The local classickal station has been featuring an “American Musick” theme this month which it intends to run all the way through the July 4 weekend.
On the one hand, this has been beneficial in that I’ve been able to sample pieces by composers I’ve never heard of before.
On the other hand, well, it turns out there’s a pretty good reason why I’ve never heard of them. Once one gets past Barber (whom I dislike), Copeland (whom I find tedious) and Gershwin (whose “Rhapsody in Blue” has been beaten to death), the bench turns out to be awefully shallow. Frankly, I think the station over-reached somewhat.
I don’t believe this is a particular bad reflection on America per se. Rayther, I think it’s just a result of unfortunate timing. America being such a young nation, the Arts in this country were just starting to come up when classickal musick as a whole was starting to come off the rails. Most recognized American composers are from the 20th Century and, well, that just isn’t a very good place to be in terms of serious musick.
By way of comparison and to prove my point, I would also note that the 20th Century was a good place to be in terms of more popular kinds of musick. Think swing and big band. Think Broadway musicals. There it’s arguable that American talent in fact dominated. And the truth of the matter is that I’d much rayther listen to Rodgers and Hart or Cole Porter than, say, Howard Hanson.
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 26, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Old Dominion Tory
One of NPR stations programs “American Music” on such patriotic holidays as the Glorious Fourth. It casts the net fairly, however, including film music (e.g., “Victory at Sea” suite), foreign composers writing on American themes, orchestral settings of Broadway songs, and marches. Makes for a satisfying day of music.
June 26, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Anchovy
If I may ask–what of Barber, specifically, do you not like?
June 26, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Adam Mitchell Bernard Bond
Personally I like Barber, but then I’m also a sucker for the fruity saccharine themes of the golden age of cinema. I recently watched Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn in the 1953 classic Roman Holiday and for some inexplicable reason to delight in George Aurac’s sappy, bathetic melodies dripping with corny Hollywood romance.
Now, granted Barber ain’t no Rachmaninoff, but I listened to Piano Concerto No. 38 the a few weeks ago on NPR and the only thing that came to my was a emotionally punctuated scene in black and white with Vivian Leigh, teary eyed standing in the middle of an empty glade. Yeah, pretty pathetic, huh?
I do agree that Copeland is tedious and that Rhapsody in Blue has beaten to death.
June 26, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Adam Mitchell Bernard Bond
…took delight in… …his Piano Concerto No. 38 a few… …came to my mind was an emotionally… (Urgh, the laziness of the computer age.)
June 27, 2009 at 1:39 am
Anchovy
I agree with the proprietor’s dislike of Copland. No arguments there. But, even with his severe Baroque proclivities, there are a few works of Barber’s that he might possibly appreciate.
June 27, 2009 at 7:54 am
Boy Named Sous
Not being all that well-versed in classical music, and by no stretch of the imagination the enthusiastic afficionado of it that you are, I’ll have to accept your argument regarding the depth and quality of Amrican classical music and composers. Even on the face of it, it seems fairly plausibe — not only because of where “Musick” was when we cam of age, but because other countries and cultures had so long to build up a repertoire of musicians long before we were even a gleam in Columbus’ eye.
But I am a bit put off by the characterization of those forms of music outside of the classical realm, many of which Americans have excelled, as being not “serious” as you put it.
I suppose if you mean “serious” in terms of musical theory, you can say that. And I know that for many lovers of classical music, that is the ultimate standard by which music is judged — that it be music for music’s sake, for lack of a better way of putting it.
But you of all people, as a Christian, with your appreciation for sacred music, should also recognize that the message is very much a criterion by which we should judge the medium. This is particularly true in music when addressing singing as opposed to purely instrumental music, though there is some bleeding over. And in this regard, I think that American musicians and non-classical composers have proven their music to be very serious indeed. Of particular significance in this regard, I would argue, are those most American of musical genres, the Blues and its offspring, jazz. I know you give them a passing nod with your “I’d rather listen to Rodgers and Hart or Cole Porter” comment, but it still seemed a bit dismissive. No, LeadBelly wasn’t Mozart, nor Billie Holliday Bach, but their understanding of the human condition and their ability to comment on it through their music were no less acute.
June 27, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Robbo
BNS – What I meant by “serious” is “music in the educated European tradition that includes such forms as art song, chamber music, opera and symphony as distinguished from folk or popular music or jazz.”
A lot of people call all such music “classical”. I don’t, because the classical period, with its distinct style, really only encompasses the last quarter of the 18th Century up until the death of Haydn in 1809. Barring that, there really isn’t another good term. Art music? Academic music? Stuffed shirt music?
I use the term “serious” to emphasize the intellectual quality of such music in, as you surmise, its theoretical component. I certainly don’t use it to belittle other forms.
Your last paragraph raises an interesting point. I would say that the message can be an important criterion by which we judge the medium, but it isn’t always, nor should it always be, nor should it ever be the exclusive criterion. I’ll have to chew on this a lot more, but it strikes me that an argument could be made that, ah, serious music started coming off the rails precisely because composers stopped thinking in terms of music for music’s sake and started thinking of their role in commenting on the human condition through their work. (Goddam Romantics!)
As I say, I’ll have to chew on it for a while.
June 27, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Sister
Think Louis Armstrong. Now that’s music.
June 27, 2009 at 7:38 pm
The Bovina Bloviator
Listen to Barber’s Violin Concerto and String Quartet, I think you might like them.
Not only is Rhapsody in Blue beaten to death, it isn’t very good to begin with; it’s a patchwork and the seams are glaringly obvious. Far better by Gershwin are his Concerto in F and Porgy and Bess, the latter a masterpiece in my humble opinion.
I agree with you Copland is a bore but Hanson has his moments, particularly in his “Romantic” Symphony. In the ages to come, however, I think it will be the Broadway musical that’s regarded as this country’s greatest contribution to the western canon; performed long after most of the “serious” 20th century composers are forgotten.
June 27, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Anchovy
I would also recommend the Barber Quartet and the 2nd mvt of the Piano Concerto. And Knoxville: Summer of 1915, which is intensely beautiful. It’s an obvious comment on the human condition, of course, but then so is every note of Bach.
June 29, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Robbo
I dunno, Anchovy. I’ve an idea that if you started talking to Bach about his music commenting on the human condition, he’d look at you like you had a hole in your head. I think his motivations were: glorification of God; appreciation from those with the talent for it; and, “I AM getting paid for this, right?”
June 30, 2009 at 12:38 am
Anchovy
Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to listen to Cantata BWV 82 (preferably Matthias Goerne’s recording with Norrington) and then see if you still think he didn’t have something quite deliberate to say about the human condition. The oboe alone would tell you that; and then the singing starts.