Are you a conservative? I think I am!

[BBMmk2]

I think I’ve quite eclectic tastes in music. I like composers from Boulez to Zemlinsky.

[Beef Oven!]

I think I’ve quite eclectic tastes in music. I like composers from Boulez to Zemlinsky.

Keep 'em coming BBM

[kea]

And finally I would say that your words on "political music" are actually the wrong way around - it isn't necessarily a question of using music to express or encourage radical sympathies, but of how creative musicians with (or without) such sympathies might decide to channel their creativity.

I don't think the place where one situates one's creativity is irrelevant, though. A musician may be politically radical, but if all their creative energy is being channeled into e.g. orchestras, music festivals, etc that are supported financially by corporations and wealthy donors and represent an art form synonymous with aristocracy, that radicalism is purely aesthetic. And more to the point of this particular thread, a listener may be politically radical, but if their primary listening focus is an art form synonymous with aristocracy & they venerate some of its exponents as of godlike and unsurpassable stature, & view it as superior to less highbrow musical genres, etc, they cannot claim their radicalism extends to their artistic tastes as well.

A "conservative" composer, in 2018 or at any other time, might be characterised as one whose work is concentrated principally on inherited forms, instrumentations, harmonic "language" and so on.

Yes, I'm aware of the standard ideological attribution—the Greenberg Avant-Garde & Kitsch thing—it's just that I don't really agree with it either. Reusing inherited forms, instrumentations, etc is considered "conservative" when done by (say) Rachmaninov, but not when done by (say) Stravinsky. We could look at some technical features to determine why Stravinsky's Symphony in C is "avant-garde" and Rachmaninov's Symphony in a is "kitsch" but the principal reason seems to be that Stravinsky aggressively marketed himself as a musical progressive and Rachmaninov aggressively marketed himself as a musical conservative. Kitsch as ruling-class ideology and avantgardism as subversive doesn't seem accurate anymore—from the history of the 20th century I think it would be much fairer to say they are two faces of the same ruling class ideology.

including but not in any way restricted to the aspect of "entertainment" you mention.

I think all reasons to listen to music come down to pleasure, but yes there are many other forms of pleasure that I didn't mention.

[cloughie]

I think I’ve quite eclectic tastes in music. I like composers from Boulez to Zemlinsky.

A bit conservative for you methinks. Surely it is Aagaard to Zwilich, Bbm.

[Richard Barrett]

I don't think the place where one situates one's creativity is irrelevant, though. A musician may be politically radical, but if all their creative energy is being channeled into e.g. orchestras, music festivals, etc that are supported financially by corporations and wealthy donors and represent an art form synonymous with aristocracy, that radicalism is purely aesthetic.

Why should the source of financial support be in itself compromising? Musicians have to live and feed themselves in the world they're in, even while envisioning a different world. Plus, certainly in Europe and Australia, the model is not "corporations and wealthy donors" but government-funded institutions.

more to the point of this particular thread, a listener may be politically radical, but if their primary listening focus is an art form synonymous with aristocracy & they venerate some of its exponents as of godlike and unsurpassable stature, & view it as superior to less highbrow musical genres, etc, they cannot claim their radicalism extends to their artistic tastes as well.

Again, whatever its origins, thinking of classical music as "synonymous with aristocracy" is I think a very narrow way to see things - one could also see it as embodying the most valuable and profound aspects of what human beings and their imaginations are capable of, and indeed without mindless veneration of the individuals involved in making it, or snobbery about any presumed superiority to other forms of music.

Reusing inherited forms, instrumentations, etc is considered "conservative" when done by (say) Rachmaninov, but not when done by (say) Stravinsky.

Stravinsky, however he may have marketed himself, was an opportunist and most certainly a political conservative. But, once more, we are primarily talking about listening here. Plenty of contributors to this forum are happy to listen to both Rachmaninov and Stravinsky, recognising both the differences in attitude between them and the (perhaps deeper) aspects they have in common.

[ahinton]

Why should the source of financial support be in itself compromising? Musicians have to live and feed themselves in the world they're in, even while envisioning a different world. Plus, certainly in Europe and Australia, the model is not "corporations and wealthy donors" but government-funded institutions.
Again, whatever its origins, thinking of classical music as "synonymous with aristocracy" is I think a very narrow way to see things - one could also see it as embodying the most valuable and profound aspects of what human beings and their imaginations are capable of, and indeed without mindless veneration of the individuals involved in making it, or snobbery about any presumed superiority to other forms of music.
Stravinsky, however he may have marketed himself, was an opportunist and most certainly a political conservative. But, once more, we are primarily talking about listening here. Plenty of contributors to this forum are happy to listen to both Rachmaninov and Stravinsky, recognising both the differences in attitude between them and the (perhaps deeper) aspects they have in common.

I'm with you on all of this (and what you wrote in your previous post here), although it has to be said that "government-funded institutions" are themselvs funded in part by "corporations" and wealthy taxpayers if not "donors" per se - not that this fact makes any difference, still less undermines any argument here.

[doversoul1]

Does it make a person ultra-conservative if the person (person’s mind) goes forever more back in time in search of new musical experience in the music largely created for various establishments?

[ahinton]

Stravinsky aggressively marketed himself as a musical progressive and Rachmaninov aggressively marketed himself as a musical conservative

Really? I'm not sure that I buy that. If Stravinsky "aggressively marketed" himself at all it was as Stravinsky and I've no evidence that Rachmaninoff "agressively marketed" himself at all as a composer and, indeed, he wrote only a few works in the final quarter century of his life when he concentrated mainly on piano playing and very occasionally conducting.

[cloughie]

Really? I'm not sure that I buy that. If Stravinsky "aggressively marketed" himself at all it was as Stravinsky and I've no evidence that Rachmaninoff "agressively marketed" himself at all as a composer and, indeed, he wrote only a few works in the final quarter century of his life when he concentrated mainly on piano playing and very occasionally conducting.

...and Stravinsky was deliberately retro when he dabbled with Pergolesi!

[Richard Barrett]

Does it make a person ultra-conservative if the person (person’s mind) goes forever more back in time in search of new musical experience in the music largely created for various establishments?

Indeed not. The clue is in the "search for new musical experience"!

Also, on a slightly more speculative note, one of the aspects of "early music" I've always found most attractive is - to use a shorthand for something whose precise definition is elusive - the sound of it, in itself: the timbres, combinations of timbres, the not-so-familiar means of expression and so on: and all of these would also apply to something like contemporary electronic music in a similar sort of way. The sound of the "classical" orchestra or string quartet are things I have to make more of a conscious effort to get onto the wavelength of.

[BBMmk2]

A bit conservative for you methinks. Surely it is Aagaard to Zwilich, Bbm.

You’re right of course, Cloughie. I’m always tempted to say Brian!

[Bella Kemp]

An interesting post Beef Oven, but in your list of favoured composers you mention a 2VS and I'm stumped as to who you mean. Google hasn't helped and, so far as I can see,no-one else has queried this. Am I being dim?

[french frank]

An interesting post Beef Oven, but in your list of favoured composers you mention a 2VS and I'm stumped as to who you mean. Google hasn't helped and, so far as I can see,no-one else has queried this. Am I being dim?

Second Viennese School?

[Beef Oven!]

An interesting post Beef Oven, but in your list of favoured composers you mention a 2VS and I'm stumped as to who you mean. Google hasn't helped and, so far as I can see,no-one else has queried this. Am I being dim?

No you're not being dim at all! It's an esoteric short-hand way of saying the second Viennese school - Schoenberg, Berg, Webern et al.

[Beef Oven!]

Second Viennese School?