Re: Interesting...


"David Sherman" <possible20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C091FCC6.1E61%possible20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Just thought some of you would like to know that what I have found
interesting as the year wound down is that the two pieces of 20th century
music a lot of kids in my history class took a shying to were Stravinsky's
Petrouska, and the Night Music movement from Bartok's Music for Strings,
Percussion and Celeste (I think they recognized it from The Shining or
some
other film.)

Interesting, no?

Not really - I've been teaching amusic history course of and on and I was
surprised by the number of people who immediately liked "Moonfleck" for
Pierrot Lunaire, Black Angels, and, not to mention, some Palestrina I played
for them early on. I think what we're seeing is that maybe our generation
(let's say broadly from the 1940s through 70s-ish) still had a lot of
"barclamantic" music in our studies and maybe culture. It seems to me that
these kids have grown up "devoid" for lack of a better term of the same kinf
od classical type music a little older generations had. They're distanced
enough from the whole romantic overkill thing that all of this stuff sounds
fresh and exciting. Furthermore, pop music fields have gotten much more
diversified, and in many cases, much closer to "art" music: when I was
growing up, there was ELP and Yes doing advanced mix-meter and harmonic
stuff, as well as direct classical/contemporary nods, and Steely Dan doing
Jazz influenced stuff, butairply for the more eclectic stuff (like Zappa or
King Crimson) was limited. Now, younger listeners have their orchestral-type
movie scores, and more recently, video games; computer editing is mixing all
kind of classical snippets in with rock, we've got rap, hip-hop, house,
trance, goth, electronica, new age, etc. all out there with enough listeners
to make what used to be "indie" or "underground" music much more prevalent
overall. When I play John Adams or Paul Lansky for them, they really don't
think too much of it because its basically simplified versions of what
they're hearing in electronica. But Stravinsky and Schoenberg is quite
interesting to them - different enough to not be familiar with it, but
strangely familiar!


As for me, my "rediscoveries" are all over the map.

I have a renewed respect for Vivaldi which had waned considerably over the
years. And a new found respect for Ligeti, Messiaen, Virgil Thompson, and
Darius Milhaud.

Mine never waned - I joked about him with the rest, but have always though
he was a competent and inventive (especially within the confines of how
repetitive his works seem on the surface) composer.

Ligeti I've always thought of as the "only" contemporary composer. Messian
I've just rediscovered though, so I'm with you there. Thompson I've never
really gotten into, and only know a couple of things, but he, like a lot of
the 20th century American composers (Harris, Piston, Barber, etc.) deserve
more attention. I discovered Milhaud about 7 years ago (IIRC) and have
always kept him in mind. I guess I'd say my interest never has really waned
in anyone - I've loved them all more the more I listen - it's just a matter
of listening to more. For instance, let's say some of the "discoveries"
(versus re-discoveries" I've made in the last decade are Machaut, Josqui and
Palestrina, Monteverdi, D. Scarlatti and Telemann, JC and CPE Bach, (most
other Classical and Romantic composers works I've known pretty well, so I've
gotten a greater appreciation of them, but discovered them a long time ago),
Fuare, Milhaud, Messian, then there's a lot of, let's call them
"semi-recent" composers like Joan Tower (you should play Petrushkates for
your students after Petrushka!) and so on. Then there's all the pop and jazz
and even country cats I'm continually discovering too! One I have
re-discovered since childhood is Johnny Cash.


And moving up on my s**t list is Leopold Mozart, who I'm now convinced was
a
social-climbing, child-abusing punk. (Wrote some pretty music though.)

I just read "Mozart's Women" and the author really does cast a dark shadow
on Leopold. I think some of this though has to do with the time - I don't
think it's necessarily fair to place our contemporary values on figures in
the past - sure, none of those Soccer and Pageant Moms do this to their
Americam Idol kids! I agree that he was definitely using his son's (and
Nannerl's too) prowess to his advantage, but I can't say that I necessarily
blame him - I think he was strict, and conscious of his position in life,
and wanted to better it for himself, but I think he did want to better it
for his family as well. Additionally, I think he knew that he had something
the world should be aware of (Nannerl too because she kept a lot of the
correspondence - and even Constanze thought enough to keep hold of a lot of
stuff). So, no, he wasn't Ward Cleaver, but I also think history is painting
him a little more of a "punk" than he may deserve.


Interesting year, to say the least.

Ah, now on to grading their Finals!

Wow you're late - I'm already into my second week of summer school!

Best,
Steve



.

Relevant Pages