The death of western art music has been greatly exaggerated

[richardfinegold]

Thank you for this helpful perspective. I've read the article a third time (I shan't read it anymore!) and I don't see enough in it to think him an anti-Semite. His critique of Schoenberg could have been put another way, but there are far more insanitary forms of anti-Semitism than the misguided narrative put forward by Reilly.

And I would agree strongly with RB, that Reilly cannot possibly care about music, given his stance on Schoenberg, much 20 century music, etc. Anyone who cares about music couldn't possibly think like Reilly.

His Antisemitic views are more developed in his book. And to be fair, it isn't a virulent form of Anti Semitism.
RB raises a good point. His argument is that Reilly can't care about Music because his views are damaging to Music. To which I would answer that the road to Hell can be paved with good intentions .

[Richard Barrett]

To which I would answer that the road to Hell can be paved with good intentions.

I don't see any good intentions either!

[Neil]

But who did the brainwashing? Darwin? Freud? Or that enemy of the people Schönberg? The last names, probably, since he's at the root of all the world's musical ills, it would seem.

Well, since 'the single greatest crisis of the 20th century - worse than the world wars? And the rise of the Nazis? - was the loss of faith'. And 'noise—and its acceptance as music—was the product of the resulting spiritual confusion', it appears that Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche et al were the real culprits

Btw., I wonder what Reilly thinks of Stravinsky's 'wrong note' harmony during his neo-classical period. Can he suffer it? And I wonder how this critic gets on with Paul Griffiths. Would they chat over coffee?

[french frank]

I don't see any good intentions either!

A fundamentalist (Catholic) Christian applies his religious beliefs to 'modern' music, and probably to many other things that he's 'not keen on'. Tippsy is right in saying 'simplistic'. But a fundamentalist is a just a particular kind of simpliste.

[Richard Barrett]

I wonder how this critic gets on with Paul Griffiths

I imagine that Paul wouldn't give him the time of day, but, living as he does in rural Wales, he's very unlikely to encounter Reilly, who, let's not forget, isn't a "critic" but a professional government propagandist.

[ahinton]

I imagine that Paul wouldn't give him the time of day, but, living as he does in rural Wales, he's very unlikely to encounter Reilly, who, let's not forget, isn't a "critic" but a professional government propagandist.

Indeed. I suspect that the only retort that Griffiths would have to this kind of thing might be "What Next? Nothing, hopefully".

[Serial_Apologist]

Btw., I wonder what Reilly thinks of Stravinsky's 'wrong note' harmony during his neo-classical period. Can he suffer it?

I would imagine all that bitonal dissonance in the Symphony of Psalms, never mind the twelve-tonery of Canticum Sacrum, Threni, The Flood and the Requiem Canticles would seem tantamount to blasphemy!

[Serial_Apologist]

But a fundamentalist is a just a particular kind of simpliste.

Like, someone who knows how to undiscover nuclear physics, you mean?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Are you referring to the 'dabbling' or the 'serialism'?

Both.

[ahinton]

Both.

Or, perhaps to put it another way, "serial dabbling".

But clearly this Reilly is inveighing not only against serialist practices but against what he has convinced himself is dissonant, amelodic and aharmonic music of all kinds composed in the 20th century and whose growth he attributes to some kind of dissolution of "religious faith", "spirituality" and the rest, regardlss of the beliefs actually held by the perpetrators thereof; I don't doubt that he would include much of Messiaen's work in that category, notwithstanding that composer's deeply held belief in God and its impact upon his music, but then the invidious and seemingly unshakeable permanence of Schönberg's bogeyman status makes him a far easier target than Messiaen, as Reilly's essay quite sickeningly demonstrates.

[Richard Barrett]

Both.

Saying that Boulez dabbled in serialism is like saying Oliver Reed dabbled in alcoholic refreshment. Boulez on his schooling: "The Catholic God was the God that failed". Pretty clear I think!

[Lat-Literal]

Twitter is a great discipline.

Yes indeed.

In the article, the writer restricts himself to "just" 33 paragraphs of saying what he has been writing in newspaper articles etc for the best part of four decades. Scruton who is obviously a supporter has managed elsewhere to sum up his (entirely unoriginal) thinking in one sentence. Effectively, he doesn't like atonality or dissonance. The "war of ideas" which he is so keen on is really a dressing up of "my way is better than your way", be that in politics, religion or music and at the sort of playground level where anything else is barely tolerated. It gets serious and extensive reaction but then so does Scaramucci. Given the hints of anti-semitism etc, I am surprised so many are willing to engage with such types in their fandango.

[P. G. Tipps]

A fundamentalist (Catholic) Christian applies his religious beliefs to 'modern' music, and probably to many other things that he's 'not keen on'. Tippsy is right in saying 'simplistic'. But a fundamentalist is a just a particular kind of simpliste.

Speaking from some experience here 'Fundamentalist' Catholic tastes in music can vary hugely just like that of Fundamentalist Marxists and Fundamentalist Liberals! I don't know many Catholics (or Protestants for that matter) who would brandish the Bible whilst condemning Atonality.

However, there are undoubtedly many music-lovers, no doubt atheists/agnostics included, who share Reilly's intense dislike of the music he himself is 'not keen on'.

Put simply, they prefer a good tune and/or something that stirs their emotions or inspires the spirit.

If we condemn Reilly for what he says we must also condemn millions of others who do not share his faith.

Anti-religious prejudice should not cloud that simple truth!

[ahinton]

Saying that Boulez dabbled in serialism is like saying Oliver Reed dabbled in alcoholic refreshment. Boulez on his schooling: "The Catholic God was the God that failed". Pretty clear I think!

Sure, but all this pseuds' corner religio-spiritual stuff is just a peg on which Reilly seeks to hang what passes for his "theories" on the ills that beset music in the 20th century rather than something that bears the inherent relation to the music of that century that he believes it to do; likewise, his beef (sorry, BeefO!) is not with serialism per se but with all 20th century music whose melodic and harmonic content and levels of consonance and tonality do not meet his exacting "standards", hence his persistent and wearisome sideswipes at Schönberg, whose bogeyman status he believes identifies him as an easy target yet at the same time his convenient omission of consideration of Messiaen whose devout Roman Catholicism has never been in doubt but at much of whose music he would would doubtless cavil. Conversely, he might approve of much of Vaughan Williams notwithstanding his agnosticism.

The empty lauding of Pärt, Górecki and Tavener at the expense of so many other composers is as transparent as it is specious and is again for the sole purpose of making a point that does not stand up to scrutiny - or even possible Scrutony; it does none of them any favours, but no doubt Reilly would refuse to concede that.

Abandon logic as well as hope all ye who enter this essay.

[ahinton]

I don't know many Catholics (or Protestants for that matter) who would brandish the Bible whilst condemning Atonality.

But you do know some?(!)...

However, there are undoubtedly many music-lovers, no doubt atheists/agnostics included, who share Reilly's intense dislike of the music he himself is 'not keen on'.

I don't doubt that - we don;t all go the same way home - but which of those many would stick their heads above the parapet and write about their musical dislikes in anything like the broad-brush manner in which he seeks to blame the way in which a number of 20th century composers wrote upon some kind of general global dissolution of faith and other religio-spiritual mumbo-jumbo, idolising the likes of Pärt, Górecki and Tavener while deploring Schönberg as part of such an exercise?

Put simply, they prefer a good tune and/or something that stirs their emotions or inspires the spirit.

But what IS "a good tune" and who's to say what music stirs whose emotions and/or inspires the spirit? Only Reilly, accordingly to Reilly himself.

If we condemn Reilly for what he says we must also condemn millions of others who do not share his faith.

Not at all; he can be condemned, as indeed he is being - or at least roundly and negatively criticised - for posing as some kind of religio-spiritual-musical guru who knows better than anyone else what happened to music during the 20th century, why, where and whose fault it was, without producing a shred of evidence in suppot of any of his half-baked and uncooked "theories"; his only true "faith" appeears to be in his superior knowledge and his ability to express it in an essay and in books.

Anti-religious prejudice should not cloud that simple truth!

Firstly, it isn't a "truth", secondly, it is not "simple" and, thirdly, not all agnostics or even atheists are "anti-religious" to the extent of prejudicially condemning others for their subscription to religious faiths; I can accept the "cloud" bit, though, albeit only to the extent that the essay might "cloud" sensible consideration of the issues concerned if only it were not so absurd.