American today is like a giant a hundred cubits tall, who has attained physical perfection, but in whom something is lacking: a soul. - Jacques Offenbach, 1876
Fuck you, Jacques Offenbach. I want tar and feather you with Appalachian Ballad transcriptions.
You know... the search for the American Voice in classical music was such a wreck from the beginning.
Basically, we took European romanticism, the great composers Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. We brought them over here. The music was the shiznitz. It was awesome. It still is.
But I'd prefer to listen to Beethoven and then Led Zepplin any day of the week, over Ives, Cage, or even Aaron Copland. Sorry, folks, just my taste - but I'm willing to bet a lot of people would agree, at least with the sentiment. The two things don't go well together. This is to say nothing of Billings, MacDowell, Cowell, Parker, Stoeckel, or Fry. I mean, I'm sorry, I'm a patriot, but calling this stuff great music is a step towards aural treason.
So anyway, we made a leap. We bought into the cultural insecurities fostered by Europe, in their search for national identity, and imported that as well. Now we had some great music, and it created a need that never exited before: that we should now write music of the same "quality" but containing American, rather than German "identity." And we never found it, that genius voice. And so this cognitive dissonance has become embedded, ossified, fully entrenched into American classical culture to this day.
It will remain until we address the ontology of what makes great music, until we open the conservatory doors to our tremendous "popular" music legacy.
Unfortunately, our conservatories and music school are filled with parrots and apes of an Offenbach lineage, armed with Schenker, Thematic & Harmonic Analysis, and the ever self-serving 12-tone apparatus.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
And the corollary is that you evaluate everything on whether it functions well as a nail.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Older and Eastern European
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/the-phone-that-interrupted-the-philharmonic.html?_r=1
For the fans of the Philharmonic, this episode was, I think, a defining moment in the career of Mr. Gilbert, who was appointed music director in 2007. Like other longtime concertgoers, I’d had some difficulty embracing Mr. Gilbert. I’m old-fashioned. I can’t help thinking a conductor has to be older and Eastern European, and should arthritically mount that podium with a furrowed brow, brooding over every note.
---
"older and Eastern European"
Where does the New York Times find these assholes?
For the fans of the Philharmonic, this episode was, I think, a defining moment in the career of Mr. Gilbert, who was appointed music director in 2007. Like other longtime concertgoers, I’d had some difficulty embracing Mr. Gilbert. I’m old-fashioned. I can’t help thinking a conductor has to be older and Eastern European, and should arthritically mount that podium with a furrowed brow, brooding over every note.
---
"older and Eastern European"
Where does the New York Times find these assholes?
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Wow, Eric Booth responded to a post of mine on Create Equity. Now I'm nervous, dangit.
Will I have the courage to continue to speak my mind, even to confront, challenge, or contradict him?
Out of respect to his work, I must, if I feel it's right.
Aw, fuck it. This is fuck classical music, after all.
Will I have the courage to continue to speak my mind, even to confront, challenge, or contradict him?
Out of respect to his work, I must, if I feel it's right.
Aw, fuck it. This is fuck classical music, after all.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Dear music deans: you're going to use buzzwords to save the day?
Entrepreneurship. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
This guy, Ian Moss, writes a great blog. Here's his recent take on entrepreneurship in music:
http://createquity.com/2011/11/emerging-ideas-classical-musics-new-entrepreneurs.html#comments
He's a smart guy; it's always well-written and balanced, and he's definitely covering things from a younger, NOT-been-writing-grants-for-20-years-and-can't-talk-normal-speak perspective. But the whole musical entrepreneurship thing is definitely a hottie hot button for me, so I had to pour my normal vitriol all over the fucking table. Yes, and drop the f-word.
Here was my comment which elicited a highly civilized response from Ian, which means I have to grow up for 2 seconds and answer him...
Let me highlight 2 big questions I have, not rhetorical fist-jabs, actual questions:
How does ICE compare to early Orpheus? Why is it so new or different? (Really, I’m curious)
Why did Speculum Musicae dissolve? (They got teaching jobs/kids/old/??)
------
My post:
I have the distinct impression that the current crop of innovators, at least in NYC, is heavily funded by their parents.
Sorry if it sounds like sour grapes, as I obviously don’t have that sort of backing, but it’s not just a simple a matter of “if I had more money, I could do more of my art” but rather, what is possible and sustainable in this field if you’re a middle class participant? Is it reasonable to attempt to build a stable american life in this field? If the ‘meritocracy’ of music is build on such a steep pitch that only the upper class can climb the ladder, then we might as well say that it’s the same aristocratic pursuit as was in old europe. Oh no, wait — people are taking headshots of themselves in front of rusted box cars. Sometimes I forget how egalitarian we’ve become.
I think a VERY rich study waiting to be done is the philanthropy that occurs in the familial setting. The dollars that go into the arts by parents funding their childrens’ study and professional activities. I can’t tell you the number of people I know who DO NOT MAKE THEIR LIVING through their entrepreneurial activities. They are supported, in some cases by their normal-job-working spouses, and in many cases by the financial support of health insurance, apartments purchased, and instruments purchased through their families. I’ll never forget the heated discussion I once had with a colleague who insisted that all she needed to do was cover rent, utilities, and food, and therefore, she was making a living in NYC. Nevermind her wealthy fallback: health insurance paid by parents, retirement guaranteed via inheritance, a lifetime of summercamps and quality lessons from a young age, etc.
How the fuck does classical music belong to everybody when it’s only practiced by rich kids? How the fuck do we expect normal americans to fall in love with music that is infused to the core with upperclass money and values and arcane practices? How the fuck can classical musicians not see the appeal of pop music, it’s most “degenerate” forms, which allow people to express themselves in new ways, without the cumbersome, dinosauric, aristocratic apparatuses of the classical regime? I don’t know, but I’m going to put on my tuxedo and think about it.
There is certainly a burst of activity going today on that fits into the entrepreneurial category. Though we say this at the risk of thinking that we are the generation that invented sex. But I have the nagging questions:
How does ICE compare to early Orpheus? Why is it so new or different? (Really, I’m curious)
Why did Speculum Musicae dissolve? (They got teaching jobs/kids/old/??)
In the quasi-recent NYT article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/arts/music/05musicians.html?pagewanted=all
several pessimistic case studies (people) are examined. The article balances this perspective, essentially entirely with Claire Chase. I seem to remember her saying something to the effect of working with new models, not waiting for work to come in, getting off your butt to make it happen, etc. All good and fine. But what exactly is so different in the SUSTAINABLE sense of the word? How is ICE really any different? Don’t get me wrong – I love that group! They sound amazing! They can play the ‘standards’ as well as anyone, as they proved at this recent Mostly Mozart. But I don’t think they are a NEW MODEL of any sort… (someone happily prove me wrong?)
Even without the support of rich parents, you can kill yourself throughout your 20′s and 30’s, making all this stuff happen, getting your reviews, building your website, and the question is: what will you be left with? (Here’s the answer: BEST case scenario, present day, is a university teaching job. How is that entrepreneurial? That’s institutional, not entrepreneurial.) I really really hope this doesn’t sound like a frothy-mouthed rant from someone who hasn’t gotten the gigs they wanted. Far from it, I’ve been pretty lucky to get what I have. It’s the road ahead that is making me think twice. It’s the realization that I’m one of the few people on this ship who doesn’t have a lifejacket or a spot reserved in a lifeboat.
I think these organizations are very far from proving that something new is afoot. I think they are certainly wearing new clothes, and producing new types of music, and hoping that the perceptions of audiences grow, become pluralistic, and financially giving. But I don’t think we’re there yet.
Honestly, I think the best shot that these leaders in the field have, is securing the middle-class positions that universities and conservatories provide. I hope they do. I hope I do, too.
Now, as far as conservatories catching on to any sort of entrepreneurial trend, someone needs to take them to task in major ways. This really looks like window dressing for institutions that rely on students to buy into a ponzi-scheme. What sort of morality governs these institutions that pump out thousands of graduates into a field that can support hundreds? They are really rubbing shoulders with for-profit vocational institutes, here. Phoenix online looks saintly in comparison. Sending a student into an artistic field with student debt is one of the stupidest (and cruelest) things you can do to someone. At the age of 18, a musician in love with music can’t make that rational assessment, but the administrators who know the field CAN. Med school, law school, b school – ok, I can buy into that. It’s a reasonable investment. But MUSIC school? It’s a flat out gamble!
If Knight, Mellon, Ford, Dorris, or whoever, REALLY wants to shake things up, they should take a critical look at the conservatory system. The conservatories and the orchestras are the institutional pillars of american classical music. The state of classical music falls squarely into their lap. I don’t see them doing anything interesting. I don’t see anything entrepreneurial going on. Just different ways of embalming the same music. New pedestal, same museum.
Which brings us to the individuals which you profile, here. They’ve gone outside the institutional routes (to start, at least). My contention is that this isn’t a sustainable path, unless you have serious financial backing. And even so, traditionally, the most successful get absorbed back into the university system.
Of course, I sincerely hope they succeed. A rising tide lifts all boats.
But the longer I think about it, the more I’d rather just go the pop music route. At least I’d never have to wear a fucking tuxedo. (no, seriously.)
This guy, Ian Moss, writes a great blog. Here's his recent take on entrepreneurship in music:
http://createquity.com/2011/11/emerging-ideas-classical-musics-new-entrepreneurs.html#comments
He's a smart guy; it's always well-written and balanced, and he's definitely covering things from a younger, NOT-been-writing-grants-for-20-years-and-can't-talk-normal-speak perspective. But the whole musical entrepreneurship thing is definitely a hottie hot button for me, so I had to pour my normal vitriol all over the fucking table. Yes, and drop the f-word.
Here was my comment which elicited a highly civilized response from Ian, which means I have to grow up for 2 seconds and answer him...
Let me highlight 2 big questions I have, not rhetorical fist-jabs, actual questions:
How does ICE compare to early Orpheus? Why is it so new or different? (Really, I’m curious)
Why did Speculum Musicae dissolve? (They got teaching jobs/kids/old/??)
------
My post:
I have the distinct impression that the current crop of innovators, at least in NYC, is heavily funded by their parents.
Sorry if it sounds like sour grapes, as I obviously don’t have that sort of backing, but it’s not just a simple a matter of “if I had more money, I could do more of my art” but rather, what is possible and sustainable in this field if you’re a middle class participant? Is it reasonable to attempt to build a stable american life in this field? If the ‘meritocracy’ of music is build on such a steep pitch that only the upper class can climb the ladder, then we might as well say that it’s the same aristocratic pursuit as was in old europe. Oh no, wait — people are taking headshots of themselves in front of rusted box cars. Sometimes I forget how egalitarian we’ve become.
I think a VERY rich study waiting to be done is the philanthropy that occurs in the familial setting. The dollars that go into the arts by parents funding their childrens’ study and professional activities. I can’t tell you the number of people I know who DO NOT MAKE THEIR LIVING through their entrepreneurial activities. They are supported, in some cases by their normal-job-working spouses, and in many cases by the financial support of health insurance, apartments purchased, and instruments purchased through their families. I’ll never forget the heated discussion I once had with a colleague who insisted that all she needed to do was cover rent, utilities, and food, and therefore, she was making a living in NYC. Nevermind her wealthy fallback: health insurance paid by parents, retirement guaranteed via inheritance, a lifetime of summercamps and quality lessons from a young age, etc.
How the fuck does classical music belong to everybody when it’s only practiced by rich kids? How the fuck do we expect normal americans to fall in love with music that is infused to the core with upperclass money and values and arcane practices? How the fuck can classical musicians not see the appeal of pop music, it’s most “degenerate” forms, which allow people to express themselves in new ways, without the cumbersome, dinosauric, aristocratic apparatuses of the classical regime? I don’t know, but I’m going to put on my tuxedo and think about it.
There is certainly a burst of activity going today on that fits into the entrepreneurial category. Though we say this at the risk of thinking that we are the generation that invented sex. But I have the nagging questions:
How does ICE compare to early Orpheus? Why is it so new or different? (Really, I’m curious)
Why did Speculum Musicae dissolve? (They got teaching jobs/kids/old/??)
In the quasi-recent NYT article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/arts/music/05musicians.html?pagewanted=all
several pessimistic case studies (people) are examined. The article balances this perspective, essentially entirely with Claire Chase. I seem to remember her saying something to the effect of working with new models, not waiting for work to come in, getting off your butt to make it happen, etc. All good and fine. But what exactly is so different in the SUSTAINABLE sense of the word? How is ICE really any different? Don’t get me wrong – I love that group! They sound amazing! They can play the ‘standards’ as well as anyone, as they proved at this recent Mostly Mozart. But I don’t think they are a NEW MODEL of any sort… (someone happily prove me wrong?)
Even without the support of rich parents, you can kill yourself throughout your 20′s and 30’s, making all this stuff happen, getting your reviews, building your website, and the question is: what will you be left with? (Here’s the answer: BEST case scenario, present day, is a university teaching job. How is that entrepreneurial? That’s institutional, not entrepreneurial.) I really really hope this doesn’t sound like a frothy-mouthed rant from someone who hasn’t gotten the gigs they wanted. Far from it, I’ve been pretty lucky to get what I have. It’s the road ahead that is making me think twice. It’s the realization that I’m one of the few people on this ship who doesn’t have a lifejacket or a spot reserved in a lifeboat.
I think these organizations are very far from proving that something new is afoot. I think they are certainly wearing new clothes, and producing new types of music, and hoping that the perceptions of audiences grow, become pluralistic, and financially giving. But I don’t think we’re there yet.
Honestly, I think the best shot that these leaders in the field have, is securing the middle-class positions that universities and conservatories provide. I hope they do. I hope I do, too.
Now, as far as conservatories catching on to any sort of entrepreneurial trend, someone needs to take them to task in major ways. This really looks like window dressing for institutions that rely on students to buy into a ponzi-scheme. What sort of morality governs these institutions that pump out thousands of graduates into a field that can support hundreds? They are really rubbing shoulders with for-profit vocational institutes, here. Phoenix online looks saintly in comparison. Sending a student into an artistic field with student debt is one of the stupidest (and cruelest) things you can do to someone. At the age of 18, a musician in love with music can’t make that rational assessment, but the administrators who know the field CAN. Med school, law school, b school – ok, I can buy into that. It’s a reasonable investment. But MUSIC school? It’s a flat out gamble!
If Knight, Mellon, Ford, Dorris, or whoever, REALLY wants to shake things up, they should take a critical look at the conservatory system. The conservatories and the orchestras are the institutional pillars of american classical music. The state of classical music falls squarely into their lap. I don’t see them doing anything interesting. I don’t see anything entrepreneurial going on. Just different ways of embalming the same music. New pedestal, same museum.
Which brings us to the individuals which you profile, here. They’ve gone outside the institutional routes (to start, at least). My contention is that this isn’t a sustainable path, unless you have serious financial backing. And even so, traditionally, the most successful get absorbed back into the university system.
Of course, I sincerely hope they succeed. A rising tide lifts all boats.
But the longer I think about it, the more I’d rather just go the pop music route. At least I’d never have to wear a fucking tuxedo. (no, seriously.)
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
"Making art for art’s sake, free of monetary concerns or deadlines, is a fantasy for many professional artists. But listening to snippets of Brahms and Schubert waft through sun-dappled trees one afternoon, a critic had the sense that at Marlboro such utopian fantasies remain a vibrant reality. "
By VIVIEN SCHWEITZER
Where Musicians Bask in the Luxury of Time
New York Times, Published: August 8, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/arts/music/marlboro-music-school-and-festival-in-vermont.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=music
It's a "vibrant reality" because most of these people are not people who have to work for a living. They don't have to stress out about rent on a monthly basis. Of COURSE there are Cinderella stories here and there. But I'm talking the culture as a whole, it's an upper class thang.
So why should we be impressed that they take off an entire summer from money making when they were never subjected to those pressures in the first place? I'm mostly talking about the younger generation, here.
I honestly don't think this is an appropriate way to position the relevance of Marlboro. Yes, we all know it's the golden land for chamber music, a mega resume builder, (career guarantor, almost), and in a beautiful part of the country, with really nice people. If I ever got accepted, I would drop everything and go in a heartbeat, even if I had to pay my rent off credit cards.
But to say that they have unlimited time is somehow missing the bigger picture. When these folks return to NYC et al, and start hammering away on concerts that are put together in a couple rehearsals, what's the reason for the difference? Are most of these folks *really* funding the standard of living in which they partake? Are they really covering their expenses with their work? Are they being forced to work in a way that compromises their ideal artistic activity due to financial reasons? Really?
What I'm trying to say is that, most of the upper eschelon classical musicians in NYC live a middle class existence, and of the younger ones that are headed (or have 'arrived') in that circle are NOT PAYING THEIR OWN rent with their work. So whether they do this in a highly-visible way at Marlboro, or dispersed amongst east cost urban enclaves, what's the difference?
By VIVIEN SCHWEITZER
Where Musicians Bask in the Luxury of Time
New York Times, Published: August 8, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/arts/music/marlboro-music-school-and-festival-in-vermont.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=music
It's a "vibrant reality" because most of these people are not people who have to work for a living. They don't have to stress out about rent on a monthly basis. Of COURSE there are Cinderella stories here and there. But I'm talking the culture as a whole, it's an upper class thang.
So why should we be impressed that they take off an entire summer from money making when they were never subjected to those pressures in the first place? I'm mostly talking about the younger generation, here.
I honestly don't think this is an appropriate way to position the relevance of Marlboro. Yes, we all know it's the golden land for chamber music, a mega resume builder, (career guarantor, almost), and in a beautiful part of the country, with really nice people. If I ever got accepted, I would drop everything and go in a heartbeat, even if I had to pay my rent off credit cards.
But to say that they have unlimited time is somehow missing the bigger picture. When these folks return to NYC et al, and start hammering away on concerts that are put together in a couple rehearsals, what's the reason for the difference? Are most of these folks *really* funding the standard of living in which they partake? Are they really covering their expenses with their work? Are they being forced to work in a way that compromises their ideal artistic activity due to financial reasons? Really?
What I'm trying to say is that, most of the upper eschelon classical musicians in NYC live a middle class existence, and of the younger ones that are headed (or have 'arrived') in that circle are NOT PAYING THEIR OWN rent with their work. So whether they do this in a highly-visible way at Marlboro, or dispersed amongst east cost urban enclaves, what's the difference?
Monday, April 11, 2011
Nice apartment
I'm playing some chamber music with some of the fucking finest musicians of my generation. I'm so lucky.
If I had to type a resume listing their accolades as my own, my computer would crash. (they probably have macs)
We are rehearsing in apartments in manhattan that are... very nice. Like, the kind of nice that I'll never be able to afford. They feed us gourmet sandwiches, juice, coffee, whatever you need, dear. Warm and sincere hospitality, like a breath of fresh air in this town.
But this is not my life. These are not my people. Oh, if they saw where I come from. Oh, if they knew the miles of fecal piping I've crawled through. Life in this city, and sometimes anywhere else, is fucking hard. Fucked up landlords, fucked up neighbors, fucked up neighborhoods, fucked up drivers, etc.
I don't know how to deal with this nice stuff. It's not real. It's only possible through the insulation of millions and millions of dollars. These people are nice, and I like them, but they're just not my people.
I don't like that I'm devoting my life to an artform which lives in the well-appointed apartments of rich people. The pinnacle of which, as demonstrated by this concert, is to play for a bunch of really old people who fall asleep in the concerts.
I am so blessed to be playing this music with these people. And in the moment, I'm just loving it, just rocking hard into the sound and turning like a river in a jagged valley, splashing over glistening round rocks.
But this rich-people thing just don't fuckin feel right.
If I had to type a resume listing their accolades as my own, my computer would crash. (they probably have macs)
We are rehearsing in apartments in manhattan that are... very nice. Like, the kind of nice that I'll never be able to afford. They feed us gourmet sandwiches, juice, coffee, whatever you need, dear. Warm and sincere hospitality, like a breath of fresh air in this town.
But this is not my life. These are not my people. Oh, if they saw where I come from. Oh, if they knew the miles of fecal piping I've crawled through. Life in this city, and sometimes anywhere else, is fucking hard. Fucked up landlords, fucked up neighbors, fucked up neighborhoods, fucked up drivers, etc.
I don't know how to deal with this nice stuff. It's not real. It's only possible through the insulation of millions and millions of dollars. These people are nice, and I like them, but they're just not my people.
I don't like that I'm devoting my life to an artform which lives in the well-appointed apartments of rich people. The pinnacle of which, as demonstrated by this concert, is to play for a bunch of really old people who fall asleep in the concerts.
I am so blessed to be playing this music with these people. And in the moment, I'm just loving it, just rocking hard into the sound and turning like a river in a jagged valley, splashing over glistening round rocks.
But this rich-people thing just don't fuckin feel right.
Now they're on the same boat as us.
Movie theaters face streaming.
Hollywood is looking at ways to stream product directly into people's homes, up to 8 weeks after theatrical release.
What does this mean?
It means theaters are having to come to terms with their reason for existence. Just like live classical music has to..
It's a convergence of issues concerning the congregant-arts -- which is any artform that requires the gathering of people. If we treat art as information, it can be piped into a computer without any 'loss'. If we treat (performing) art as a process, it is a much stickier topic.
A fearsome idea, indeed, the notion that the reception of the audience is every bit as important as the creative impetus of the composer. It totally upends the entire structure of conservatory/music-school education.
Interested to see how this plays out, in the movies.
Hollywood is looking at ways to stream product directly into people's homes, up to 8 weeks after theatrical release.
What does this mean?
It means theaters are having to come to terms with their reason for existence. Just like live classical music has to..
It's a convergence of issues concerning the congregant-arts -- which is any artform that requires the gathering of people. If we treat art as information, it can be piped into a computer without any 'loss'. If we treat (performing) art as a process, it is a much stickier topic.
A fearsome idea, indeed, the notion that the reception of the audience is every bit as important as the creative impetus of the composer. It totally upends the entire structure of conservatory/music-school education.
Interested to see how this plays out, in the movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
