DQ for Watkins 528-32 & 557-65 (due Thurs 4.26)

Folks:

Posting these now, but they are not due until next THURSDAY Apr 26. Quite short (total 11pp) and available now so that you can get a jump on them over the weekend if you wish. Hang in there!

DQ for Watkins 528-32 & 557-65 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: The first of these brief readings (528-32) uses the early—and most notorious, and probably most “rigorous”—compositions of Milton Babbitt as a lens through which to understand the situation of “serious” composition in post-WWII America. It explores diverse influences which shaped American composers’ choices in this period: professional, European, academic, systematic, technological, and so on. It demonstrates the reasons which underlay the choice of Webern as a model and serialism as a procedure dominating the compositional landscape in this period. You should certainly familiarize yourself with the works cited (via WebCT and/or classical.com subscription), but you should also think more deductively about parallel and contradictory artistic trends toward “order” and “disorder” in other music, and other art forms, in this period. Those parallels and contradictions are essential in understanding what happened in American music in the second half of the 20^th century.

General question(s) for consideration: Juxtapose Watkins’s comments regarding the European “Webern cult” of the post-WWII era (pp510-11) and on a roughly-analogous group of American composers in the same period (pp528-32). Think about and be prepared to provide responses to the following questions:

• What was the overall climate for “serious” composition in post-WWII America? What were the support networks and/or infrastructure for new-music composition, teaching, and performance?
• How did these climates shape the professional opportunities available for composers? How did they in turn shape these composers’ stylistic or analytical choices? [NB: the goal here is to try to understand how both musical and socio-economic environments drove the choice of serial technique as the overwhelmingly-dominant stylistic school in 1950s America]
• What was the result for new music’s reputation, reception, and audience? How did this change “who’s playing,” “who’s listening,” and/or “who’s paying”?
• What alternatives to serialism existed for composers either unable or unwilling to employ its rigorous organizational technique? Who were these composers, what were their (possibly contrasting) backgrounds, trainings, and aesthetics, and what alternative sources did they seek to draw upon in developing their alternative approaches?
• Can these “serial-alternative” composers be linked with other artistic and/or socio-economic trends in 1950s America? In other words, was there an analogous drive toward alternatives in other art forms? What were they? Give examples of artists or art-works that demonstrate same.

Summary: The second of these brief readings (557-65) provides a clearly-written and well-documented analysis of the “serial-alternative” cited above. In it, Watkins describes an “International” avant-garde which, despite his chapter title, was powerfully, even primarily shaped, by American and non-academic forces. He juxtaposes the American Cage and the European Boulez, but what clearly emerges from the comparison is the dominance of the Cagean, American, anti-academic, even “subversive” elements of what came to be called “chance” or aleatoric composition.

General question(s) for consideration: I have suggested that, while Babbitt’s maximalization of compositional control (integral serialism, analytical set theory, the use of magnetic tape and of the computer and synthesizer) dominated both academic and high-profile contexts in the 1950s, the Ivesian-Cowellian-Cageian willingness to relinquish control—to leave compositional factors to chance or to performer choice—can be seen in hindsight as equally significant.

• Why did these latter composers (quintessentially, Cage himself) choose an alternate path? Were there alternative choices driven by artistic preference, by professional opportunity, by background or biography, by compositional training, by historical experience, or by all of these factors? Be prepared to provide a detailed interpretive response.
• What was the impact of this alternate path on these composers lives, appointments, exposure, collaborations (very important), and/or interaction with the 1950s/60s culture around them? How is it reflected in specific pieces.
• We could probably agree that both the “Princeton” group represented by Babbitt, and the “alternative” group represented by Cage, were reacting to certain cultural trends, and (very importantly) to the weight of the past—a composer’s “problem” which has emerged throughout the course of the century. What is Babbitt’s relationship to models, systems, and the past? Who were his models and inspirations? What is Cage’s relationship to models, systems, and the past? Who were his models and inspirations? Be specific in your response.
• What is the influence of the serialist/academic composers? What composers of the next generation were influenced by them, and/or where did their stylistic emphases “go”? What is the influence of the alternative/experimental/”chance” composers? Who was influenced by them, and/or where their stylistic emphases play out?

For Tuesday 4.24: short additional reading: DQ for Watkins 481-86

DQ for Watkins 481-86 (grad students: please also read and be prepared to summarize and describe the insights in pp506-17)

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 short reading summarizes the early influential works of Olivier Messiaen, and of the very wide and remarkably “free” (e.g., variable) combinations of influences, procedures, and strategies that go into these works. Though the Quatuor pour le fin du temps rightly receives much attention, both for its innovations and for the very stark circumstances of its composition, other works from the late ‘30s and the war years equally represent Messiaen’s individuality and his integration of influences, philosophies, and procedures. Much more than members of more rigidly-circumscribed “Isms” (and certainly in contrast to the serialists who dominated post-WWII academic composition), Messiaen was always his “own man.” But in the pan-global and pan-historical diversity of his influences, in the combination of extraordinary “control” (of pitch, duration, dynamics, and other parameters) and remarkable freedom (of interpretation and “chance” elements), and in his sense of music as a component of multi-sensory ritual performance, he is a significant inspiration for composers as diverse as 1950s/60s Boulez, Cage, and the Minimalists.

General question(s) for consideration: What is the relationship between Messiaen’s wide and diverse influences—which you should be prepared to list—and his compositional strategies in the 1930s/40s works? Be prepared to provide at least three examples of his source influences and ways in which those specific examples can be demonstrated to influence the organization of specific works (the Quatuor, Les corps glorieux, L’Ascension, or the Messe de la Pentecote).

What are the sources of Messiaen’s ordering of various parameters, including not only pitch, but also duration, dynamics, and (especially important) registration?

(1) On p481, Watkins refers to a “new and fundamental perspective” in Messiaen’s early works. Upon what did this perspective reflect? What is the impact of this perspective on all of Messiaen’s work, through much of the balance of his career? And, an interpretive question: how and why is this new perspective a fundamental rejection of Romantic structural models? [Hint: look at the discussion, top of p482]

(2) I will have more to say in class regarding Messiaen’s diverse influences, but specifically in reference to p482, first para, what is the impact of Messiaen’s church experience upon his compositional procedures? Upon his artistic goals? Please be very specific.

(3) Be prepared to describe the specific organization structures which are summarized in the discussion (p482 bottom) from Messiaen’s Technique of My Musical Language. Note the wide range of sources he drew from and the specific impact of those sources on the techniques described.

(4) As stated above, the Quatuor is probably Messiaen’s best-known early work, but typically this is more a response to the circumstances of its composition than to the details of the work. Yet it is a composition of astonishing sophistication, an extraordinary integration of very diverse sources and ideas, and (Messiaen’s particular genius) the ability to see both procedural and philosophical parallels between such diverse ideas. In this sense, I would thus posit that the Quatuor is simultaneously a deeply “Neo-classical” and a deeply “modernist” work, that it is both deeply Catholic and yet profoundly sympathetic to other religious traditions, that it is grounded in both Messiaen’s own background as organist but also reflective of his interest in other (even non-human) musical resources. Please be prepared to explain how.

(5) Similarly: be prepared to link Messiaen to his own French and Russian predecessors (both musical and non-musical), and be specific.

(6) [Grad students only] Be prepared to summarize for the class the procedures (both organizational and structural) in Mode de valeurs et d’intensité and the Livre d’orgue [hint: what is the literal translation of each of these titles, and, why does Watkins say the latter was composed for organ rather than piano?].

(6) [Grad students only] Pay particular attention to the discussion pp509-11 of (a) the nature of the influence and relationship between Messiaen and Boulez (still one of the most respected interpreters of Messiaen’s work) and (b) (very important) Boulez’s perspectives on Webern versus Schoenberg. Be prepared to describe for, and explain to, the class Watkins’s own analysis on the attraction of Webern versus Schoenberg to a post-War generation of composers. This analysis will be equally important in understanding responses to Webern in 1950s Europe and in 1950s America.

DQ for Watkins 443-58 (grad students: please pay close attention to the material on Ruggles/Riegger/Becker, Harris, and Piston/Finney

DQ for Watkins 443-58 (grad students: please also pay close attention to the material on Ruggles/Riegger/Becker (442-43), Harris (449-50), and Piston/Finney (454-55), and be able to relate compositional resources, goals, and strategies to the classroom discussions of Ives, Cowell, and Thomson)

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: These readings address the experience and reactions of American composers who were the younger contemporaries of Cowell and Ives, who in some cases claimed inspiration from their older “American experimentalist” peers, but whose focus, background, and overall aesthetics were much more strongly based in the Germanophile “great tradition” of European training (Ruggles is something of a special case and his idiosyncratic educational background differs from that of Copland, Barber, Thomson, and the other members of the Parisian “Boulangerie”).

General question(s) for consideration: These American composers (Copland, Harris, Thomson, Piston, Barber, Schuman) shared a number of biographical factors and compositional influences, but certainly two particularly important elements were (a) their “American” nationalist impulses and (b) their formal and compositional indebtedness to European “modernism.” What were the principle Euro-centric influences upon these composers? If they looked to European models, what were those models, and why did these Americans choose them? Conversely, what was these composers’ relationship to the American experimentalist traditions of Ives and Cowell? Are there parallels between and among these composers, in terms of influences, priorities, or goals? Finally, how and in what environments did these American composers influence the post-WWII generation of Americans? What was their impact?

(1) On pp443 and following Watkins discusses Copland’s (social and biographical) background, educational experience, and general artistic orientation during his early maturity as a composer. Where and with whom did he study? What would have been the possible impact(s) upon Copland of this experience? Are these experiences similar to or different from those other American composers of the same generation who are discussed in this chapter?

(2) The 1920s works of Copland discussed on pp444-45, and the various organizations and environments for which these works were produced, are decidedly “Euro-centric” and modernist in both intentions and musical procedures (have a listen via classicalmusic.com to Grohg, the 1925 Piano Concerto, the 1930 Piano Variations, or Music for the Theatre, and be prepared to respond to the following: despite the fact that the latter two works (and others produced in the same period) borrow extensively from “American” sources—especially jazz and the blues—I would suggest that the works are decidedly “European” in their treatment of these sources. In other words, I am suggesting that, though born in New York City, Copland in the ‘20s was treating even American sources in a rather “Parisian” fashion. Why might this be? And, can you relate SHMRG details of what you hear in the above works to the compositions of other 1920s Parisian composers?

(3) Overall, through p447, how would you describe Copland’s 1920s “compositional allegiances”? With what “Isms” is his 1920s music most legitimately associated? (Don’t make a snap conclusion here: this is a subtle and complicated question)

(4) pp447-48, subtitled “A Simpler Language,” describe a change in Copland’s compositional style and goals in the period after 1930, and especially after 1932. What musical, biographical, or historical events drove this change in style and goals? Be prepared to cite specific works, composers, or events, and to relate specific Copland works of the ‘30s and early ‘40s to these factors.

(5) [For grad students only: be prepared to describe Harris’s career, training, compositional emphases, and goals to the balance of the class.]

(6) pp450-54 discuss the biography, early musical influences, compositional training, and (especially important) collaborations with other artists and across media, of Virgil Thomson. How is Thomson’s career parallel to that of Copland? How does it differ? (Hint: pay particular attention to his collaborations, with both literary and film activities) I will have more to say about Four Saints in Three Acts, particularly about the biographical and cross-genre experiences that shaped Thomson’s intentions in this work, but please read this section closely for its excellent explanation of the goals which Thomson and Gertrude Stein shared in this collaboration. It is thought of as a “difficult” work, but in fact makes excellent “sense” if the listener understands what Thomson/Stein were and were not attempting to accomplish. With what earlier composers does Watkins link Four Saints? With what other “experimental” composers (chiefly in the 1950s-60s) might we link this same work? Pay particular attention to Thomson’s compositional procedure in this work as Watkins describes it.

(7) [For grad students only: be prepared to describe Piston’s career, training, compositional emphases, and goals to the balance of the class.]

(8) On pp455 and following, Watkins provides a biographical sketch and brief discussion of selected works by Samuel Barber. How specifically do Barber’s compositional experience and goals mirror or contrast those of other members of the “Boulangerie”? With what “Isms” is Barber’s music typically associated? Pay particular attention to the discussion of Summer of 1915, a musical reminiscence by Barber, of its beautiful and evocative text, and have a listen to the work on classicalmusic.com. Does this music, in its topic, mood, musical procedures, choice of text, or other factors, remind you of another American composer not a member of the Boulangerie?

(9) [For grad students only: be prepared to describe Schuman’s career, training, compositional emphases, and goals to the balance of the class.]

(10) All: Read the section “Other Americans” very closely and retain this information. It is a marvelously succinct and insightful summary of the divergent compositional traditions which came to prominence in America during and immediately after World War II, and thus is a very important preface to our discussions of the post-1945 period.