-lapse.

Then I would imagine that much music could be argued by some to fall on either side of that fence although, because we none of us hear music the same way or derive the same things from our listening experiences, what might fall on one side of that fence to some will fall on the other side of it to others.

To respond to that I would have had to listen to and familiarise myself with a lot more of Ferneyhough's music than I actually have. What I would say however is that the Ferneyhough I find easier to approach is the more recent stuff in which it is more possible (for me, at any rate) to hear its connections with 20th and pre-20th century models. This is not, as far as I am concerned, to say that Ferneyhough has abandoned innovation in ways that others mentioned have. On the contrary, his music looks back and re-connects by way of his previous advances, without which he would not have been able to accomplish this in the singular way that he has, while continuing to advance on his own terms. This is closer, perhaps - albeit at several steps further in advance - to Bartok in his finest works composed after 1937: the Divertimento, the Sixth Quartet, the Contrasts and the solo violin sonata, could not have been written without the prior experience of the two violin and piano sonatas of 1921/2, and the third, fourth and fifth quartets, imv.

That's fair comment, I think - but likewise would David Matthews' Eighth Symphony have been possible to write as he has written it without his own previous compositional experiences of all manner of orchestral music including symhonies and plenty else besides?

Though I haven't seen the Griffiths article referred to, in using the term "complexity" surely he is referring, not to musical as much as to psychological complexity here? - otherwise one is merely assessing the music qua music... while illustrating another difference characterising our discussion here.

Yes, I'm sure that this is the case, although I'm still not sure why he does so in that context because I don't really understand the context itself in the sense that I find it hard to identify this external or internal constrictive force to which Griffiths draws attention as some kind of unexplained and perhaps unexplainable phenomenon that supposedly impacts upon the way Pärt writes; it might be interesting to hear Pärt's side of such story as there is in this (although, in so saying, I accept that one cannot necessarily rely upon composers to tell you what you'd like to find out about).

Along wth the ineluctable fact that we don't all have broadly identical responses to any music to which we listen, it seems here that there is a handful of people who either just don't like DM8 and/or don't find in it the music that they feel they want to hear in a new work and that, accordingly its composer is somehow ignorant and/or "in denial" of certain aspects of recent Western musical history, there's one who actually enjoyed listening to it but likewise found it to be the kind of work that is not appropriately reflective of or responsive to its time, there are others who do not share such viewpoints and find plenty in it to draw them into its symphonic argument and engage their listening faculties - and never the twain (and a bit!) shall meet, I suppose.

[Serial_Apologist]

Then I would imagine that much music could be argued by some to fall on either side of that fence although, because we none of us hear music the same way or derive the same things from our listening experiences, what might fall on one side of that fence to some will fall on the other side of it to others.

Yes, and you have said this often in this discussion. The problem is that, were this line of argument to be taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no common criteria in music to make for discussion. Fortunately this is not the case.

That's fair comment, I think - but likewise would David Matthews' Eighth Symphony have been possible to write as he has written it without his own previous compositional experiences of all manner of orchestral music including symhonies and plenty else besides?

Some of the criticism of DM8 expressed here has been that by displaying a retrogressive musical language it fits with a conservative trend in contemporary music, as opposed to whether or not it betrays tendencies not displaying these characteristics in the composer's previous work. I don't think one can apply the same values to late Bartok, for example, in these times which historically are so different from the end of WW2.

I don't really understand the context itself in the sense that I find it hard to identify this external or internal constrictive force to which Griffiths draws attention as some kind of unexplained and perhaps unexplainable phenomenon that supposedly impacts upon the way Pärt writes; it might be interesting to hear Pärt's side of such story as there is in this (although, in so saying, I accept that one cannot necessarily rely upon composers to tell you what you'd like to find out about).

Was Griffiths referring to some religiously-inspired voluntary creative self-limitation, one wonders withuout having read the item in question.

Along wth the ineluctable fact that we don't all have broadly identical responses to any music to which we listen, it seems here that there is a handful of people who either just don't like DM8 and/or don't find in it the music that they feel they want to hear in a new work and that, accordingly its composer is somehow ignorant and/or "in denial" of certain aspects of recent Western musical history, there's one who actually enjoyed listening to it but likewise found it to be the kind of work that is not appropriately reflective of or responsive to its time, there are others who do not share such viewpoints and find plenty in it to draw them into its symphonic argument and engage their listening faculties - and never the twain (and a bit!) shall meet, I suppose.

It would be a shame to reduce these differences to a view of seeing them as inherent in the act of listening and assessing, though.

[ahinton]

Yes, and you have said this often in this discussion. The problem is that, were this line of argument to be taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no common criteria in music to make for discussion. Fortunately this is not the case.

"Fortunately", yes, indeed - and I offer all due apology for undue repetition if need be - but at least recognition of it as a factual phenomenon ought to temper some of the more dogmatically expressed emarks about DM8, its "denial" status and the rest to the point that whatever opinions are put forward at least take some account of this fact...

Some of the criticism of DM8 expressed here has been that by displaying a retrogressive musical language it fits with a conservative trend in contemporary music, as opposed to whether or not it betrays tendencies not displaying these characteristics in the composer's previous work. I don't think one can apply the same values to late Bartok, for example, in these times which historically are so different from the end of WW2.

I think that you hit several nails on the head here with a single marteau. The question of whether it displays what might be thought of by some as a "retrogressive musical language" (which presumably might arguably - at least by some of those who accuse it of such - have been an inherently retrogressive language at the time of its initial emergence rather as one that had somehow needed to await of its manifestation in DM8) - in other words, was that "retrogressive" language inherently "retrogressive" by its very nature or did it have to wait for DM allegedly to make it recognisably so by writing his Eighth Symphony as he has done?

Was Griffiths referring to some religiously-inspired voluntary creative self-limitation, one wonders withuout having read the item in question.

That's a question that eends to be put of PG himself methinks - and, should anyone do so in the context of the present thread, it would in any case be necessary to do so as such for its own reasons rather than for the presumed purpose of trying to form parallel conclusions about DM8.

It would be a shame to reduce these differences to a view of seeing them as inherent in the act of listening and assessing, though.

I have to say that I would find it somewhat difficult to do so otherwise; we all, after all, have to depend to a not insignifncant degree upon our listening experiences, notwithstanding our differences of knowledge, previous listening experience, personal reactions and the rest, however inconvenient any or all of these might be thought by some to be in terms of an ability to derive and express intelligent conclusions about this particular work that have sufficient right to resonate with a majority of other readers here.