DQ for Watkins 235-52 (grad students: please also read p288-99 and be prepared to relate this material [which describes roughly contemporaneously innovations in America and in Germany] to the Italian/Russian material described in Chapter 12)
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.
Summary: This section explores an “Ism” which had far more impact conceptually and philosophically—even technologically—than it did sonically. That is, the Italian (and to an extent) the Russian Futurists did not in fact generate much in the way of original, “lasting,” or influential-upon-other-composers music. However, the very fact that the Futurists were better at theory than practice, yet still were conceptually very important, helps us get at the impact that ideas (as opposed to concrete compositions) shaped music in the first half of the 20th century.
General question for consideration: consider the language, metaphors, and seeming intentions that shaped and underlay the various Futurist “manifestos” (and if you don’t know the literal meaning of that word, look it up here). Now consider the time period (originally 1909-14 in Italy, then roughly 1914-21 in Europe and America). Are there any other philosophical movements extant in the public discourse in the same period which seem to employ or invoke similar language, metaphors, and/or intentions? Be prepared to articulate and to cite examples.
(1) In the very first paragraph of the chapter, Watkins cites a “revolt” in fin-de-siecle Italy as the point of origin for musical Futurism. This is a very brief commentary but it has (potentially) profound significance when set against contemporaneous musical/social/political perspectives in other places. Against what was the revolt? In what media did the revolt play out? Do the concerns of this rebellion (both musical and otherwise) in Italy have any parallels in other places at about the same time? What might account for such parallelisms? If so, how and why did the artistic “rebellion” in those other places differ from that in Italy? In what way is the Italian situation unique?
(2) On pp236-39 Watkins quotes the language of various Futurist manifestos (including those by Marinetti and Russolo, most importantly), and the descriptions of various instruments invented by composers to realize these new goals. What characteristics seem to be shared in both polemic and inventions? In other words and to quote our Syllabus, what are the “problems” the Futurists perceive themselves to be “solving”?
(3) Bottom of p237, Watkins describes the audience for a demonstration of the “Exploder” in Modena in 1913. Who was present at this demonstration? What is the significance of these persons’ presence? Do these individuals take these ideas elsewhere, either geographically or conceptually or both? If so, how can we articulate the influence (cited in the “Summary”) above of these essentially non-composing Futurist inventors upon other composers far more active? Construct and be prepared to quote a thesis that interprets this relationship.
(4) Scanning the entire chapter, make a checklist of the specific technical innovations developed by Futurist composers (noting page numbers) and be prepared to describe other works in which these innovations were employed.
(5) Watkins distinguishes between Russian and Italian Futurism. How? What are the differences? How did the Italian versus the Russian composers’ goals—or analyses of the artistic “problems” they faced—differ. Be prepared to provide an explanation for those differences and to cite evidence to support that explanation. Hint: Consider the contrasted political and artistic immediate histories of these two places. How did differing historical context shape Futurism two different ways in two different places?
(6) On pp241-42, Watkins specifically discusses the impact of Futurism upon Stravinsky. What aspects of Futurist thought does Watkins locate in which Stravinsky works? With what other “Isms” already present in Stravinsky does Watkins see Futurism being connected? Be prepared to describe these links.
(7) On p243, Watkins says “While the official ‘Futuristi’ spawned slim musical results, their influence was more salutary than would appear at first glance.” Further to the “Summary” above—how can this be? How can composers who “spawned [only] slim musical results” nevertheless have surprisingly extensive influence? What evidence does Watkins cite in support of this thesis?
(8) On pp244-45 Watkins discusses the evolution of Futurist ideas in Russia into what would become yet another “Ism” under Stalin: that of “Socialist Realism.” The circumstances of progressive, experimental, avant-garde composition in Russia before and after 1924 were very different and reflected the State’s strong influences. How did those circumstances change? Grad students: be prepared to define and provide examples of “Socialist Realism” in the period after 1924, and to explain why it became so much more important after that date.
(9) On pp248-49, Watkins discusses, among others, those aspects of Paul Hindemith’s and Edgard Varese’s music which show the influence of Futurism. Overall, be prepared to summarize and contrast Hindemith’s versus Varese’s goals for music written under this influence. What did Hindemith desire his 1920s music should accomplish? What did Varese desire in contrast? Cite evidence to support your response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
DQ Futurism etc. by Lisa Lee
1. The revolt was against what was perceived to be “outworn institutions” including the church, socialism, the monarchy, and musical institutions such as music critics and publishers, the Italian opera composer Puccini, and the dramatic form melodrama. The outworn institutions were blamed for a cultural inertia (cultural “not moving forward”) (p. 235, 1st paragraph). The revolt played out in poetry, painting, and music. Russia was also experiencing a revolt against “outworn institutions,” including a growing antipathy to the political system of the tsar and the hegemony of European aesthetics over Russian ones (Mamontov). France was experiencing a revolt against the “outworn institution” of late Romantic and Expressionist German music. In general, people seemed to be tired of the old ways and especially old ways that were seen to be oppressive—the church, monarchy, and the stranglehold of conventional music institutions in Italy; the political oppression of the tsar and the stranglehold of European, non-Russian musical traditions over Russia (Mamontov and the search for a Russian music and art); and French perception of the stranglehold of German hegemony in music. The artistic rebellion in France and Russia searched into the past for a way to revolt; in Italy, the artistic rebellion looked to the future. Also, in Italy the Futurists stressed war as redemptive. While in Russia the future was the coming Revolution, I do not know that the artists there wrote manifestos that stressed war as “hygienic.”
2. The characteristics of both polemic and inventions include a propensity for the noises found in the urban modern life, including those of machines. The main problem that the Futurists perceived themselves to be solving was the stranglehold of outworn institutions through embracing the future of machines, speed, urban life, and war. It was a sort of “clearing out the past” to make a way for the future to come about.
3. Present at the demonstration of the “Exploder” were the Italian Futurist poet and manifesto writer Marinetti, the Italian Futurist composer Pratella, the Italian Futurist painters Boccioni, Carra, and Cangiullo, the Russian composer Stravinsky, the Russian impresario Diaghilev, the French dancer and choreographer Massine, and a Slav pianist (p. 237, last paragraph). I suppose that the Italian Futurist artist Russolo was present, since the Exploder was his invention. The significance of the Italian artists who were present is that their presence is indicative of the role that non-musicians played in the music of the Futurists—this was a movement that went across artistic disciplines. The significance of the multi-national presence is that the ideas transcended and crossed national boundaries. The significance of the presence of Stravinsky, Diaghilev, and Massine lay in the prominence of these men and in the fact that they were influential in taking the ideas of the Futurists back to Paris. Yes, they take the ideas about noise music, the music of machines, the use of non-traditional sounds and sound-makers, of the non-composing Futurist theorists and inventors back to Paris and to other composers who were “far more active.” Eventually, through Russolo’s concerts in Paris and other distribution of these ideas, the ideas get distributed to Ravel, Milhaud, Honegger, and Prokofiev in Paris, to Cowell, Varese, Ornstein, and Antheil in the United States, and to Hindemith (p. 242, last paragraph).
4. I like Russolo’s score depicted on p. 240, which prefigured later notation! The use of non-traditional instruments developed by the Futurist Russolo (p. 236, last line through 237) and his pieces for them (p. 238, 1st full paragraph) might have led to an interest on the part of composers to “extend the resources of sound” (p. 245, last seven lines ff). It might have influenced the interest in the pianola shared by Stravinsky (Study for Pianola, p. 242, 2nd paragraph, line 3, and transcriptions for pianola of various works, p. 242, 2nd paragraph, last 5 lines), Conlon Nancarrow, and George Antheil (Ballet mechanique, p. 244, line 3). Antheil’s Ballet mechanique included replicated sounds of an airplane. Satie included noises generated by a typewriter, siren, etc. in Parade (p. 244, 3rd full paragraph, lines 2-5). Ornstein and Cowell experimented with ways to create new sounds on the piano (p. 245, last 3 lines ff). Theremin, Trautwein, and Martenot invented instruments that were used by composers (see list on p. 248, paragraph 3, lines 6-7, and by Varese in Ameriques and Ecuatorial, p. 249, paragraph 2, lines 10-13). Composers used much more and unusual combinations of percussion (Varese, Hyperprism, Integrales, and Ionisation, top of p. 249). Eventually Varese and others experimented with tape and other electronic instruments. These are just a few instances taken from Watkins.
5. One difference between Russian and Italian Futurism can be seen in the primitivist roots in Russian Futurism. Watkins uses for an example the painting by Malevich, The Scissors Grinder, which, while keeping the Futurist interest in the “sounds of everdya life and urban pulse,” still maintains Primitivist interest in “natural song and ritual rhythm,” and, moreover, depicts a primitive type of machine and man’s control over it (p. 240, 1st full paragraph, and picture on p. 241). Mamontov’s group had looked to backwards to Russian iconography and to the continuity and rhythms of the rural life of the peasants, and this was maintained in Russian artistic consciousness. Italian Futurism looked to urban life, machines, speed, and the future. Italian Futurist war consciousness looked to the destruction of war; Russian revolutionary consciousness looked to an optimistic reconstruction of society.
6. Stravinsky conducted for Diaghilev a performance of his Fireworks that was designed by the Futurist Balla (p. 241, last 3 lines). Stravinsky’s perhaps Futurist-inspired interest in the pianolo was described under DQ 4. However, his interest in the pianolo seems to have been in its “capacity to rule out nuance in the fixing of tempo relationships” (p. 242, 2nd full paragraph, lines 12-13). Stravinsky seems to have later said that his interest in Futurism at the famous demonstration of the Exploder was feigned and that his inspiration for the pianola came not from Futurism but from other sources in Madrid (p. 242, 2nd full paragraph). Stravinsky was briefly interested in the revolutionary prophecy of Russian Cubo-Futurism, in the potential of the Russian revolution, but he later realized that “his hopes for the Revolution had been misplaced” (p. 242, 1st full paragraph, last line).
7. Italian Futurist ideas influenced many composers in their interest in extended sound sources and new techniques of notation, as I noted above under DQ 4. In addition, the whole idea of the importance of machines in modern life led to depicting machines in music and resulted in pieces such as Honegger’s Pacific 231, Milhaud’s Machines agricoles, and Prokofiev’s The Factory.
8. Social Realism was the officially approved type of art in the former USSR and other communist countries. The creation of artworks came under the communist doctrine that all material goods, and the means of producing them, were the collective property of the community. Art was to be produced solely for the education and inspiration of the people. Optimistic images of work and the heroic worker celebrated the virtues of communism and patriotism, and glorified the state. In Soviet Russia, as in other totalitarian countries (run by one party), the government controlled all artistic organizations. All forms of artistic experimentation were condemned as a sign of decadent Western influence and, therefore, anticommunist principles. Although the term is used mainly with reference to painting, it can apply to literature and music. (I stole this reference from a source online as a shortcut because I am running out of time to prepare for class. However, I have studied it in art classes.)
9. The influence of Futurism on Varese’s musical goals was primarily in Varese’s interest in new sound resources (I discussed this above, DQ 4). The influence of Futurism on Hindemith is the interest in the machine as “a symbol of concision and clarity, of efficiency and objective expression,” what might be seen as Neoclassical values (p. 248, paragraph 4). (Hindemith was interested in the German movement “New Objectivity” (Neue Sachlichkeit), which was opposed to Expressionism.) Hindemith wrote “mechanical music and music for film” (pianola for the film Vormittagspuk) and used a synchronizing apparatus invented by Robert Blum (for the animated cartoon Felix the Cat) (p. 248, last paragraph, lines 5-8). He displayed some interest in new sound sources in works for troutonia (p. 248, last 4 lines).
Post a Comment