Greetings
for 2017! What? The year's more than halfway over you say? Indeed it
is. Wherefore has the author been? Doing my best to duck the muck,
dear readers. If you don't know what I'm talking about good for you!
I won't bother trying to explain if someone doesn't know what I'm
talking about. Life. That's what. Full of questions, questions,
questions. And answers! Everybody's got answers - especially for
questions that you'd think we'd have the answers to already, but no.
You know what I mean. How can I put this in musical terms? Willhelm
Furtwangler and Tuli Kupferberg. Those two have been arguing back and
forth in my head for a few years at least. If you don't recognize
those names, that's okay - we have google now. It's more about what
those two represent. The ideas about the function of art and music.
One will say - music is the force that can transform and beautify the
world. This is not a new idea, certainly. The other will say - music
is the force for change. Art for art's sake / art for good's sake.
What is art? What is good? Oh, questions, questions. Didn't the
Greeks psych this out a long time ago? Somewhere along the path of my
extended liberal arts education the John Keats poem "Ode On A
Grecian Urn" passed along my consciousness and lodged itself in
the grey matter between my ears as a red flag of relevance, hence its
inclusion here:
The
best part is the punchline couplet at the end. Truth. Beauty. Yeah,
yeah. 1819, right? Only a few years before Beethoven's 9th was
composed and performed for the first time. "Ode to Joy" and
all that. Furtwangler, etc......Long before 1848 and Marx. Or
Shostakovich and 1917. And its now a long time after all that. Does
anybody even speak of post-war anything anymore? We must be
post-post-war now at least. Post Cold War. Still, the function of art
continues to be called on the carpet. It all depends on where you
are, as usual.
Where
I happen to be is actually close enough to a number of different
quality orchestras, yet it's been a long time since I went to see
that Varese show at Lincoln Center conducted by Alan Gilbert. How out
of the loop have I been? I didn't even know about Gilbert's leaving
the NY Philharmonic until a few weeks ago. I enjoyed the performance
I heard though some were claiming his career never quite took off in
New York as had been anticipated. This kind of critique reminds me of
baseball players. Are conductors supposed to hit "home runs"
too? What could that mean? So there you have it - what do I know? No
accounting for taste at this blog.............speaking of
which...........
Lately
I've found myself returning to more 20th century music. I think this
is partly due to a general desire to launch myself from the planet
Earth as quickly as possible. If only transcendentally. Anything
modern is fair game. Varese, of course. Elliott Carter like this:
Some
fun electronic music:
And
this diabolical thing I keep returning to:
And I
already have a pantload MORE of this kind of abrasive wallop that I
haven't even gotten to yet.
Yet
for some reason when I'm down at Princeton Record Exchange (only
seems about twice a year now) I find myself buying a lot of modern
Czech music albums. I've found myself enjoying composers from that
region for quite some time (Bartok, etc...) though there's been a
curious pattern whenever I'm trolling for albums. My brain does
something like this:
"Hmmm......import
pressing.......Vaclav Somethingoranother with lots of punctuation
thingies... 1970-what? Okay......Supraphon... $1.99? SOLD!"
Here are a few examples
from recent purchases.
I don't know what it is
about where I shop or what it says about the music - it's ubiquity, cheapness, whatever......but I really get the impression
that old 20th century Czechoslovakia (and the neighboring countries)
put modern music production in the upper priority bin of the national
agenda! To imagine this being a matter of POLICY is not out of the
question. Yet, for me it is more of a question at the moment. No
matter, really. There's a lot of great music to be found from this
era / region that I'm still plonking through. The variety of sounds
and commitment to unique music provides an enjoyable contrast to the
other strains of music from the time period - the 12 tone German
school, the American electronic school, etc.......
And before we leave the
Germans entirely........here's a recent Stockhausen acquisition:
Now, I'm somewhat aware of
the fact that this is one of the more ubiquitous slices of
Stockhausen to be found. Not surprisingly since it was put out on
Chrysalis Records in 1975. Right alongside of Jethro Tull and Robin
Trower! I have also gleaned enough info about Stockhausen to know
these pieces are only two parts of a larger series of works that
would take several albums to fill up the whole cycle of. In fact, I
have long ago made peace with the idea that - no matter how brilliant
and fascinating his work may be, I am NOT going to attempt to digest
the whole Stockhausen kaboodle because.......I'll never live that
long! All of this rationale (isn't it fun how my mind works??) leads
to the more sane conclusion to sample some pieces as time allows.
Vinyl would be the preferred way to do this, yet a lot of Stockhausen
vinyl is scarce and expensive. Not the above LP, however!
Ah, but what's the music
like? Now I realize what I'm about to describe here makes me sound
way more intuitive than I actually am, so just to qualify for a
second - when I get ideas like this I put it down to "random
luck". Contemplating the pretty enormous output of Stockhausen I
couldn't help wondering "Did this guy really write everything out
in notation? Or even SOME kind of notated organization?" Well,
the answer for the Ceylon / Bird of Passage album is apparently "no"!
The musicians here were given a loose set of instructions based on
some philosophical ideas. Then the "score" calls for
improvisation. Now, of course this saves the composer a lot of time,
though I will still err on the side of Stockhausen's desire to
innovate rather than shirk tedious composer duties of notation. So,
what the music sounds like is improvised group interaction.
This of course is
innovative in the 20th century mold of modern music. Yet, the
sticking point for not a few listeners is the lack of repeated ideas
or linearly constructed ideas such as melodies. One could certainly
pick out melodic moments amidst the proceedings. Perhaps music like
this calls for a different way to listen. I found myself appreciating
textures most of all here. The combinations of instruments were
unusual enough to capture my attention and especially how they were
used. Can semi-improvised collective musical interaction be
considered "composed"? Why not? If Stockhausen was the
catalyst for the project - he is still the "sound organizer".
Isn't that what a composer ultimately is? Speaking of
which...........
The recent passage of
Pierre Henry caught my attention since his name was somewhat
familiar, yet I couldn't place it. Aha! Yes - I'd picked up an album
he was involved with awhile ago - and perhaps this was his most
well-known collaboration. Unfortunately for his collaborators, the LP
did more damage to their career than good, alas...........
Most rock fans know this
as Spooky Tooth's 3rd LP release - CEREMONY. The collaboration was
not intended to represent the band's "direction" -
especially as it happened right after their successful 2nd LP "Spooky
Two". Rock fans know and love "Spooky Two" well. It
shows the group at its peak with great songs and production by the
talented Jimmy Miller (Traffic, Rolling Stones - classic rock LPs
were produced by this guy). This was NOT the case with CEREMONY. The
collaboration was more like Spooky Tooth recorded at a live show - a
bit in the distance - with Pierre Henry's electronic sounds up to the
fore. And the "songs" were based on the Christian Liturgy
(perhaps a somewhat popular theme of the time, but not really
commercially viable to a rock band's career). This was not a
commercial Jimmy Miller production and, as correctly surmised by
singer Gary Wright, the decisison of the record company to release it
as a Spooky Tooth record killed the band's career / momentum . There
could be a whole series of lessons to be learned from this fateful
story. However, it is a bit sad that Pierre Henry winds up in an
indefensible position. He did not seek a career in rock music. The
collaboration is interesting and totally in line with the aesthetic
of his art - musique concrète. To
save time, I will refer the reader to this article for a fine
explanation of this genre:
And
to give Pierre Henry a bit more of a fair shake, here is a
fascinating glimpse into his life and work:
What I got most out of
watching this film was the idea of how to adjust to listening in new
ways. Rock fans had certain expectations from Spooky Tooth's music.
They were not prepared to have to adjust their listening to be able
to appreciate the collaboration between the rock band they loved and
this relatively unknown composer, brilliant as he was. Using this
famous pop music debacle as a litmus test of sorts - consider that
CEREMONY was released in 1969. The 20th century only had another 30
years left to go and yet the experimental nature of the music was
perhaps too much for even the average rock fan to take in. It was bad
for business, certainly. Was it bad art? What was the point behind
it? That, dear listeners, is what is left for future generations to
decide. Until next time - hopefully not too long - happy listening!
