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.

DQ for Watkins 287-306 (grad students: please also read p308-20)

DQ for Watkins 287-306 (grad students: please also read p308-20 and be prepared to summarize this material’s key insights for the balance of the class).

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 a network of musical influences, drawn largely from outside the realm of German art music, which began to shape other national and stylistic schools in the ‘Teens and ‘20s. Many of these factors are analogous to those that drove Impressionism in France and various national responses in other regions.

General question for consideration: In light of Messing’s history and critique of the term “Neo-classicism”, to what goals and impulses can we attribute these “New Simplicities”? And how and to what extent did these New Simplicities operate across national boundaries?

(1) Chap 14 opens with a discussion (pp286-88) of Schoenberg’s activities in the realm of cabaret and popular musics. Though these musics are not typically thought of as Schoenberg influences, and though he himself repudiated them, Watkins suggests that his direct experience in these musics connects Schoenberg’s experience in the ‘Teens and ‘20s to that of other composers. Based on this and prior readings, what other composers, both within and outside Germany, share Schoenberg’s experience with cabaret and popular musics in this period?

(2) In the section subheaded “American Currents” (pp288-89), Watkins cites multiple examples of European interest in American popular culture, both within and outside music. What priorities, characteristics, or themes do European composers seem to be finding in these American topics, and how do these play out in their works? (Hint: consider our prior discussion of Parade). Also, in this same section, what connections can be drawn between popular influences, primitivism, and futurism?

(3) The discussion beginning p289 explores a particularly complex and fluid combination of sources and influences in German music in the 1920s, with specific focus on (one aspect of) Hindemith, Orff, Weill, and Krenek. Here are a few questions to help you formulate a thesis which explains how these factors interacted:

• What was the 1920s German perspective on jazz, what it meant, and what resources it might present for concert music?
• Looking at the illustration on p291, what “Isms” could be legitimately be attached to this image (some are more obvious associations, some less)?
• Also on p291, Watkins discusses Hindemith’s 1921 Kammermusik and its scoring. What is the significance of the scoring, and of the texture, of this piece?
• What is the interaction between Expressionism and Futurism? Could these things be matters of compositional (or audience) perspective?
• Be prepared to define the term Zeitoper and to articulate the “Isms” that this idiom might have addressed?
• On p292, last para, Watkins discusses the role that German folk music played in works of Mahler, Berg, and Schoenberg. How does he distinguish these composers’ perspectives on their own folk music from the perspectives of composers in other nations?

(4) On p294-95, be prepared to articulate the relationship between Orff’s background, principle works, and eventual efforts in music education and cognition.

(5) On pp295-399, there is an extensive discussion of Krenek’s Jonny Spielt Auf. This work is not at all well-known (and not easy to find in score or recordings), but in its topic, musical idioms, and general affect it foreshadows at least three later, better-known works (specifically, by Weill, Gershwin, and Blitzstein). How does Jonny grow out of Zeitoper, how does it reflect the “American Currents” cited previously, and how does Jonny anticipate future developments?

(6) Be prepared to articulate the ways in which “New Simplicity”, 1920s progressivism, and “American Currents” play out in Weill’s Threepenny Opera.

(7) Be prepared to articulate both the biographical and the artistic connections between Berg and Gershwin in this period, and to use these connections to contrast Berg’s perspectives on non-German music from those of Schoenberg and Webern.

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.