Moral Mandate?

[Peter Friedman]

In today's New York Times, Bernard Hollander made this comment in a review he wrote.

"It is a shame that experienced listeners have been scared off from liking what they like, but understandable, given 20th-century music's moral mandate to instruct rather than to please."

I am sure some will not find this statement to their liking. It is though something I generally find quite accurate.

[BillF]

Reminds me that Charles Mingus said something about classical music being about how things ought to be and jazz being about how they are. (Someone will have the accurate quotation.)

[7/4]

The morons name is Holland. He also recently wrote this:

Unpleasant truths were another topic brought back forcefully by a concert at the Kitchen in September, by the fine young group Either/Or. Here was a program of 1960s arrogance and self-absorption, with people like Cornelius Cardew, Christian Wolff and Earle Brown as the main offenders. Listening to a collection of composers sharing inside jokes and private messages in music that reeked of contempt for the public made me get down on my knees and give thanks that an era so damaging to music was over. It didn’t drive an intelligent public away from classical music by itself, but it helped.

Discussion about these comments -> here

[7/4]

In today's New York Times, Bernard Hollander made this comment in a review he wrote.

"It is a shame that experienced listeners have been scared off from liking what they like, but understandable, given 20th-century music's moral mandate to instruct rather than to please."

I am sure some will not find this statement to their liking. It is though something I generally find quite accurate.

Uh...if the experienced listeners like the music, why on earth would they be scared off?

Come on now Peter, explain this strange comment to us, since you think you understand it.

[Peter Friedman]

In today's New York Times, Bernard Hollander made this comment in a review he wrote.

"It is a shame that experienced listeners have been scared off from liking what they like, but understandable, given 20th-century music's moral mandate to instruct rather than to please."

I am sure some will not find this statement to their liking. It is though something I generally find quite accurate.

Uh...if the experienced listeners like the music, why on earth would they be scared off?

Come on now Peter, explain this strange comment to us, since you think you understand it.

7/4, it is not the scared off part that strikes me as most significant. It is the moral mandate aspect. I am a season ticket holder to a chamber music series . The leadership of the society that organizes the series tries very hard to make sure that a very "modern" piece is scheduled at each concert.

There are typically 3 pieces performed at each concert. The"modern" piece is ALWAYS performed between the two other pieces that have the highest appeal to the audience.If the "modern" piece was at the end I would, in most cases leave as would many others with whom I have spoken.By placing the "modern" piece, that I usually don't enjoy, between the two pieces I have actually come to hear , they have created a "captive audience".

When I spoke to a member of the governing board about why the concerts are programmed this way, the concept of the "moral mandate" came through loud and clear. The Board believes it is their obligation to expose people to "new' music, and are well aware that unless they programmed that music between the two other pieces they would lose a good number of the audience.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Peter Friedman

[7/4]

Here's the entire article.

January 2, 2008

Music Review

Tonight’s Menu: Chestnuts and Guilty Pleasures

By BERNARD HOLLAND

No one, except the musicians, had to work hard at Avery Fisher Hall on New Year’s Eve. Profundity, nobility and cosmic suffering had the evening off. Joshua Bell played his violin; Lorin Maazel conducted his New York Philharmonic. A big crowd dotted with the dressed-up and the overdressed sat back and sang along inside their heads with old favorites.

The Scherzo from Dukas’s “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” and scenes from Tchaikovsky’s “Swan Lake” and Ravel’s “Bolero” were played with stunning sophistication. In between, Mr. Bell was the soloist in Saint-Saëns’s famous Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso and Ravel’s slightly less famous “Tzigane.”

Pumped-up arrangements for violin and orchestra allowed listeners to weep along with Tchaikovsky’s “None but the Lonely Heart” and feel the caresses of Kreisler’s “Liebesleid” and “Liebesfreud,” not to mention Ponce’s “Estrellita.” All were being played by the best in the business. If there are elevators in heaven, this is certainly the music the gods are listening to as they go up and down.

What makes old chestnuts old chestnuts? First, they are beautiful, so we play them again and again. Then, in an odd paradox, a period of shunning begins: what is ubiquitous by reputation becomes a rarity. When chestnuts do reappear, we initially flinch (Oh no, not Fritz Kreisler again) but then notice that we really haven’t heard them played all in a row for years.

And we are delighted, just as the musicians looked delighted with what they were doing on Monday night. The hip and the learned may have been experiencing Saint-Saëns’s Gypsy potboiler as a guilty pleasure. It is a shame that experienced listeners have been scared off from liking what they like, but understandable, given 20th-century music’s moral mandate to instruct rather than to please.

Surrounded by blue and white draping, billows of flowers, a lighting effect or two and television cameras pointed in his direction, Mr. Bell made it clear that he is a complete violinist. All the bells and whistles of Romantic phrasing are under his control. To say that his taste and clean, muscular tone are not ideally suited to the pieces he played is meant as much as a compliment as a criticism.

Read into it what you will Peter, but I don't see anything about a subscription series in that review.

Saint-Saëns’s Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso is dated 1863. How does the 20th Century fit into a discussion of this piece?

[Peter Friedman]

Here's the entire article.

January 2, 2008

Music Review

Tonight’s Menu: Chestnuts and Guilty Pleasures

By BERNARD HOLLAND

No one, except the musicians, had to work hard at Avery Fisher Hall on New Year’s Eve. Profundity, nobility and cosmic suffering had the evening off. Joshua Bell played his violin; Lorin Maazel conducted his New York Philharmonic. A big crowd dotted with the dressed-up and the overdressed sat back and sang along inside their heads with old favorites.

The Scherzo from Dukas’s “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” and scenes from Tchaikovsky’s “Swan Lake” and Ravel’s “Bolero” were played with stunning sophistication. In between, Mr. Bell was the soloist in Saint-Saëns’s famous Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso and Ravel’s slightly less famous “Tzigane.”

Pumped-up arrangements for violin and orchestra allowed listeners to weep along with Tchaikovsky’s “None but the Lonely Heart” and feel the caresses of Kreisler’s “Liebesleid” and “Liebesfreud,” not to mention Ponce’s “Estrellita.” All were being played by the best in the business. If there are elevators in heaven, this is certainly the music the gods are listening to as they go up and down.

What makes old chestnuts old chestnuts? First, they are beautiful, so we play them again and again. Then, in an odd paradox, a period of shunning begins: what is ubiquitous by reputation becomes a rarity. When chestnuts do reappear, we initially flinch (Oh no, not Fritz Kreisler again) but then notice that we really haven’t heard them played all in a row for years.

And we are delighted, just as the musicians looked delighted with what they were doing on Monday night. The hip and the learned may have been experiencing Saint-Saëns’s Gypsy potboiler as a guilty pleasure. It is a shame that experienced listeners have been scared off from liking what they like, but understandable, given 20th-century music’s moral mandate to instruct rather than to please.

Surrounded by blue and white draping, billows of flowers, a lighting effect or two and television cameras pointed in his direction, Mr. Bell made it clear that he is a complete violinist. All the bells and whistles of Romantic phrasing are under his control. To say that his taste and clean, muscular tone are not ideally suited to the pieces he played is meant as much as a compliment as a criticism.

Read into it what you will Peter, but I don't see anything about a subscription series in that review.

Saint-Saëns’s Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso is dated 1863. How does the 20th Century fit into a discussion of this piece?

I think you are missing my point.

[JSngry]

Well, ok, how "modern" are we talking here? How "far out" or whatever is this stuff relative to the real world? Does nobody like it? I mean, there's Modern, as in no, it's not the 19th century any more, tings have changed in some pretty fundamental waysbut life is still beautiful (or at least interesting) and here's how we see it, and then there's MODERN as in DEATH TO CONFORMITY AND ALL WHO ENJOY IT WE ARE ANGRY WE ARE HERE TO MAKE YOU ANGRY AND FUCK YOU IF YOU DON'T GET ANGRY. I mean, there's a place for the latter and all, but after a while, you get the point and,,,you get the point. But the former, hey, I know people who still get pissedly stressed out over Bartok, and whazzup w/THAT? You know, if you can accept space trave and radio waves and things that work without you knowing how, Bartok is pretty comforting, actually.

I mean, I'm hip to the "moral mandate" vibe, and don't necessarily dig having stuff "forced" on me just because it's supposed to be "good for me" or something like that, but otoh, I kinda like it when somebody believes in something enough to present it with an attitude of "hey, I/we think this is some pretty cool stuff, check it out & see what you think". And I don't mind paying to get exposed to it eitehr - it makes me feel like the people in charge are actually seeking to honestly communicate instead of cynically "playing nice" in order to extract buckus maximus from my bank account.

I guess all I'm saying is that some people don't like to hear things that they don't like, and I can respect that, but when it gets to the point of just not wanting to hear anything that you don't already know, I don't know that that's a necessarily "healthy" place to be in. But then again, that's jsut me, and for me, "discomfort" & "growth" have gone hand-in-hand often enough over the years to where I'm ok with it, at least up to a point. Not everybody's had that relationship, though, so I guess I can see how it's not like that for everybody.

Still, what's the alternative? Always presenting the same old tried and true favorites - or replicants thereof - over and over and over and over and never bringing something fresh to the table? I guess there's a market, but after a while, it's gonna most likely get more and more... "inbred". And then whatcha' got?

[7/4]

Still, what's the alternative? Always presenting the same old tried and true favorites - or replicants thereof - over and over and over and over and never bringing something fresh to the table? I guess there's a market, but after a while, it's gonna most likely get more and more... "inbred". And then whatcha' got?

Wynton.

[7/4]

I think you are missing my point.

I hear you loud and clear, you're just using this poorly edited (I think that's why his comment doesn't make any sense in that context) review of a New Year's Eve concert to make your point.

No one's forcing you to listen to anything you don't want to listen to. If you don't like the subscription series, don't subscribe.

By the way, that Bolero is such an intimidating piece of music isn't it? It's a travesty they play this for children in schools. There should be a law to prevent children from being exposed to such mayhem. My panties get all knotted up just thinking about it.

[JSngry]

Well, I don't want to come off like one of the "modern overall"-ists, because you got to go back and learn the foundations and the detours (at least I do...). because that's where you learn about the humanity in the music, and if you don't get to that, then you're just buying weaponry in a war on life. And that's a war that's unwinnable short of extinction. The lessons of the past are still ones to learn, definitely.

But if it happened then, odds are it's happening now, and will happen in the future. Humanity doen't really change what they do, they just change how they do it. And if we can't find that in today, isn't it quite possible that the problem is with us for not understanding how all this life shit really works? And the modernists overallists want us to believe that they're doing something that's never been done before. Well, ok, in "style", maybe. But substance? You gonna be a genius to get there, and ther really haven't been that many over the centuries. There really haven't.

So either way, it looks like people want to play off yours mine and ours personal conceits, prejudices, and misunderstandings of what games are being played today. And do I want to pay money to have my misunderstandings reinforced? That's gonna be good for somebody, but it sure ain't me!

[Chuck Nessa]

Expanding one's interests horizontally or backwards is the usual (musical mass population) trend. "I like '70s bluegrass so I might like George Jones". "I like '70s fusion so there might be something in 'serious' disco", "I like '50s hard bop so maybe I should check out early r & b". "I like Beethoven so I should probably check out Czerny". "I like Jelly Roll so maybe I should check out Charlie Patton". Amazing how predictable these choices are.

PLEASE, I'm not saying this is bad. It just disappoints me. You can do that stuff AND move "forward" too. You can even get to the point where you can reject "new stuff" and move on.................

Edited January 3, 2008 by Chuck Nessa

[T.D.]

Yeah, but in the context of classical music, Holland's barb is a thinly-coded dig at "avant-garde"/"high modernism"/"serial" music. I don't happen to agree with the sentiment, but it's very commonly expressed, almost knee-jerk.

I wonder if Holland ever reviewed Wynton's "Blood on the Fields"... I've found B.H. bizarre and unreadable (don't know his age, but have suspected senescence) for many years, but that's one I'd like to peruse.

[JSngry]

Meanwhile, as the 20th Century still upsets many to the point of outright hostile rejection of it and it's realities, the 21st century continues to unfold.

Funny how that works...

[7/4]

Meanwhile, as the 20th Century still upsets many to the point of outright hostile rejection of it and it's realities, the 21st century continues to unfold.

Funny how that works...

[JSngry]

Well yeah. Imagine how weird it's gonna be in the 23rd century to hear people still wigging out about 20th century music. And you know it's still gonna be happening.

The gap began a while back. It'll only continue to widen.

Edited January 3, 2008 by JSngry

[JSngry]

And I dunno, maybe this is one of those "I'm going against the board elite and being made or am trying to be made to feel like an idiot" moments in action. I hope not, but I can see how it could be taken that way.

It's really not about being an "idiot" or being one of the "elite" in my mind, it's more about the ongoing roll-out of the future becoming the present becoming the past as we all watch it go down and how we all react to it, that's all. I mean, we all like what we like for the reasons we like it, and that's all cool, everybody's beautiful if they're not ugly, dig? All I'm saying is that the people who don't really "want" to hear "modern" music are simply the doppelganger of those who only want to hear it, and those poles are so far apart, yet so similar, that the middle get muddied up a lot more than it probably should, which is too bad.

So about "effect of taste", yeah, ok, we probably got some disagreement here, although hopefully respectfully, and definitely not idiotfinger-pointing. But about the taste itself, hey, respect (and know) yourself and it's all good afaic.

[7/4]

I seem to remember Peter posting something of the same nature in the What "classical" music are you listening to right now? thread a while ago but no one took the bait.

Like Clem, I'd to see Peter name some names.

[Rooster_Ties]

One of my favorite musical quotes seems appropriate for this thread...

"Beauty in music is too often confused with something that lets the ears lie back in an easy chair."

-- Charles Ives

[7/4]

One of my favorite musical quotes seems appropriate for this thread...

"Beauty in music is too often confused with something that lets the ears lie back in an easy chair."

-- Charles Ives

I think Ives addressed the issue many times. Very quotable.

[Chuck Nessa]

If your pursuits don't result in growth, why not die?

Otherwise, eat donuts.

[7/4]

If your pursuits don't result in growth, why not die?

Otherwise, eat donuts.

I didn't know Ives said that, but it sounds like him.

[Stefan Wood]

It's not just classical music -- it exists in the visual arts as well. I work at a museum that is conservative by nature with the subject matter of its exhibitions and programs. I can't tell you how often when an exhibit featuring a modern or contemporary artist occurs the mixed reactions I can hear from visitors, as opposed to more visually pleasing shows like Hopper, for example. Modern art still has not gained mass acceptance where they can be money makers like the Impressionists.

[Niko]

By the way, that Bolero is such an intimidating piece of music isn't it? It's a travesty they play this for children in schools. There should be a law to prevent children from being exposed to such mayhem. My panties get all knotted up just thinking about it.

some time ago i watched a tv documentary about neonazis in eastern germany... the image that stuck with me was some fat hairless 21 year old drinking canned beer in his bed while listening to ravel's bolero and telling the interviewer something like "i don't know what the future will be but it will sure be national" (don't know the exact statement but he did use "national" in that way...)

[rockefeller center]

By the way, that Bolero is such an intimidating piece of music isn't it? It's a travesty they play this for children in schools. There should be a law to prevent children from being exposed to such mayhem. My panties get all knotted up just thinking about it.

some time ago i watched a tv documentary about neonazis in eastern germany... the image that stuck with me was some fat hairless 21 year old drinking canned beer in his bed while listening to ravel's bolero and telling the interviewer something like "i don't know what the future will be but it will sure be national" (don't know the exact statement but he did use "national" in that way...)

So what?

Edited January 3, 2008 by rockefeller center