Advertisement
Well, it’s been kind of quiet here amongst you composers lately, and I’ve been feeling rather cranky after dealing with some other music-related BS (an occupational hazard, indeed). Thus the punk it me for some reason has a burning desire to stir things up a bit, so here goes…..
I’ve been thinking today about so-called “committed music” (and committed literature, political struggle in general, etc.). Reason is I’ve been reading up on Luigi Nono as of late, and found that the following sparked some thoughts that are interesting to ponder (from “Luigi Nono – the suspended song (1924-1990)" published by the Contemporary Music Review – sorry but this is quite long, and I just couldn’t see condensing it):
Through Scherchen (the famous conductor), Nono also became acquainted with the committed art of the 1920s; as he got to know him, Nono states, he:
“…had already been a communist for many years and he ranked among those who knew how to combine their work as artists, with their ideological position seamlessly. Moreover, Scherchen brought me closer to Germany’s history. Through him, I was entrusted with the historical, cultural, and political importance of Berlin in the years before 1933, the world meeting point and the centre for exchanges between the new Soviet culture and the advanced intelligence of the West. But he also opened up the Munich of the Spartacus Revolt for me, with its great political and cultural charisma.”
Scherchen, socialist, anti-fascist and pioneer of committed music, became a model also as a political artist for Nono. That he always stood up for the music of Schoenberg and Webern only served to confirm Nono’s blossoming conviction that politically committed or humanitarian music had to be of the most technically advanced nature. He had Dallapicola’s example in mind, but also both of the above-mentioned works by Schoenberg (Op. 41 and Op. 46). It is not surprising then, that in the 1940s he became familiar with the equation ‘advanced music = twelve tone music = committed music’, by such examples? This is probably a very important point in relation to his artistic and political decision making, which did not only find its expression after his “Il canto sospeso” of 1956, but is also visible in early works, for example in the secret programming of his “Composizione per orchestra” (1951).
In respect to the placing of commitment in music, in his book of 1950 “L’artiste et sa conscience”, the twelve-note apostle Rene Leibowitz, also proclaimed in the same year as Dallapiccola, Schoenberg’s “A Survivor of Warsaw" to be the great example and model. Nono would have probably got to know Leibowitz at the first international twelve-note conference in Milan in 1949. He could of course not follow his ideas – like many of the avant garde at the time – since Leibowitzz was a firm advocate of the 1948 Prague manifesto, which firmly propagated Socialist Realism. During those years there had been controversial debate about it and these discussions could not have passed Nono by. Most importantly though, through knowing Leibowitz’ book Nono must have come to know the theses of Jean-Paul Sartre’s committed literature, which he took up in his own writings.
In 1960 on the occasion of a lecture in Darmstadt about the relationship between text and music, in which Nono among other things makes concrete the model of Schoenberg for himself and discusses Schoenberg’s “Survivor from Warsaw”, he states as follows:
“this masterpiece is the manifesto of our era, due to its creative necessity of the relationship between text and music and between music and listener. That which Jean-Paul Sartre states in his essay “What is Literature?” about the problem of “Why write?”, is proven in a completely authentic way in Schoenberg’s creative necessity.” (he goes on to quote Sartre):
‘And if one presents me with this world and all its injustices, then I am not meant to look at it coldly, but to animate it with my resentment so that I unveil it and create its nature as injustices and abuse…’ (and Nono continues):
“…and if someone refuses to acknowledge Schoenberg’s “docere” and “movere”, especially in his “Survivor frm Warsaw”, he should know that the words which the 19-year old student Giacomo Levi wrote in Modena in 1942, in his 1st letter before the execution by the Fascists are also directed at him:
"Do not say that you do not want to know anything about it anymore. Keep in mind all that has happened is the result of you not wanting to know anything about it anymore.”
At the latest, by the time of his participation in the twelve-note conference in Milan, Nono became confronted directly with the question of whether the advanced method of composition was compatible with political commitment; a central topic of the conference.
.........
Scherchen points out that up until then (1949), no first-rate composer…..
“had returned to a more easily intelligible mode of expression…In short: without the intervention of Marxist theorists, not even one outstanding musician would have attempted to write in such a way, that his work would go back to earlier developmental stages of the musical idiom.”
So, what’s this all about?
First, as a person who considers the political to be part of his work, I found myself thinking….who really writes “committed music” today? I could only think of about three contemporary composers who I’d consider as composers of “committed music” (I’ll name them if you ask). And while Rap is probably the most political art form out there, I'm not sure that most of it is really "committed music" (although some I have heard certainly qualifies, IMHO).
Second, I found myself thinking about the Schoenberg choral pieces for workers choir, the Socialist/Marxist choral works of Charles Seeger, Henry Cowell, and even Copland (the bastard), among others, or the Gerbrauchmusik of Hindemith, Weill and Eiseler, and then the observation that Scherchen made that no outstanding musician would have attempted to write in such a way (going back to earlier styles) without the intervention of Marxist theorists, as opposed to continuing to develop their art in a “progressive” manner. I found myself wondering what the consensus among group such as this would be. Is writing “utilitarian” music an abandonment of artistic ideals? Is only the most “advanced” music capable of being “committed” to political struggle?
Third, this also touches upon a topic I was discussing with a friend of mine lately…namely what constitutes “new” or “advanced” music? I mean is it “new” only if it breaks new ground, innovates? Or if someone (David Cope comes to mind) writes a new computer-generated work in the style of Mozart, is that “new” music? Or is anything that is contemporary “new”? Or is nothing “new”? Does Andrew Lloyd Webber write “new music”? Where is the line drawn?
Is anyone here writing "committed music"? Does anyone give a shit abou politics as it relates to art?
I’ve been thinking today about so-called “committed music” (and committed literature, political struggle in general, etc.). Reason is I’ve been reading up on Luigi Nono as of late, and found that the following sparked some thoughts that are interesting to ponder (from “Luigi Nono – the suspended song (1924-1990)" published by the Contemporary Music Review – sorry but this is quite long, and I just couldn’t see condensing it):
Through Scherchen (the famous conductor), Nono also became acquainted with the committed art of the 1920s; as he got to know him, Nono states, he:
“…had already been a communist for many years and he ranked among those who knew how to combine their work as artists, with their ideological position seamlessly. Moreover, Scherchen brought me closer to Germany’s history. Through him, I was entrusted with the historical, cultural, and political importance of Berlin in the years before 1933, the world meeting point and the centre for exchanges between the new Soviet culture and the advanced intelligence of the West. But he also opened up the Munich of the Spartacus Revolt for me, with its great political and cultural charisma.”
Scherchen, socialist, anti-fascist and pioneer of committed music, became a model also as a political artist for Nono. That he always stood up for the music of Schoenberg and Webern only served to confirm Nono’s blossoming conviction that politically committed or humanitarian music had to be of the most technically advanced nature. He had Dallapicola’s example in mind, but also both of the above-mentioned works by Schoenberg (Op. 41 and Op. 46). It is not surprising then, that in the 1940s he became familiar with the equation ‘advanced music = twelve tone music = committed music’, by such examples? This is probably a very important point in relation to his artistic and political decision making, which did not only find its expression after his “Il canto sospeso” of 1956, but is also visible in early works, for example in the secret programming of his “Composizione per orchestra” (1951).
In respect to the placing of commitment in music, in his book of 1950 “L’artiste et sa conscience”, the twelve-note apostle Rene Leibowitz, also proclaimed in the same year as Dallapiccola, Schoenberg’s “A Survivor of Warsaw" to be the great example and model. Nono would have probably got to know Leibowitz at the first international twelve-note conference in Milan in 1949. He could of course not follow his ideas – like many of the avant garde at the time – since Leibowitzz was a firm advocate of the 1948 Prague manifesto, which firmly propagated Socialist Realism. During those years there had been controversial debate about it and these discussions could not have passed Nono by. Most importantly though, through knowing Leibowitz’ book Nono must have come to know the theses of Jean-Paul Sartre’s committed literature, which he took up in his own writings.
In 1960 on the occasion of a lecture in Darmstadt about the relationship between text and music, in which Nono among other things makes concrete the model of Schoenberg for himself and discusses Schoenberg’s “Survivor from Warsaw”, he states as follows:
“this masterpiece is the manifesto of our era, due to its creative necessity of the relationship between text and music and between music and listener. That which Jean-Paul Sartre states in his essay “What is Literature?” about the problem of “Why write?”, is proven in a completely authentic way in Schoenberg’s creative necessity.” (he goes on to quote Sartre):
‘And if one presents me with this world and all its injustices, then I am not meant to look at it coldly, but to animate it with my resentment so that I unveil it and create its nature as injustices and abuse…’ (and Nono continues):
“…and if someone refuses to acknowledge Schoenberg’s “docere” and “movere”, especially in his “Survivor frm Warsaw”, he should know that the words which the 19-year old student Giacomo Levi wrote in Modena in 1942, in his 1st letter before the execution by the Fascists are also directed at him:
"Do not say that you do not want to know anything about it anymore. Keep in mind all that has happened is the result of you not wanting to know anything about it anymore.”
At the latest, by the time of his participation in the twelve-note conference in Milan, Nono became confronted directly with the question of whether the advanced method of composition was compatible with political commitment; a central topic of the conference.
.........
Scherchen points out that up until then (1949), no first-rate composer…..
“had returned to a more easily intelligible mode of expression…In short: without the intervention of Marxist theorists, not even one outstanding musician would have attempted to write in such a way, that his work would go back to earlier developmental stages of the musical idiom.”
So, what’s this all about?
First, as a person who considers the political to be part of his work, I found myself thinking….who really writes “committed music” today? I could only think of about three contemporary composers who I’d consider as composers of “committed music” (I’ll name them if you ask). And while Rap is probably the most political art form out there, I'm not sure that most of it is really "committed music" (although some I have heard certainly qualifies, IMHO).
Second, I found myself thinking about the Schoenberg choral pieces for workers choir, the Socialist/Marxist choral works of Charles Seeger, Henry Cowell, and even Copland (the bastard), among others, or the Gerbrauchmusik of Hindemith, Weill and Eiseler, and then the observation that Scherchen made that no outstanding musician would have attempted to write in such a way (going back to earlier styles) without the intervention of Marxist theorists, as opposed to continuing to develop their art in a “progressive” manner. I found myself wondering what the consensus among group such as this would be. Is writing “utilitarian” music an abandonment of artistic ideals? Is only the most “advanced” music capable of being “committed” to political struggle?
Third, this also touches upon a topic I was discussing with a friend of mine lately…namely what constitutes “new” or “advanced” music? I mean is it “new” only if it breaks new ground, innovates? Or if someone (David Cope comes to mind) writes a new computer-generated work in the style of Mozart, is that “new” music? Or is anything that is contemporary “new”? Or is nothing “new”? Does Andrew Lloyd Webber write “new music”? Where is the line drawn?
Is anyone here writing "committed music"? Does anyone give a shit abou politics as it relates to art?
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: "Committed Music"
Wed, November 22, 2006 - 4:55 PMA danger of committed art is that it may depend so much for its appeal upon the cause to which it is commited, that once this cause ceases to warrant activism, the art may be easily forgotten. It's a bit like writing advertising jingles for products that will eventually be discontinued. Songs like 'Yankee Doodle' and 'Battle Hymn of the Republic' have survived largely because they have been sufficiently dissociated from the causes to which they were initially committed. OK... that AND because they are reasonably catchy.
The problem of using activism as a crutch isn't necessarily a problem, though. I think it's more a question of whether one is trying harder to acheive things aesthetically or politically, and whether it matter personally to one what happens to one's work when the political situation changes. 'Deutschland Uber Alles' is plenty catchy, and it may have been penned in all sincerity, but you'l bascially NEVER hear this melody today (or perhaps ever?) outside of its specific association with Nazism. There's a chapter in the 1979 book 'Russian Journal' in which the author describes meeting with and attending a ballet written by Tikhon Khrennikov en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikhon_Khrennikov. She characterizes Khrennikov's work as lacking any intrinsic aesthetic merit and succeeding solely due to its political value. The chapter is perhaps a bit cruel; Khrennikov's real goal may merely have been to survive in comfort, and this he did.
The medium, itself is something to consider in terms of 'comittedness'. If you look through a book of political cartoons from 100 years ago or more (cartooning, political or otherwise, I consider to be a valid art form), you may or may not be able to make enough sense of most of them to understand why you're expected to laugh, and you may or may not laugh. Watching a Khrennikov ballet is not so simple. Today, anyone who bothers to buy a ticket has little to fear should they happen to yawn, but these ballets are no longer produced, and it's probably no accident despite their success in Khrennikov's time. Composers who focused on how things sounded and not on what they meant did not share Khrennikov's success, but their music, when heard, is no more easily forgotten than his.
Ideally, we'd all like to produce only works that succed both on the merits of aesthetic appeal and political relevance. But if one thing became clear to me while studying hundreds of years of music by hundreds of composers, it's that those who produced the works of the most lasting interest were either not political idealists, or did not look to politics as their primary source of inspiration.
"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup."
-H.L. Mencken
