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.

DQ for Watkins 424-30 & 433-43 (grad students: Spain and Italy also)

DQ for Watkins 424-30 & 433-43 (grad students: please read the material on Spain and Italy as well)

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 set of readings (from both Chapters 21 and 22) addresses musical experimentation in regions, as with Soviet Russia, that were somehow “outside of” or peripheral to the Austro-German-Parisian early-20th-century modernist orbit. In Spain and Italy, and especially in England and the USA, new-music composers grappled with issues reminiscent of those faced by the French Impressionists, Eastern European, and Russian composers. You are encouraged to identify and be prepared to articulate both parallels and contrasts between the experiences of these two sets of composers.

General question(s) for consideration:

What types of resources did English and American (grad students: also Spanish and Italian) composers draw upon as they sought to create alternatives to the Austro-German 19th-century symphonic/operatic tradition? What sorts of musical languages did they develop as a result of these resources? Are there parallels between the resources employed, or the musical languages resulting, by Vaughan Williams, Walton, Britten, and Ives, and those similarly employed by Bartok, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich?

If so, please consider the following question about these Anglo-American composers, as we earlier asked the same question about the Soviets: what is the interplay in these composers’ works between (a) symphonic form, (b) programmaticism, and (c) modernism? How do these Anglo-American composers attempt to reconcile these three elements’ potentially conflicting imperatives?

We saw, in the case of Shostakovich and Prokofiev, that under Socialist Realist principles this resolution was essentially impossible in the context of the concert hall, but that it became less impossible in other performing venues. Was it similarly impossible for Vaughan Williams, Walton, Britten, or Ives? Be prepared to both summarize and contrast the reconciliation each of these four attempted, or failed, to effect—this means you need to compare and distinguish-between each of the four’s solutions.

Finally, a hint: How is the “symphonic form vs. programmaticism vs. modernism” issue resolved by Bartók? Is he somehow more successful at resolving this three-way conundrum than Shostakovich or Prokofiev? If so, why? And, can understanding how Bartók accomplished this help us understand the Anglo-Americans’ strategies?

(1) On p424, Watkins introduces the combination of diverse influences that shaped Ralph Vaughan Williams’s music. We will expand upon this substantially in class—because RVW’s experience illustrates the complex task faced by 20th-century composers in England specifically—but note here the interplay between “old music” and “folk music” and “new music composition” described by Watkins. Do we see any parallels between this interplay and those strategies adopted by any other “non-German” composers in the period? Recall the various nations in geographic proximity to England, and the very strong and direct interaction between London and Paris that reaches all the way back to Purcell and the high Baroque.

(2) On p424-425, first para, Watkins cites RVW’s activities with both the English Folk Song Society (EFSS) and the Purcell society. I will have more to say in class about this, and the “rediscovery” by both composers and collectors of English folk traditions which most educated classes assumed to have died out, but for your consideration: what RVW activities provided him very practical assistance in using “old music” as a basis for “new music”? And, does this strategy link him with any other “Isms”, and with any other composers, in both France and Eastern Europe?

(3) RVW is commonly described as an “English nationalist” composer. But, as we have seen, 20th-century “Nationalism” (like “Impressionism” or “Socialist Realism”) is not so much a set of definable musical characteristics. It is rather a set of compositional goals, a set of compositional strategies (chiefly involving borrowing, imitation, and allusion), and only subsequently a set of definable musical characteristics. In the case of RVW, what were the goals, strategies, and characteristics? And, are there parallels in this area between the case of RVW and those of any other composers we have discussed? Be prepared to articulate same.

(4) pp425-26 provide specific and detailed examples of how RVW used traditional or “old” musical resources to develop a “modernist” melodic, rhythmic and (especially) harmonic idiom. What were the technical details of that idiom? Does the way in which he developed this idiom resemble that of other composers? Be prepared to articulate.

(5) The discussion on p427-28 of William Walton influences, and especially the ways those influences coalesced in Façade, is strongly reminiscent of a group of composers in another nation, and of one particular composer in that group, and even of a particular composition. What group, composer, and composition? What are the “Isms” that connect Façade and this other group?

(6) Watkins’s discussion of Britten is effective, but incomplete. Certainly those Britten works which are most “popular,” or at least most widely-played, are not necessarily those works upon which his reputation as a modernist is most strongly based. That is, while the Ceremony of Carols, Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Young Person’s Guide are probably the best-known works, the Serenade, Billy Budd, the War Requiem, and Peter Grimes were vastly more influential upon other composers, particularly in Britain. I will have more to say in class about the areas (chiefly the impact of international and sexual politics) which Watkins omits from his Britain portrait, but you should certainly be able to relate Britten’s influences, the traditions of English music (especially choral song), and the modernist innovations of the influential works—using specific examples.

(7) The discussion of Ives on pp433-43 is necessarily and unavoidably incomplete. I will expand upon this with a more comprehensive picture of Ives’s background, sources, goals, and impact, but here are a few key points you should anticipate, and relate to the readings:

• What is the compositional milieu in American academic composition around the year 1890? Who are the shapers of compositional opinion?
• What is Ives’s relationship with this milieu?
• What Ives compositional resources does Watkins cite? Does Ives’s manipulation and exploitation of these resources, in seeking a modernist musical idiom, remind you of any other composers we have studied? Who and why? Be specific.
• In places (notably p435, first full para), Watkins drastically oversimplifies the degree to which Ives’s modernism “developed largely without reference to current European developments.” The actual picture is much more complicated and much more confusing (partly because, as I will relate in class, Ives abetted this confusion). Be prepared, even if Watkins does not, to link Ives with modernist experiments by his European contemporaries. [Grad students: please skim and be prepared to summarize Burkholder’s 1985 article on Ives and his European models, found on WebCT under “Materials – Week 14 – Links – Readings.”]
• All students: please visit classicalmusic.com via the TTU library’s “Databases” website and listen to “In Flanders Fields,” the Symphony #4 (excerpts of each movement), and the Piano Sonata #2 “Concord” (excerpts of each movement).

DQ for Watkins 412-21 (grad students: please read short Huband article)

DQ for Watkins 412-21 (grad students: please read short Huband article on Shostakovich found on WebCT under “Week 13 – Materials – Links – Readings”)

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 chapter surveys the careers of Prokofiev and Shostakovich, whose lives, works, and socio-political experience form a reasonably good portrait of the interaction of musical context and musical content that impacted symphonic composition in the 20^th century. Though both Russian composers’ experience reflects the specifics of the Soviet (and Socialist Realist) artistic environment, both composers’ priorities, catalog of works, relationship with both conservative and modernist trends, is consistent with that of symphonists in other places (notably Scandinavia and the USA).

[Two-part] general question for consideration: (1) What is the three-way relationship between symphonic form, programmaticism, and modernism? Is there a way to articulate the ways that composers have juggled these (potentially conflicting) ideas and influences? (2) What is the relationship between programmaticism and 20^th-century composers’ (particularly political) experience? In other words, do 20^th-century programmatic composers tend to be aware of, or oblivious to, the political contexts in which they find themselves? Conversely, is the political awareness or experience of “absolute” composers more or less visible? Influential?

(1) Note the range of influences and resonances Watkins cites for Prokofiev, on p412. As a younger contemporary of Stravinsky, Bartok, Debussy, Skriabin, and Diaghilev, and as something of an enfant prodigue (“child prodigy”), Prokofiev drew very widely on many extant influences and ideas in the years before the Bolshevik Revolution (1917). What does this catholicity reveal about Prokofiev’s compositional strengths? About his awareness of his own historical/artistic context?

(2) Also on p412, what/who are the influences upon the Scythian Suite (1915), in terms of both program and style? This orchestral work, along with the Toccata for piano (1912), were the principle works which made Prokofiev’s name in pre-Revolution Russia (and Paris). Who/what are the obvious precursors? Be prepared to relate to both Russian and non-Russian influences.

(3) On the top of p413, Watkins identifies both Neo-classical tendencies in Prokofiev’s music of this period, and also four traits which the composer himself claimed to identify in his own music. What are those four traits; how, and which, relate to Neo-classicism, and, crucially, with what other “Isms” of the period do these traits connect Prokofiev. In other words, in these four style characteristics, Prokofiev is linked to a number of other composers working in the same period—not only to Neo-classicists. What are those other styles and composers?

(4) p413, para 2, Watkins says that the “peasant setting” of On the Dnieper “failed to move” Prokofiev, and that this “suggests a fundamental distinction” b/w him and Stravinsky. Be prepared to explain this distinction, citing specific works as evidence in support of your explanation.

(5) p413, para 3, Watkins describes very briefly Prokofiev’s experience in the West 1918-36; in class, I will considerably amplify this description—not because I believe Watkins is in error, but because a more complete description of the 1918-36 experience helps explain Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union, and subsequent experience, more fully.

(6) p413 (last para)-414 (top) contain a brief description of the complex and often conflicting imperatives that were imposed upon composers (and other artists) in Stalinist Russia. These imperatives came under the general heading of “Socialist Realism,” a term we will unpack and discuss in class (grad students, please read short Huband article on Shostakovich found on WebCT under “Week 13 – Materials – Links – Readings”; pay particular attention to pp3-5). However, in advance of that discussion, read this section closely, and consider the time period: the 1930s. In what other places were what other composers experiencing (internal or external) demands that their music be “socially relevant”? Thus, be prepared to relate “Socialist Realism” with other politically-informed musics of the 1930s.

(7) p415 (middle) discusses Prokofiev’s score for the Sergei Eistenstein film Alexander Nevsky, which relates the events of the German invasion of Russia in 1242 and Germany’s defeat at the climactic battle of Novgorod, when an entire army of German Knights Templar were halted on a frozen lake, whose surface shattered and in which the Germans were drowned. Nevsky was made in 1938, prior to the German invasion of Poland which formally precipitated World War II, but clearly this Eisenstein/Prokofiev collaboration was intended to anticipate—and muster support—for resistance to a Nazi invasion. Please view this YouTube excerpt, and be prepared to relate visual imagery and musical style in it to the principles of Socialist Realism. [Grad students: for more on Eisenstein as a model for both composers and film-makers, see the discussion of his seminal Battleship Potemkin, a mythographic rendering of an abortive 1905 anti-Tsarist rebellion led by Russian sailors]

(8) The discussion of Shostakovich follows logically from that of Prokofiev: he was both younger than Prokofiev, more shaped by post-Bolshevik experience than Prokofiev, and much more emblematic of Russian symphonism (and suffered at least as much at the hands of Socialist Realist critics). On p416, para 4, Watkins has a wonderful phrase to describe Socialist Realist goals: “the proper nuancing of social ideologies” (specifically in art). Be prepared to unpack and explain this phrase, citing specific events and compositions from Shostakovich’s own career.

(9) In this same paragraph, please note the astonishing contrast between 1920s Leningrad (a very progressive, experimental, avant-garde arts scene) and 1930s Russia as a whole—which became a dreadfully conservative place for the arts. What explains this about-face, between 1920s modernism and 1930s conservatism?

(10) Note the discussion (p417) of Lady Macbeth and the Symphony No. 5. Both works were roundly criticized by Socialist Realist critics (most notably, Tichon Krennikov, the notoriously repressive head of the Union of Soviet Composers); the former was withdrawn, and the latter was alleged to be Shostakovich’s “apology” for his previous “artistic errors.” What was the nature of these “errors”, from whom and for what reasons did the criticism come, and what are the “problems” in our attempts to understand Shostakovich’s artistic motivations in these works?

DQ for Watkins 383-401 (grad students: please also read 401-410)

DQ for Watkins 383-401 (grad students: please also read 401-410)

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 pages actually combine material from two different chapters: that on Webern’s “mature” (that is, post-Schoenberg) music, and that introducing Bartok’s music. If we view Webern as a kind of “parallel” to Schoenberg, and Bartok as a kind of “parallel” to Stravinsky, we will see that understanding Schoenberg’s and Stravinsky’s music of this period will help us develop a perspective on that of Webern and Bartok. One caveat: in my opinion, Watkins’s discussion of Webern’s late works neglects certain aspects of his compositional technique, particularly in the area of systematization of parameters besides pitch. Expect that my classroom presentation will address this latter factor in some detail, and be prepared to take notes accordingly.

General question for consideration: what responses, goals, and compositional traits does Webern share with Schoenberg? Bartok with Stravinsky? What responses, goals, traits and (in particular) compositional resources do Webern and Bartok develop independently or in contrast to Schoenberg and Stravinsky?

(1) p383, be prepared to unpack the very first sentence. For what “stylistic options” did Webern “show[] less concern” than his contemporaries? Why might he have avoided less concerns?

(2) Watkins refers, also on p383, to an “unspoken subscription [to] neoclassic textures and formalities” which Webern shared with Schoenberg. What are the details of this “subscription”? Which of these details or concerns did Webern share with Schoenberg? What is the source of these concerns? Why did both of these German composers leave their “subscription” “unspoken”? More general philosophical question: in order to refer to the presence of an “Ism” in a composer’s work, is it necessary that the composer him/herself must either identify or agree with that Ism? If not, why not? Another way to think about the same question: are Isms categories or trends?

(3) The discussion of the Webern Op. 14 identifies certain affinities which Watkins claims the composer shared with Expressionism, despite the degree to which Webern’s music does not “sound like” “typical” Expressionist music. What are the “typical sounds” of Expressionist works? Why do composers employ those sounds? To problematize the conventional label of Expressionism: ought we to presume that Expressionist music has a certain “sound”, any more than Neoclassical music? If Expressionism is not a product of sound, of what is it a product? Also, as part of this, be prepared to relate the biography and aesthetic of Trakl to Weimar Berlin.

(4) On p384, first full para, Watkins provides a very subtle observation about how Expressionist composers tended to treat words in texted pieces. In the sentence fragment that begins “structurally it derives from the Expressionist predilection…” what is the relationship between individual words, full texts, “involved syntactical construction”, and “silence and the pause”? How are these tendencies relevant to other works by Webern, and to his sonic aesthetic as a whole?

(5) p385 has a good summary of Webern style traits that are common across his whole catalog. Be prepared to recall these style characteristics (of which there are at least four) to all works cited in this chapter, and to contribute these observations to our classroom discussion. In addition to the influences of Expressionist texts, folk-song, and his teacher Schoenberg, what other influences upon Webern’s music does Watkins identify here?

(6) The top of p386 has a discussion on issues of restriction, and especially of symmetry, which is both very important to understanding Webern’s music, and also links his music (especially his formal/structural conception) to that of Bartok. Read “forward” into the Bartok chapter, and be prepared to relate Bartok’s treatment of structural symmetries with that of Webern—and to cite examples. On the bottom of p386, be prepared to summarize Webern’s own comments on the op. 21, and to contribute this summary to our in-class discussion of the Symphony.

(7) Nice quote about “delicate aeration” on p389; what does it mean? Give examples.

[NOTE: During our class discussion, I will add substantially to Watkins’s discussion of Webern—particularly in the area of Webern’s systematization of other musical parameters beyond pitch.

(8) On p394, Watkins cites a set of goals which drove Bartok’s folklore experiments. What were those goals, and how did they relate both to goals of other composers, and to Bartok’s own musical resources? Also on this page and the next, Watkins compares Bartok’s relationship to folk musics with that of Stravinsky. How does he differentiate the two? What is the impact on Bartok’s music?

(9) Please note, on pp395 & ff, that Bartok’s compositional influences were quite broad and diverse; though folklore/folk-music was very important, it was not the only influence. What were Bartok’s other influences, and what works does Watkins cite as evidence of these? (I will have comments to supplement Watkins’s discussion of this topic)

(10) On pp397-99, Watkins provides a brief but detailed discussion of the scalar and intervallic sources of Bartok’s harmonic language. What is the origin of these particular scalar and intervallic constructions? How does it impact Bartok’s harmonic language? His phrase structures? His cadential and modulation schema?

(11) Be prepared to demonstrate Bartok’s varied approaches to rhythm. How would you demonstrate “parlando-rubato”? “Giusto”? “Additive rhythms”? You will need to be able to play, sing, and describe each of these.

DQ for Watkins 326-40 (grad students: please also read p320-26)

DQ for Watkins 326-40 (grad students: please also read p320-26 on Stravinsky’s Rake’s Progress, and be prepared to relate both the work’s narrative and its musical allusions to the images collected at this link—scroll down for the complete set).

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 the post-war tonal and formal experiments of both Francophone and Germanophile composers, focusing specifically upon the 1920s music of Stravinsky and of Schoenberg. It recognizes the degree to which these two composers themselves participated in the critical portrayal of “history in the making”—that is, that both Stravinsky and Schoenberg themselves sought to portray their respectively anti-German and German-tradition approaches as mutually antithetical: a playing-out once again of a historical antipathy between French and German compositional traditions. Watkins shows the degree to which these antipathy was a matter of perception, more than reality, and suggests that Stravinsky and Schoenberg, despite their employment of contrasted terminology, were in fact grappling with similar questions in the post-WWI period: namely—and again—the issue of the organization of large-scale forms in a post-tonal world.

General question for consideration: Assuming that these composers were both dealing with issues of large-scale formal organization, precisely what resources did Stravinsky draw upon in creating his “Neo-classical” 1920s music, and what is the relationship between Stravinsky’s resources and those drawn upon by Schoenberg? To answer this question, you must “read past” the descriptions given by each composer, which emphasized their differences, and “read to” Watkins’s own articulation of these two composers’ commonalities. Be prepared to articulate.

(1) On p326, Watkins describes a Franco-German debate focusing around the term nouveau classicisme. Messing’s article made clear to us that this term was as much a political or aesthetic badge (or label) as it was a stylistic label. When French composers used it as a derogatory label for German aesthetics, what characteristics were they criticizing? How did French composers contrast their own aesthetic choices to these German traits? [HINT: Think about how French versus German composers thought of their respective relationships to the tradition of Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Brahms, etc. Then read “Schoenberg: ‘Onward From…’” carefully; it contains the core explanation for French versus German conceptions of their obligation to composition’s history.]

(2) On pp327-28, Watkins provides a chronological history of a selective group of Schoenberg and Stravinsky works composed in the period 1920-25. On the basis of this list, were S & S aware of, ignorant of, or pretending to be ignorant of each other’s 1920s experiments?

(3) On p329, Watkins cites “a handful of [Schoenberg] masterpieces in which the creative spirit burned radiantly…”. What works is Watkins referencing? And, what does Watkins have to say about these works’ formal organization? Be specific!

(4) Also on p329, Watkins cites Krenek’s comment that Schoenberg’s atonal works had provoked much more shock than had the (later) serial works. Why is this? Hint: think about the specific musical parameters with which atonal (e.g., Expressionist) versus serial works experimented. Was there something about the specific musical parameters of Pierrot, Erwartung, or for that matter Wozzeck, that made them “more shocking” than the later serial works? What?

(5) pp329-31: please read closely, and examine the musical excerpts (grad students: please play these at the keyboard). Be sure that you understand and can explain how the serial method, especially its treatments of contrapuntal techniques, is working in these early serial pieces. Here are essential questions pertaining specifically to the Op. 25 Suite:

• To what parameters is the serial treatment applied?
• What specific aspects of the Baroque suite—as a formal structure—make it an especially logical and appropriate choice for a first experiment with serial treatment? Hint: if you are unclear on the specific formal aspects of the Baroque suite, please review those characteristics via Grove Online—and then formulate an accurate answer to this question.
• Watkins “problematizes” Schoenberg’s treatment of the suite form in the Op. 25, but not because of the work’s non-tonal organization. Instead, Watkins identifies another SHMRG parameter whose treatment obscures the suite’s characteristics. What is that parameter, and why might Schoenberg have treated the parameter in this obscurantist fashion?

(6) On pp331-35, Watkins discusses the Op. 31 Variations for Orchestra—like the Op. 25 suite, Schoenberg’s borrowing of a Baroque-era structure for purposes of formal experiment in the new serial harmonic language. Why is the variation form particularly receptive to serial treatment? Why are both the 18^th-century suite and the variation a more apt form for serial experiment than the 19^th century sonata-allegro form? Be prepared to cite specific lines from Watkins to support your answer.
(7) Pay particular attention to the matrix on p333 and to the discussion of combinatorial hexachords on p334. Be prepared to explain the significance of both in your own words (hint: these are complicated explanations for relatively simple concepts—read closely, and figure out the concept behind the explanation).

(8) pp334-35 mention a particularly interesting commentary from a Schoenberg radio broadcast in 1931 (e.g., at a time when Schoenberg would have a bit of perspective with which to develop a “hindsight explanation” for the early-‘20s experiments of the Suite and Variations). What strategy did Schoenberg employ to “rationalize” the 12-note theme of the Variations? CRUCIAL QUESTION: how did this particular strategy serve to bolster—in fact to demonstrate—Schoenberg’s claim that his music was in the direct, defensible German tradition?

(9) On p335, the sentence beginning para1 (“It may be concluded that Schoenberg…”) is extremely important. Why? Be prepared to articulate an answer, and use the specific works cited in the same paragraph as part of your evidence.

(10) On p339, para 1 (begins “While attention to such technical matters…”) is also very important. In it, Watkins articulates an explanation for the “larger issues…that consumed virtually all composers of the time”—e.g., of the 1920s. What were those issues? What SHMRG parameters did they revolve around? How did serialism present a “solution” to these idioms? In light of Schoenberg’s comment quoted at the end of that paragraph, why was serialism a particularly attractive solution for him, in not only formal but also in historical terms?

(11) In the same page, Watkins cites the twelve-tone method as “the logical next step” for Schoenberg. The “next logical step” to what? Why was twelve-tone technique (rather than “folklorism,” Expressionism, “Neo-classicism,” or other Ism) more appealing to Schoenberg? For more insight on this, see the extended Schoenberg quote on the top of p340.