Suggest a better word than 'conservative'

[bogdan101]

Wyntosaurus?

[Rooster_Ties]

Seriously, does anyone really think that much if any of Henze's music is particulaly conservative?

[A Lark Ascending]

Do a word search on 'conservative' on this article:

http://www.dw.de/obituary-hans-werner-henze/a-16339037

'The new Richard Strauss'

But it made him queasy to hear well-known musicians, like the conductor Karl Böhm, describe him in raving terms as "our only hope" and "the new Richard Strauss." He also sometimes angered the conservative audience. But, considering the post-war gulf that had opened between the middle class and the radical avant-garde scene, characterized by composers like Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pierre Boulez, such rejection was moderate.

Music lovers that wanted the future of music to remain the traditional opera, symphony or concerto, that saw music as an expression of the soul and emotion, they turned to Henze.

Of course, it depends on your use of the word 'conservative'. If you use its original, benign meaning - preserving what is good from the past - then he can be considered conservative (along with many other things).

If you use it to mean stuck in the past and too scared to come out then it makes no sense.

Which is my point. It tends to get used lazily by critics to demean music or musicians who do not fit with the approaches they have decided to promote. As so often the use of the word says more about the critic than the music being commented on.

Edited September 23, 2013 by A Lark Ascending

[danasgoodstuff]

I would same the same for the word "Liberal".

or 'radical' or a bunch of other words that get used sloppily.

[BruceH]

Trad.

[Rooster_Ties]

Old timey?

Behind the times?

Stuck in the past?

All kidding aside, I think in many circumstances it's perfectly fine to use the word "conservative" to denote an approach that's out of step with current or more modern thinking. No value judgements there, just a temporal discription of what is new (or newer) thinking, vs. prior thoughts, ideas, or conventions.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Rooster_Ties

[Larry Kart]

'Conservative' tends to have negative connotations (especially in Britain...can't wait for next week!). Music that does not embrace the relentless striving into the future, the breaking up of convention is often dismissed or marginalised (by critics) as 'conservative'.

Now I'm all for forging into the future and challenging preconceptions but there have always been musicians not that interested in making a new world but able to speak with very individual voices in the language of the existing or even a previous world.

I'm thinking of this after reading an article yesterday about the British composer David Matthews. Matthews writes in a tonal language a million miles away from much avant garde classical music, yet it's music that is unique and (to me) very engaging. It's not easy listening either, though it can be very atmospheric.

Another example: listening through the Henze box in recent weeks, a lot of the music there could be termed 'conservative' compared with his peers - but the term doesn't even begin to prepare you for his quite unique way with music.

So, can anyone think of a less value-laden term than conservative to describe music or musicians of great imagination who choose not to storm the frontiers but work overtly within an existing tradition?

For me, the question, or the issue, aside from sheer talent or lack of same, is the composer's attitude toward his material. Take, for one example, Ravel, who certainly had very strong feelings/ideas/what have you about prior musical/social epochs and specific musical events from the past but who transmuted them into striking, highly individual works (e.g. Le Tombeau de Couperin, La Valse). The same might be said, up to a point, about Richard Strauss, though I'm less temperamentally attuned to the ways his undoubtedly major compositional skills/gifts trafficked with aspects of the musical/social past from "Rosenkavalier" on.

Not that it's determinative in itself, or can be detected with infallible accuracy, but things get bothersome for me in this general area when I feel that a composer has a semi-predetermined notion of "What audiences already like' and/or "What, based on what audiences have liked in the past, they are likely to like in the future" and then proceeds to try to give that to audiences anew (or "anew") by re-combining elements of those, so to speak, audience-tested, audience-verified musical gestures. Here, by contrast, a figure like Robert Simpson comes to mind, often immersed in various aspects of the musical past but as inner-directed (and to my mind, often inspired) a composer as one could imagine. But when Simpson was immersed in Beethoven, for example, it was I think the workings of Beethoven's music, not that music's popularity or social prestige, that in part drove him to create what he then created.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

'Conservative' tends to have negative connotations (especially in Britain...can't wait for next week!). Music that does not embrace the relentless striving into the future, the breaking up of convention is often dismissed or marginalised (by critics) as 'conservative'.

Now I'm all for forging into the future and challenging preconceptions but there have always been musicians not that interested in making a new world but able to speak with very individual voices in the language of the existing or even a previous world.

I'm thinking of this after reading an article yesterday about the British composer David Matthews. Matthews writes in a tonal language a million miles away from much avant garde classical music, yet it's music that is unique and (to me) very engaging. It's not easy listening either, though it can be very atmospheric.

Another example: listening through the Henze box in recent weeks, a lot of the music there could be termed 'conservative' compared with his peers - but the term doesn't even begin to prepare you for his quite unique way with music.

So, can anyone think of a less value-laden term than conservative to describe music or musicians of great imagination who choose not to storm the frontiers but work overtly within an existing tradition?

For me, the question, or the issue, aside from sheer talent or lack of same, is the composer's attitude toward his material. Take, for one example, Ravel, who certainly had very strong feelings/ideas/what have you about prior musical/social epochs and specific musical events from the past but who transmuted them into striking, highly individual works (e.g. Le Tombeau de Couperin, La Valse). The same might be said, up to a point, about Richard Strauss, though I'm less temperamentally attuned to the ways his undoubtedly major compositional skills/gifts trafficked with aspects of the musical/social past from "Rosenkavalier" on.

Not that it's determinative in itself, or can be detected with infallible accuracy, but things get bothersome for me in this general area when I feel that a composer has a semi-predetermined notion of "What audiences already like' and/or "What, based on what audiences have liked in the past, they are likely to like in the future" and then proceeds to try to give that to audiences anew (or "anew") by re-combining elements of those, so to speak, audience-tested, audience-verified musical gestures. Here, by contrast, a figure like Robert Simpson comes to mind, often immersed in various aspects of the musical past but as inner-directed (and to my mind, often inspired) a composer as one could imagine. But when Simpson was immersed in Beethoven, for example, it was I think the workings of Beethoven's music, not that music's popularity or social prestige, that in part drove him to create what he then created.

So what about Fats Domino?

MG

[Larry Kart]

Fats didn't put a good deal of individual/personal spice into his music? I thought that, and of course his talent, was why his music was memorable.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Well, having spent nine months with Fats' complete Imperial singles set, I think I'd disagree with you on that, Larry. Fats is one of the most recognisable artists in any genre. You could pick him out of a line up, were there anyone to line him up with.

MG

[Larry Kart]

Well, having spent nine months with Fats' complete Imperial singles set, I think I'd disagree with you on that, Larry. Fats is one of the most recognisable artists in any genre. You could pick him out of a line up, were there anyone to line him up with.

MG

We're not disagreeing; we're in agreement here, no? Yes, Fats is highly recognizable, and that's because in part "he put a good deal of individual/personal spice into his music."

In any case, I was responding to your "So what about Fats Domino?" Seems I misunderstood what you meant by that, but then what did you mean by it? I thought you meant that Fats's music, while obviously of value, operated in ways that had little or nothing to do what the ways of making music I was talking about. Sure, there are differences, because Fats' music is essentially functional/social and not made for contemplation, so to speak, but to my mind its quality and individuality tell me that it was fueled to a considerable degree by a personal vision.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Well, having spent nine months with Fats' complete Imperial singles set, I think I'd disagree with you on that, Larry. Fats is one of the most recognisable artists in any genre. You could pick him out of a line up, were there anyone to line him up with.

MG

We're not disagreeing; we're in agreement here, no? Yes, Fats is highly recognizable, and that's because in part "he put a good deal of individual/personal spice into his music."

In any case, I was responding to your "So what about Fats Domino?" Seems I misunderstood what you meant by that, but then what did you mean by it? I thought you meant that Fats's music, while obviously of value, operated in ways that had little or nothing to do what the ways of making music I was talking about. Sure, there are differences, because Fats' music is essentially functional/social and not made for contemplation, so to speak, but to my mind its quality and individuality tell me that it was fueled to a considerable degree by a personal vision.

No, It's I who misunderstood you, Larry. I thought you were saying that he didn't. Missed the question mark.

Fats' work is obviously grounded in previous New Orleans music - most of which is as functional/social as Fats' is - but is obviously different from his predecessors and his successors, which to me makes him a (charming and joyful) part of a continuing movement forward, neither conservative nor radical.

MG

[Larry Kart]

Well, having spent nine months with Fats' complete Imperial singles set, I think I'd disagree with you on that, Larry. Fats is one of the most recognisable artists in any genre. You could pick him out of a line up, were there anyone to line him up with.

MG

We're not disagreeing; we're in agreement here, no? Yes, Fats is highly recognizable, and that's because in part "he put a good deal of individual/personal spice into his music."

In any case, I was responding to your "So what about Fats Domino?" Seems I misunderstood what you meant by that, but then what did you mean by it? I thought you meant that Fats's music, while obviously of value, operated in ways that had little or nothing to do what the ways of making music I was talking about. Sure, there are differences, because Fats' music is essentially functional/social and not made for contemplation, so to speak, but to my mind its quality and individuality tell me that it was fueled to a considerable degree by a personal vision.

No, It's I who misunderstood you, Larry. I thought you were saying that he didn't. Missed the question mark.

Fats' work is obviously grounded in previous New Orleans music - most of which is as functional/social as Fats' is - but is obviously different from his predecessors and his successors, which to me makes him a (charming and joyful) part of a continuing movement forward, neither conservative nor radical.

MG

Agreed. I caught Fats once or twice in a Chicago-area supper club in a hotel near O'Hare Airport. He tore it up.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Well, having spent nine months with Fats' complete Imperial singles set, I think I'd disagree with you on that, Larry. Fats is one of the most recognisable artists in any genre. You could pick him out of a line up, were there anyone to line him up with.

MG

We're not disagreeing; we're in agreement here, no? Yes, Fats is highly recognizable, and that's because in part "he put a good deal of individual/personal spice into his music."

In any case, I was responding to your "So what about Fats Domino?" Seems I misunderstood what you meant by that, but then what did you mean by it? I thought you meant that Fats's music, while obviously of value, operated in ways that had little or nothing to do what the ways of making music I was talking about. Sure, there are differences, because Fats' music is essentially functional/social and not made for contemplation, so to speak, but to my mind its quality and individuality tell me that it was fueled to a considerable degree by a personal vision.

No, It's I who misunderstood you, Larry. I thought you were saying that he didn't. Missed the question mark.

Fats' work is obviously grounded in previous New Orleans music - most of which is as functional/social as Fats' is - but is obviously different from his predecessors and his successors, which to me makes him a (charming and joyful) part of a continuing movement forward, neither conservative nor radical.

MG

Agreed. I caught Fats once or twice in a Chicago-area supper club in a hotel near O'Hare Airport. He tore it up.

Ah, never saw Fats live. Saw Jerry Lee Lewis in '63 and he was expletive deleted!!!!

MG

[Tim McG]

Conservative...how about Fats Navarro? Maybe Paul Chambers? Paul Desmond?

[Rooster_Ties]

Was Henze really "conservative" for this time? - particularly in the 50's and 60's??

As compared to more (or the most) cutting-edge composers of his day, I would begrudgingly say I guess so -- but relative to the commonly acceptable norms of the classical music world (around that same general time), my gosh, he certainly was anything but "conservative" (as I think the term is most commonly understood).

When I think of composers who were both somewhat forward-thinking (but certainly never cutting edge) -- I think of folks like Vaughn Williams, or Barber -- both of whom I like (especially Barber's 2nd Symphony, which I think is very modern, in its own way). Heck, even Korngold's lone symphony is a lot more forward-thinking than much of the rest of his output. And, heck, even Copeland(!) dabbled in serialism -- but I guess, since he did it a couple decades after Schoenberg, so was that (somehow) being conservative? I guess maybe, but intuitively that just seems so wrong.

I do think the term is complicated -- but I think deservedly so, because both the context of the use of the work (and considering the audience for whom the writing is for), along with what the general norms of a particular artistic medium are in a given time (for the wider audience) also should have an impact on whether the use of the term is accurate (or not). I don't think Cage and Feldman reset the bar for what was to be termed "conservative" overnight (or even after a decade). When something is somewhat "radical" -- I think it retains some aspects of that "radical"-ness, at least for some reasonable period of time (50 years? - 75 years?). At least in terms of classical music. Maybe with jazz those time-limits are compressed. And with pop music, even shorter still.
Tricky, that word, I will admit that.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Rooster_Ties

[A Lark Ascending]

I've only been listening to Henze over the last couple of years; I'd expected someone knotty and difficult but have been surprised with how many points of contact I've found to help me enjoy (and in some cases be really moved) by much of what I've heard. I'm not suggesting he's easy listening - there are many pieces that have yet to register.

Rooster-ties wrote: All kidding aside, I think in many circumstances it's perfectly fine to use the word "conservative" to denote an approach that's out of step with current or more modern thinking. No value judgements there, just a temporal discription of what is new (or newer) thinking, vs. prior thoughts, ideas, or conventions.

I agree. I've no problem with the term 'conservative' when it is used to denote a preference for working within an existing or past approach. As you say, in that context there are no value judgements involved.

It's the use of the word as a pejorative that I find unfortunate. If a listener (or critic) has made a decision to only champion the ground-breaking then it might be useful to explain why he chooses not to listen to a particular composer/musician. But frequently that context of personal choice is omitted and the musician is rejected as if he's done something wrong by not living up to the preferences or prejudices of that particular listener.

[Rooster_Ties]

What would music criticism be (to say nothing of political discourse), without the use of perjoratives?!!

[A Lark Ascending]

What would music criticism be (to say nothing of political discourse), without the use of perjoratives?!!

It might cease to be criticism and become something useful. Like explaining music.