Too General

A.C. Douglas is at it again.  As Steve Hicken said, he's dragged out his macro and applied it to Mozart, Haydn and "New Music."

Steve calls A.C. on his ubiquitous lack of specific examples in his rantings.  It's pretty clear why A.C. avoids them - his assertions don't stand up to their evidence.  Let's look at some examples: 

"Unlike the instrumental music of the mature Mozart, Haydn's mature instrumental music neither risks soaring the heights nor plumbing the depths, but remains, in all its superbly crafted formal beauty, sensibly and resolutely earthbound while Mozart's aspires to, reaches for, and often touches the cosmos."

One could first ask when Mozart and Haydn started producing "mature instrumental music."  Then one could ask, just what "mature instrumental music" by Haydn is he referring to?  Surely not Die sieben letzten Worte unseres Erlösers am Kreuz.  Surely  not the glorious F major Adagio from Hob. XVI:50.  Surely not the entirety of the late G minor piano trio (Hob. XV:19).  And certainly he couldn't be meaning the slow movement of Op. 76/6 or the first movement of Op. 103.  The list could go on and on.  Sure, there are late works of Haydn that don't "reach for the cosmos", but the same holds true of Mozart.

Does he believe that Mozart's horn concertos ("mature instrumental works") trump the above-listed Haydn works in their aspirations to the cosmos?  He'd completely miss the mark if he were unfamiliar with these concertos and heard them on the radio, since they contain musical ideas that are "developed and rounded off formally in a most satisfying and superbly crafted classical-period manner", which he purports would lead him to immediately recognize the hand of Haydn at work.  Wrong.

One has to give him credit for being consistent in his gross over-generalizations, though:

"As to my lack of specifics, none are needed in remarks on New Music such as both my above, for which remarks a macro serves most admirably. If specific composers, pieces, or champions are wanted by Mr. Hicken, let him paste a list of each on a wall, blindfold himself, throw three darts, and let them select the specifics he requires. Any will do for the purpose of comments such as my above."

He must have some kind of mental bin with the label "New Music" on it.  It's a pretty meaningless label given the vast number of styles and genres composers are using today.  Would he group Carter and Crumb, Dillon and Dutilleux, Hosokawa and Husa, Ligeti and Lindberg, Turnage and Tower all in the bin of "New Music"?  Would Del Tredici's Soliloquy and Pärt's Symphony No. 1 go in the same file as Virtuoso Alice and I Am the True Vine?   

And, finally:

"They have exclusively to do with commenting on the difference between our great 600-year legacy of genuine music and the willfully concocted, quasi-mathematical modern systems of composition specifically devised to turn out a simulacrum of genuine music that owes little or nothing to that great 600-year musical legacy, and for the mere appreciation of which simulacrum one needs either written or spoken technical explanation and justification at tedious length, or a master's degree in contemporary music theory."

Anyone with a thorough knowledge of the current notational music scene would know that the number of composers still using "willfully concocted, quasi-mathematical" systems in no way outbalances the number of composers completely aware of and consciously owing much to "that great 600-year musical legacy" in quantity or quality.  For every Berio there was a Barber and for every Carter there will be a Corigliano.  That's the way it has been and that's the way it always will be.  If the "modernist" works don't appeal to A.C. that's all well and good, but he shouldn't automatically put the blame on a composer's desire to explore.  Perhaps he does need "written or spoken technical explanation and justification at tedious length" to understand and appreciate the above four composers, or any composer for that matter.  Whose fault is that?

Comments

[Scott Spiegelberg]

Well said! Generalizing always leads to mistakes. ;)

[Mark]

Marcus, I really like this post. Especially on Mozart, about whom Einstein has some quote like, "Mozart never attempted to write for eternity, and for this reason wrote for eternity." In other words, "reaching for the cosmos" to me is an inappropriate description of Mozart's work, who after all gave us some very "earth-bound" operas, at least in terms of subject matter. Anyway, generalizations fall short, even as compliments. Nice dubunking.

[diana]

oh my god, what kind of person wouldn't like Tetris?!? it is seriously the most entertaining video game of all time.

[Marcus]

C'mon Diana - at least post the comment to the correct post. And who said anything about Tetris? I guess the music for it was OK - it certainly was catchy....

[Marcus]

Mark - Thanks a bunch! Many music critics seem so ready to put wholesale labels on things and it's always bothered me. Regarding Mozart, I definitely agree.