DQ for Watkins 235-52

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.

DQ for Neo-classicism articles (All read Messing, Grad students add Taruskin)

For Thursday Mar 1: find these pdf articles on WebCT "Materials - Week 08 - pdf files"

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.