The death of western art music has been greatly exaggerated

[teamsaint]

It feels like I've had all the artists I enjoy trashed since I was about 12 - I've just become numb to it!

Criticisms of Schoenberg have long, long ceased to register with me.

I guess that helped me enjoy the article, too!

So it goes. I ( and you ?)grew up with Julie Burchill trashing pretty much every band I loved on a weekly basis.. School of hard knocks, that....

[ahinton]

I'm not trying to surprise anyone. If you have an argument against anything in the post of mine you quoted, let's hear it! The facts are that this individual, apart from his political activities whether or not one sees eye to eye with them, is in his own words a homophobe, an antisemite and an Islamophobe, in other words a major bigot. Perhaps his musical opinions are somehow completely divorced from his opinions in these other areas, but that seems very unlikely. Therefore I would say his opinions on music should perhaps be seen in the context of the rest of what we know about him and his thinking, and viewed as consistent with that, especially since such views of music as he expresses are very often those held by bigots like him.

Thank you for this, with all of which I would have serious trouble arguing against (not that I'm seeking to do any such thing).

[ahinton]

No, there's no homophobia or Islamophobia in the article, but there's certainly antisemitism. You were fortunate in not knowing what else he has written and published, not what others say about him!

PGT, he has nothing of worth to say. Plenty of people have written far more enlightening things about these composers without attempting to trash everything else into the bargain.

No, I think that we all understand that the homophobia and Islamophobia is present in others of his writings (for the drawing of attention to which we all owe you here) but the antisemitism IS present in the article itself, as you say and so one has to question why it's there and what the author's "point" might have been in introducing it other than in the context of some kind of unwarranted and distasteful jibe against an individual composer just to try to make an untenable point.

[Beef Oven!]

So it goes. I ( and you ?)grew up with Julie Burchill trashing pretty much every band I loved on a weekly basis.. School of hard knocks, that....

You might be joking, but those knocks hurt me more than any spank in the gob I ever got! (being the person I am, I've had a few of those down the years )

[Lat-Literal]

So it goes. I ( and you ?)grew up with Julie Burchill trashing pretty much every band I loved on a weekly basis.. School of hard knocks, that....

My mind was running along similar lines before I read your comment, not in relation to others' contributions but the bigger picture. Malcolm McLaren presented himself as an original but just a reading of the first tenth of Jon Savage's "England's Dreaming" fully exposes the influence of the Situationists, Fluxus types and many more including some of the earliest wavers in rock and roll. For all of the anti-hippy rhetoric, what occurred in 1977 was an amalgam in popular culture of the 1950s and the 1960s updated and with the more recent proggists intended to be brought to a halt. What Savage and everyone else has missed to date and I fully recognise that classical music is far more than a British phenomenon is that the original McLaren was Sir William Glock. Immensely powerful as well as highly influential in this country, he was politically somewhat latter day when it came to music. This is to say that atonality had been around since his childhood and adolescence and from most composers' perspectives had developed organically as any sort of movement does. But here was an individual who would have been wonderful if there had been understanding then of diversity. Instead he was a Year Zero guy with a parallel agenda long before the Surfaris of Wipeout.

I happen to like melody but identify more when it twists and it turns. Find me a blue note or something the true melodians would find peculiarly off key and that is when happy often turns to slightly excited. I'm also drawn to contemporary music that is minimalist, electronic and percussive. It often gets a raw deal. Because, in my humble opinion, and there is a certain irony in regard to the latter, it is impossible to deny that it mostly lacks coherent clout. But that is the clout of the Weimar Republic squaring up to the Ku Klux Klan or whatever President Trump has dreamt up this time at 3am in the morning. It is fully accepted that the worse thing that ever happened to folk music was Hitler's preference for it and its declared equivalence with patriotism. Vegetarianism and nudism have often equally suffered as a consequence of their pigeonholing and even promotion in an unequivocally disgusting period. But the problem with what followed among the most vehement and position based opponents was that they were through no fault of their own simultaneously the ultimate antidote and a chip off the old block. They could throw off all of the atrocious with a vengeance but they acquired the overhang of destroy one thing in order to ensure that another is in its place.

No, musical diversity is better and for all of the 21st Century's cultural faults in that at least it is more right than wrong. It also suits the political mood. You will never find me waving the flag for Nick Clegg but there is one thing to be said for him. He made a monkey out of George Dangerfield with a little help from the electorate so all these strange musical deaths that column writers mention ad infinitum are no more true than was ever true of Liberal England. I think it also has to be accepted that atonality or any of the other contemporary forms that I have mentioned will not quite do it in terms of providing a cutting edge fit for, say, 2050. It will require much more and the real challenge for our composers in the future is to find a substantial musical sledgehammer that is neither destructive or necessarily fighting against anything at all. While that remains to be done, the old folks like us might bide our time by resurrecting Barclay James Harvest and Jelly Roll Morton and playing them alongside or seeking out lots of international colour without jumping on any plane and sodding up the climate.

[Beef Oven!]

Twitter is a great discipline.

[richardfinegold]

Antisemitism evidently is alive and well in the mind of the author: Schoenberg could not complete Moses and Aron specifically because he was Jewish, apparently, and therefore couldn't answer theological questions because the answer was Christ. The negative phrases used to describe serialism and modern music are also long-established code words for "Jewish". Philip Glass and Steve Reich, also Jewish, get no credit for "reviving" music from under the rubble of modernism, since minimalism is apparently just a very basic form that laid the groundwork for the more "evolved" music of Christian composers. Of the early minimalist composers the author only quotes John Adams, who is... a Christian as far as I know, if not a particularly devout one. No word whatsoever on La Monte Young or Terry Riley, whose religious beliefs fall outside the Judeo-Christian axis. I'm not impressed.

I have read a large chunk of Reilly's Surprised By Beauty, and some of his long letters in an exchange in Fanfare. I think that kea hits it right on the nail here. Mr Reilly's writings do strike me as Anti Semitic, and I do think that he equates Jewishness
with anti tonality. His Anti semitism isn't of the violent, eliminationist type, and he no doubt would strongly object to being labaled as an Anti Semite. Reilly is more the Evangelical, "Jews should be forgiven for their sins because they haven't accepted salvation" variety.
More to the point, He equates Communism/Totalitarianism with Serialism, and by association the fervent Serialists with Dictatorial powers a la Stalin. The fact that some Serialists were Jewish isn't their Primary Failing, more like icing on the cake for him.
He is a thoughtful person who cares about Music and writes well and that is why I have read as much of his stuff as I have, but despite his virtues I find my disagreements with his conclusions exasperating and I have enjoyed the comments in this thread, which hopefully won't teeter over the brink of civilized discourse.

[P. G. Tipps]

I have read a large chunk of Reilly's Surprised By Beauty, and some of his long letters in an exchange in Fanfare. I think that kea hits it right on the nail here. Mr Reilly's writings do strike me as Anti Semitic, and I do think that he equates Jewishness
with anti tonality. His Anti semitism isn't of the violent, eliminationist type, and he no doubt would strongly object to being labaled as an Anti Semite. Reilly is more the Evangelical, "Jews should be forgiven for their sins because they haven't accepted salvation" variety.
More to the point, He equates Communism/Totalitarianism with Serialism, and by association the fervent Serialists with Dictatorial powers a la Stalin. The fact that some Serialists were Jewish isn't their Primary Failing, more like icing on the cake for him.
He is a thoughtful person who cares about Music and writes well and that is why I have read as much of his stuff as I have, but despite his virtues I find my disagreements with his conclusions exasperating and I have enjoyed the comments in this thread, which hopefully won't teeter over the brink of civilized discourse.

A fair-minded and refreshingly balanced reaction to Mr Reilly's article.

Your use of the word 'Evangelical' is apt, I think. I would have guessed that, despite his Irish surname, Reilly were an evangelical Protestant rather than a Catholic, which I understand he is. Then again there is a small evangelical strand within the Catholic Church not least in America.

However I doubt Robert Reilly is any more of a genuine antisemite than, say, Ken Livingstone, though his views are similarly controversial to many. His stance on homosexuality, Judaism and Islam are very much in line with more traditional Christian orthodoxy. One may as well describe practising Muslims and Orthodox Jews as being 'anti-Christian' and, while we're at it, 'homophobes' as well!

As for the music there have been, of course, quite a few Catholic /Christian composers who have dabbled with Serialism. Messiaen has already been mentioned and even the agnostic Boulez said he was forever grateful for the lifelong discipline he acquired at his seminary childhood school.

I earlier described Reilly's article as simplistic and speculative. He is perfectly entitled to his opinion just like the rest of us, and he does have some interesting things to say to the more open-minded even though he doesn't himself seem to be one of them! I'm thinking here mostly about his remarks about spirituality. I also believe his main conclusions to be, quite simply, wrong. Human progress depends on innovation and experimentation and music is no exception.

That's all ... certainly nothing for some here to get too excited about.

[Richard Barrett]

His stance on homosexuality, Judaism and Islam are very much in line with more traditional Christian orthodoxy.

Yes and that is why "more traditional Christian orthodoxy" is a byword for bigotry and intolerance.

I would disagree with RF about Reilly "caring about music". Trashing large amounts of music in order to extol an ideologically restricted subset of it is the very opposite of caring about music - it's the kind aestheticising of politics generally associated with 20th century dictatorial regimes.

[ahinton]

Yes and that is why "more traditional Christian orthodoxy" is a byword for bigotry and intolerance.

I would disagree with RF about Reilly "caring about music". Trashing large amounts of music in order to extol an ideologically restricted subset of it is the very opposite of caring about music - it's the kind aestheticising of politics generally associated with 20th century dictatorial regimes.

Indeed - and why in any case would a writer have to embrace some kind of internal obligation to rubbish the music of certain composers in order to try to prove a (non-existent) point about others when it's so obvious that the music of every composer stands or falls by its merits as music?

[Beef Oven!]

I have read a large chunk of Reilly's Surprised By Beauty, and some of his long letters in an exchange in Fanfare. I think that kea hits it right on the nail here. Mr Reilly's writings do strike me as Anti Semitic, and I do think that he equates Jewishness
with anti tonality. His Anti semitism isn't of the violent, eliminationist type, and he no doubt would strongly object to being labaled as an Anti Semite. Reilly is more the Evangelical, "Jews should be forgiven for their sins because they haven't accepted salvation" variety.
More to the point, He equates Communism/Totalitarianism with Serialism, and by association the fervent Serialists with Dictatorial powers a la Stalin. The fact that some Serialists were Jewish isn't their Primary Failing, more like icing on the cake for him.
He is a thoughtful person who cares about Music and writes well and that is why I have read as much of his stuff as I have, but despite his virtues I find my disagreements with his conclusions exasperating and I have enjoyed the comments in this thread, which hopefully won't teeter over the brink of civilized discourse.

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.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

As for the music there have been, of course, quite a few Catholic /Christian composers who have dabbled with Serialism. Messiaen has already been mentioned

He has - but not as someone who "dabbled in serialism". (And Boulez was an atheist, not an "agnostic".)

[P. G. Tipps]

He has - but not as someone who "dabbled in serialism". (And Boulez was an atheist, not an "agnostic".)

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

As for Boulez, according to WIKI ... 'By the age of fifteen he was sceptical about religion ("what struck me most was that it was so mechanical: there was a total absence of genuine conviction behind it"), although later in life he described himself as an agnostic.'

[Neil]

"The single greatest crisis of the 20th century was the loss of faith. Noise—and its acceptance as music—was the product of the resulting spiritual confusion and, in its turn, became the further cause of its spread. Likewise, the recovery of modern music, the theme to which this book is dedicated, stems from a spiritual recovery." says Ted Libbey in the foreword to Reilly's awful book. This says it all.

So all the nasty discordant and tuneless music written in the 2oth c. is due to our loss of faith, it seems. Reilly, a good upright man, just likes, in common with so many others, a nice melody, a tune you can sing in the bath, and nice melodious harmonies to go with it. If only people like Darwin, with his crazy theories, and Freud, with, all his blasphemous 'father figure' rubbish about God hadn't started the rot, we'd all be ok.
He likes nice music, including religious music, tuneful music, real music, but not the kind of weird, discordant rubbish Webern wrote when he set texts by the Catholic mystic Hildegard Jone, for example. He wants to preach his beliefs to the world about all this, and make a bit of money as well with all his writing/preaching, while he's at it. He wants to shows us where we all went wrong. What fools some of us have been thinking a discordant jumble of noises is music! Brainwashed. Poor misguided Jerry Kohl spending a lifetime studying Stockhausen, for example! What a waste of a life for such an otherwise brilliant man! Schoenberg and other strong minded people have somehow rammed their ugly music down our throats and finally we've swallowed it!
Reilly wants us to get on the right path, the true path again. And here's a lovely big book that will do the trick for all but those with perverted tastes.

Let's get back to believing in God and singing nice tunes in the bath.

[ahinton]

"The single greatest crisis of the 20th century was the loss of faith. Noise—and its acceptance as music—was the product of the resulting spiritual confusion and, in its turn, became the further cause of its spread. Likewise, the recovery of modern music, the theme to which this book is dedicated, stems from a spiritual recovery." says Ted Libbey in the forward to Reilly's awful book. This says it all.

It does indeed - except that what both Libbey conveniently omit to say is anything that proves this hypothesis, from which absence it is clear that they not only believe it but that thet are so right in so doing that no such proof is needed; the sheer arrogance of their concomitant assumption that everyone else will accept such an hypothesis without question beggars belief.

So all the nasty discordant and tuneless music written in the 2oth c. is due to our loss of faith, it seems.

Again, no detailed technical descriptions of what makes certain music "discordant and tuneless" are provided, nor any evidence that music fitting either or both of those descriptions was only ever composed in the 20th century (or part thereof); the reader just has to accept Libbey and Reilly's word for it all, without either giving a moment's thought that this would respume a massive leap of - er - um - "faith".

Reilly, a good upright man

"Downright"'s the word that I'd be more inclined to use.

just likes, in common with so many others, a nice melody, a tune you can sing in the bath, and nice melodious harmonies to go with it.

No proof of how many "others" or of their great numbers, no definition of a "nice" melody or harmonies or any other kind and no allowances for the fact that not everyone wishes to sing in the bath or that some of us prefer to take a shower.

If only people like Darwin, with his crazy theories, and Freud, with, all his blasphemous 'father figure' rubbish about God hadn't started the rot, we'd all be ok.

Interesting notion, since neither was a composer.

He likes nice music, including religious music, tuneful music, real music, but not the kind of weird, discordant rubbish Webern wrote when he set texts by the Catholic mystic Hildegard Jone, for example. He wants to preach his beliefs to the world about all this

He probably disapproves of Messiaen's music, too.

and make a bit of money as well with all his writing/preaching, while he's at it

What? You mean that people are actually prepared to pay to read and/or listen to his uncorroborated rantings? Mon Dieu!

He wants to shows us where we all went wrong

Everyone who desires to do that has first to convince him/herself that he/she is right.

What fools some of us have been thinking a discordant jumble of noises is music! Brainwashed.

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.

Schoenberg and other strong minded people have somehow rammed their ugly music down our throats and finally we've swallowed it!

Funny how Schönberg never abandoned tonality, n'est-ce pas? But then the wind band variations and second chamber symphony mustn't be mentioned because that would spoil the polt!

Reilly wants us to get on the right path, the true path again. And here's a lovely big book that will do the trick for all but those with perverted tastes.

...as in almost all of us who listen to music, presumably...

Let's get back to believing in God and singing nice tunes in the bath.

But some people already do believe in God - and some even sing in the bath - but neither that belief not that activity is of itself indicative of an inevitable disdain for Schönberg and all those terrible people who corrupted music in the 20th century; Reilly, however, would rather we didn't think about things like that.