DQ for Neo-classicism articles (All read Messing, Grad students add Taruskin)
Messing, “Polemic as History: The Case of Neoclassicism”
Taruskin, “Back to Whom? Neoclassicism as Ideology” (Review essay)
Please be prepared to respond in either seminar meeting or in "Comments" on the course blog. In all venues, you must be prepared to cite specific passages (by page, paragraph, line, and quotation) in support of your responses—and specific works.
These articles both examine and “problematize” the label of “neoclassicism” which has been applied (in hindsight) to some composers and compositions, with both negative and positive connotations, referencing both stylistic and philosophical tendencies. Both Messing and Taruskin (Taruskin largely in concurring commentary to Messing’s book) suggest that NC is a more complicated, less clear, more polemical and ideological, less stylistic or historical phenomenon.
General questions for consideration: if these authors are correct that there is no such thing as a “neoclassical style,” what is the use of the term? Can it help us understand other factors, beyond issues of SHMRG characteristics? To use the terminology of the syllabus, what “problems faced by composers” did inauguration and application of the term “neoclassicism” help solve?
(1) On p481, Messing cites two “paradoxes” in the usual discussions of neoclassicism. In your own words, be prepared to summarize these paradoxes, and to provide a one-sentence articulation of Messing’s “solution” to or resolution of these seeming paradoxes. Hint: first articulate the particular rhetoric or theoretical problems which Messing believes neoclassicism was addressing.
(2) What is the role of nationalist concerns in the contested meanings of neoclassicism? Messing makes clear that the term was originally applied as a pejorative criticism by one group of composers in reference to another group of composers? What negative attributes did the term’s employers intend to convey about the opponents? Grad students: be prepared to provide a brief, complete, and accurate articulation of the extra-musical (historical, economic, political or other) factors that might have motivated this criticism?
(3) Expand (2) above outward: what was at stake in these debates? Why did composers feel this competition so strongly? Hint: try to articulate a thesis which explains the “power” that is conveyed by being able to label something? What is the “power” of labeling? Who uses or seeks to use this power?
(4) on pp482 & ff Messing cites an “emerging dissatisfaction” amongst composers who later became associated with neoclassical impulses. Dissatisfaction with what? Within music? Outside music? What qualities, aesthetics, or ideals did neoclassicism in music seek to create in opposition to this dissatisfaction?
(5) Pick at least 2 non-German composers cited in the article, jot down a list of the dates of their works which Messing cites as emblematic of NC, and look at the same dates in the creative trajectories of at least 2 German composers. (For example, look at Satie and Debussy, jot down the dates of at least 2 works by Satie and Debussy which Messing calls NC, and look at dates in the music of Brahms, Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, or other German composers). What patterns emerge?
(6) There are specific SHMRG characteristics which seem to be shared commonly amongst works commonly labeled “NC”; jot down a list of at least 5 of these characteristics. Having done so, be prepared to articulate at least 3 ways in which these SHMRG characteristics exemplify the aesthetics you cited in (4) above.
(7) pp491 & ff: What is neoclassicism’s view of history? Be prepared to articulate the neoclassical composer’s response to the following question: “Neoclassical aesthetics, forms, and SHMRG characteristics made it possible for these composers to come to terms with the following historical ‘problems’…[a], [b], [c]”.
(8) p493 Messing refers to a “decidedly ironic cast.” This is an adjective we have used in class (specifically but not exclusively speaking about the music of Satie). On p493 & ff, how does Messing explain the use of irony in this period? What problem(s) did “irony” make it possible for composers to solve?
(9) What is the relationship of, respectively, Stravinsky and Schoenberg to neoclassicism? Did Stravinsky feel it necessary to “negotiate a response” to NC? If so, what were the specifics of this negotiation? Did Schoenberg feel a similar necessity? If not, why not, specifically?
(10) Grad students: read Taruskin’s article through p294 and be prepared to contribute this author’s insights to discussion of the above questions. I am particularly interested in ways you can use Taruskin to nuance and/or problematize Messing’s model.
1 comment:
DQ for Messing and Taruskin by Lisa Lee
1. The first paradox is that while many composers active during the first three decades of the century have been tied to neoclassicism, the term is so loosely applied as to effectively have little clarity of meaning (p. 481, lines 4-10). The second paradox is that while warnings are issued against using the term because of this lack of clarity, the term is nevertheless used in a manner that seems to suppose that the reader knows what the author means by the term (p. 481, lines 10-14). The prevalent use of such terms as neoclassicism shows a common desire to give artistic creations a place and meaning in history through the use of abstract concepts (p. 481, 5th-7th lines from bottom). The solution to the paradoxes is in “a historical survey and critical analysis of the origins and development of the term” (p.482, first full paragraph, lines 5-6).
2. The term neoclassical was first used after 1900 by mostly French writers who were writing pejoratively about mostly German nineteenth-century composers who had continued to write symphonies and other instrumental forms that had been “invented” in the eighteenth centuries (p. 482, first full paragraph, lines 11-20). The negative connotation was that these composers sacrificed originality and substance in the pursuit of imitation of formal structure (p. 482, first full paragraph, next-to-last sentence). Musical nationalism was involved in the French opposition to the perceived German musical hegemony of the last couple of centuries, of which Parisian Wagnerism was just one indication. There were extra-musical reasons for the French to resent and criticize the Germans, as well. There was no doubt lingering resentment over Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, especially over the siege and fall of Paris to the Prussians. Of course, the Germans were France’s enemies during World War I, much of which was fought on French soil.
3. For the French composers, their sense of self-esteem, sense of self-worth, and sense of cultural identity was at stake. During the nineteenth century, France had certainly excelled in the visual arts and literature, but in the musical arts they had been eclipsed by the German composers and especially Wagner, who even captured the hearts and minds of Parisians. By labeling the Germans as neoclassicists (in the original, derogatory manner), they were trying to assert a form of power by belittling them. Secure and confident people do not need to use the power of labeling to belittle the “other.” French composers seem not to have been secure and confident at the time, a natural reaction perhaps to past German musical dominance.
4. I think that what is meant by the discussion question is the emerging dissatisfaction that people began to feel with the musical and artistic movements and general social attitudes of the fin de siecle and decadence. This feeling was particularly strong in the aftermath of World War I. Perhaps the emotion, angst, and psychological intensity in the arts before the war were linked in their minds to attitudes that led society into it. It was time to clear out what was old and start with “clean, pure, ascetic, objective, classical, constructivist” music, music that could have been perceived as the antithesis of “tortured romantic expressionism.”
5. In 1905, Ravel wrote his neoclassic Sonatine; the same year Strauss wrote his expressionist Salome and Schoenberg finished his forty-five minute First String Quartet (written in the style of Verklaerte Nacht). Satie wrote Three Sarabandes in 1897, and Debussy wrote Pour le Piano during that same period (from 1896-1901); Brahms died that year; Schoenberg was writing songs in the style of late romanticism; Mahler had finished his Symphony No. 3 the year before (it would be revised later, however). The pattern is that the French composers mentioned here were writing small piano pieces that used forms from the classical and baroque past, while the German composers were writing large pieces (with the exception of Schoenberg’s song) in the late romantic tradition.
6. Contrapuntal texture=constructivist. Non-programmatic=objective. Non-developmental form or growth=pure. Small instrumental resources, ensemble resources, no doubling of parts=clean. Classical or baroque references=classical.
7. I am not sure that I understand or can answer this question. Neoclassicism made de-germanization of music possible. It provided a central direction for modern music that composers, critics, and audience could recognize. It allowed composers to relate to past history without having to refer to a uniform (German) tradition. I believe that this DQ might be referring to something that Messing says about public and private traditions and obligations late in the article, but I do not understand that part of the article yet.
8. Some composers and artistically involved persons realized that people wanted both novelty and tradition. The nineteenth century had given us a both “an aesthetic of an authoritative history of music and the slogans to define it” (p. 493, paragraph 1, lines 3-4). Neoclassicism with irony was a way to tap and provide tradition but in a way that was not perceived as romantically sentimental and nostalgic, but as new and modern.
9. Messing believes that Stravinsky responded to being called a neoclassicist by specifically courting the attention that it called to him; Dr. Smith suggested that he even responded to it compositionally. Stravinsky was aware that critics and audience members like to have a central modernist style to recognize (p. 494, lines 1-3); moreover, he was good at being in the forefront of the style (p. 493, lines 5-7 from end). Schoenberg’s SHMRG characteristics seem allied to the adjectival aesthetics espoused by neoclassicism (p. 494, first full paragraph), although he is not considered one. He responded to the issues of neoclassicism, however, not by stressing musical characteristics, but by stressing cultural ones. He responded by writing about his relationship to the great German traditions from the past; he was their heir.
10. I have only read Taruskin once. I will need to read it again before I can contribute to the discussion.
Post a Comment