Unfamiliar Composers To Me

[Lethevich]

A housemate asked me what I was playing during browsing those Youtube clips too. It looks like Kapustin proves that crossover doesn't have to suck

Edit: idk if anybody already linked it, but this essay (warning: PDF) is a good read.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

this essay[/url] (warning: PDF) is a good read.

Thanks for posting that - looks interesting. I've been getting bits & pieces of info on the history of Russian/Soviet jazz (from people who knew people, etc)...fascinating subject.

In the Stalin days they even had a slogan: кто сегодня играет джаз, завтра Родину продаст ("he who plays jazz today, tomorrow his Country will betray!").

[Brian]

A housemate asked me what I was playing during browsing those Youtube clips too. It looks like Kapustin proves that crossover doesn't have to suck

Edit: idk if anybody already linked it, but this essay (warning: PDF) is a good read.

Dang it! There goes my afternoon. 

[Josquin des Prez]

Edit: idk if anybody already linked it, but this essay (warning: PDF) is a good read.

Wow, nice. Thanks for the find.

[Mirror Image]

He's not "mimicking" Jazz music anymore then Scarlatti was "mimicking" Spanish music.

Right. And when i feel like listening to a classical musician, i listen to Kapustin. I fail to understand your point.

My point is this guy's music doesn't do anything for me and he tries to invoke jazz music unsuccessfully in his music. Like I said, he's not my cup of tea. Gershwin was the ultimate crossover classical composer.

[Mirror Image]

Kapustin is actually worse than I had originally thought after this last flurry of Josquin posts ...

Yeah, I just don't like the aesthetic this composer invokes with his music, which is faux jazz with a "classical" feeling. His way with music just doesn't work for me, because I don't think its genuine. It certainly isn't interesting music.

The more Josquin comments on this composer's "music," the more disgusted I get with how someone like Kapustin has fooled people into thinking what he creates is legitimate art that's worth anyone's time.

As I said, Gershwin did the crossover thing better and with more originality and substance.

[Brian]

Yeah, I just don't like the aesthetic this composer invokes with his music, which is faux jazz with a "classical" feeling. His way with music just doesn't work for me, because I don't think its genuine. It certainly isn't interesting music.

Okay, time for me to take sides with Josquin. (Wrote that sentence because it's not often I get to do so.  ) You start off by saying that you don't like the aesthetic Kapustin invokes, which is a good start. Either one likes Kapustin, or doesn't, or has conflicted feelings about his music. For example, the last few days' listening have impressed on me the depth of his architecture and the "hidden" use of classical forms like sonata, etc. But it's also impressed on me the hodge-podge of jazz styles Kapustin pours in to each piece - here boogie, there ricky-tick, here Tatum, etc. So.

Then you say that you don't think its [sic] genuine. Now what does this mean? Certainly Nikolai Kapustin believes it is genuine. It is what he wants to compose, what he wants to play, what he wants to listen to. The classical-jazz "problem" is the problem he wants to work on. I question the connection between a genuine composer writing music in his own voice and the product being somehow "not genuine." I think it's quite obvious that "it's not interesting music" is a statement which you think true and I think false.

The more Josquin comments on this composer's "music," the more disgusted I get with how someone like Kapustin has fooled people into thinking what he creates is legitimate art that's worth anyone's time.

The quotation marks around "music" are interesting. I know of no dictionary or musicological definition of music which would exclude Kapustin. I personally have used quotation marks around "music" to indicate distaste for ambient sound works, exclusively electronic sound-effect pieces, and other things which would make Bruce sad if I expressed such obvious contempt for them.  What you are doing by putting quotes around "music" is indicating that contempt - ie, you think Kapustin's music is so irredeemably awful that it not just is not art music, but is possibly not music at all. Unless the man has pooped on your pillow I really think that's overreacting.

Next you say you're disgusted that Kapustin has "fooled people into thinking" he is creating "art that's worth anyone's time." So you think Kapustin is not just not "genuine," but an actual con artist making joke music to have a laugh at people. Need I speak at length about the fact that that is both despicably insulting and utterly delusional? Why would you believe this of someone? On what evidence would you disbelieve it?

As I said, Gershwin did the crossover thing better and with more originality and substance.

Finally, while I agree with the spirit of this (I think Gershwin is more significant in the long run, by virtue of greater sophistication, greater versatility, and a more consistent, definite voice), I still disagree with it! Technically, it is true that Gershwin "did the crossover thing." He started in Tin Pan Alley and was invited to write classical music, crossing the gap. But "the crossover thing," as used by many writers, indicates a sort of conscious uniting of two worlds which just does not happen much in Gershwin. Despite the 12-tone writing in Porgy and Bess, the truth is Gershwin entered classical music and kept being himself. That's what made him great: he found a way to write music for classical purposes which stuck to his own original voice. Does that make him a "crossover" artist? No. I think it just makes him Gershwin.

P.S. As for whether Kapustin is writing music which stays true to his own original voice, who are we to judge?

[Mirror Image]

Okay, time for me to take sides with Josquin. (Wrote that sentence because it's not often I get to do so.  ) You start off by saying that you don't like the aesthetic Kapustin invokes, which is a good start. Either one likes Kapustin, or doesn't, or has conflicted feelings about his music. For example, the last few days' listening have impressed on me the depth of his architecture and the "hidden" use of classical forms like sonata, etc. But it's also impressed on me the hodge-podge of jazz styles Kapustin pours in to each piece - here boogie, there ricky-tick, here Tatum, etc. So.

Then you say that you don't think its [sic] genuine. Now what does this mean? Certainly Nikolai Kapustin believes it is genuine. It is what he wants to compose, what he wants to play, what he wants to listen to. The classical-jazz "problem" is the problem he wants to work on. I question the connection between a genuine composer writing music in his own voice and the product being somehow "not genuine." I think it's quite obvious that "it's not interesting music" is a statement which you think true and I think false.

The quotation marks around "music" are interesting. I know of no dictionary or musicological definition of music which would exclude Kapustin. I personally have used quotation marks around "music" to indicate distaste for ambient sound works, exclusively electronic sound-effect pieces, and other things which would make Bruce sad if I expressed such obvious contempt for them.  What you are doing by putting quotes around "music" is indicating that contempt - ie, you think Kapustin's music is so irredeemably awful that it not just is not art music, but is possibly not music at all. Unless the man has pooped on your pillow I really think that's overreacting.

Next you say you're disgusted that Kapustin has "fooled people into thinking" he is creating "art that's worth anyone's time." So you think Kapustin is not just not "genuine," but an actual con artist making joke music to have a laugh at people. Need I speak at length about the fact that that is both despicably insulting and utterly delusional? Why would you believe this of someone? On what evidence would you disbelieve it?

Finally, while I agree with the spirit of this (I think Gershwin is more significant in the long run, by virtue of greater sophistication, greater versatility, and a more consistent, definite voice), I still disagree with it! Technically, it is true that Gershwin "did the crossover thing." He started in Tin Pan Alley and was invited to write classical music, crossing the gap. But "the crossover thing," as used by many writers, indicates a sort of conscious uniting of two worlds which just does not happen much in Gershwin. Despite the 12-tone writing in Porgy and Bess, the truth is Gershwin entered classical music and kept being himself. That's what made him great: he found a way to write music for classical purposes which stuck to his own original voice. Does that make him a "crossover" artist? No. I think it just makes him Gershwin.

P.S. As for whether Kapustin is writing music which stays true to his own original voice, who are we to judge?

I judge a composer's based on what I hear, Brian, as I hope anybody with any intelligence will do. Kapustin seems like he's torn between jazz and classical and can't decide what he wants to do with music. Classical with some jazz rhythms or harmonies I have no problem with, but the direction and overall aesthetic of Kapustin's music is he seems to be trying to mold the two together as if they both belong together. This doesn't work for me and seems to be quite a hackneyed view of music in general. This is why these two idioms are separate and will remain separate. Taking jazz as a point of influence, okay, no problem, but taking jazz and trying to make it something it's not is not my idea of being a creative artist.

I frankly don't care what Kapustin thinks about his own music nor do I care that you like his music, I know what I hear and what I hear coming from his pen is unoriginal and uninspiring mockery of jazz music. Kapustin claims that he doesn't want to be a jazz pianist, but with his music it makes him sound like one? I just don't get this kind of contradiction.

[Josquin des Prez]

If it was I who didn't like Kapustin, James would be singing his praises in my stead.

[bhodges]

I personally have used quotation marks around "music" to indicate distaste for ambient sound works, exclusively electronic sound-effect pieces, and other things which would make Bruce sad if I expressed such obvious contempt for them. 

Or make him fly over and burn down your house.  0:)

(Sorry for the interruption, please continue.)

--Bruce

[(poco) Sforzando]

If it was I who didn't like Kapustin, James would be singing his praises in my stead.

I would dislike Kapustin even if James liked him.

[Mirror Image]

I would dislike Kapustin even if James liked him.

Same here. This Kapustin guy's whole idiom doesn't appeal to me at all.

[Josquin des Prez]

Same here. This Kapustin guy's whole idiom doesn't appeal to me at all.

Yeah, but that's you. It has nothing to do with any inherent fault in Kapustin's own music. That's what Brain was trying to explain to you.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yeah, but that's you. It has nothing to do with any inherent fault in Kapustin's own music. That's what Brain was trying to explain to you.

I hope that was just a typo and not a Freudian slip implying that our friend studying now in London has any monopoly on cerebral matter denied to those of us who don't see things your way. Frankly, it startles me that someone with such generally rigorous and restrictive tastes as yours hears anything in this derivative, dull stuff. I suppose I'll have to try some more of the youtube clips to be sure, and I'll print that C major fugue quoted in the dissertation and read it tonight at the piano. But certainly James, MI, and I are not alone in our reactions; here's someone at Amazon.com:

"Kapustin's music is written-out jazz: that is, it's idiomatically jazz but sans improvisation. As jazz pieces they're busy but not inventive or original, so what's the point?"

[Josquin des Prez]

"Kapustin's music is written-out jazz: that is, it's idiomatically jazz but sans improvisation. As jazz pieces they're busy but not inventive or original, so what's the point?"

Kapustin is NOT written-out Jazz. Its classical music with a Jazz voice. I don't understand why this concept is so incredibly hard to understand. This really demonstrates how criticism of this composer is based on a superficial appraisal of his work.

[Brian]

I hope that was just a typo and not a Freudian slip implying that our friend studying now in London has any monopoly on cerebral matter denied to those of us who don't see things your way.

Just to interject, perhaps he had me mistaken for a popular children's cartoon character with geopolitical ambitions.

I found that a more in-depth study of Kapustin's music enhanced my appreciation for the structural integrity of his works, and helped me see the sort of classical "line" running under it all (like a theme might run under variations by Beethoven) - but it also made me more skeptical about Kapustin's use of jazz, because he really pours on all the influences he can get his hands on. Even short works will jump from decade to decade, from style to style, in a matter of a few bars, like a chef who feels obligated to add every spice in the cabinet to his dinner.

[karlhenning]

. . . Even short works will jump from decade to decade, from style to style, in a matter of a few bars, like a chef who feels obligated to add every spice in the cabinet to his dinner.

Offhand (and to speak abstractly, for I haven't listened to any of his music yet) that sounds an amateurish flaw.

Or, put it another way, I was taught (and the lesson has long seemed to me sound) that when writing any one piece, make it as specific as possible.  Now, one needn't (perhaps) do that with absolutely every piece, but it's a good "center."  And one avoids the exploded-spice-rack metaphor . . . .

[(poco) Sforzando]

Offhand (and to speak abstractly, for I haven't listened to any of his music yet) that sounds an amateurish flaw.

Agreed. Just try doing that on Top Chef. There are definitely combinations of spices and herbs that harmonize (bay leaf, thyme, and parsley in French cooking; coriander, cumin, and turmeric in Indian; rosemary and garlic in Italian) - but I'm afraid your metaphor, dear Brain, is working against you rather than for you.

[Brian]

Agreed. Just try doing that on Top Chef. There are definitely combinations of spices and herbs that harmonize (bay leaf, thyme, and parsley in French cooking; coriander, cumin, and turmeric in Indian; rosemary and garlic in Italian) - but I'm afraid your metaphor, dear Brain, is working against you rather than for you.

Actually, I very much meant it as criticism.

I found that a more in-depth study of Kapustin's music enhanced my appreciation for the structural integrity of his works, and helped me see the sort of classical "line" running under it all (like a theme might run under variations by Beethoven) - but it also made me more skeptical about Kapustin's use of jazz, because he really pours on all the influences he can get his hands on. Even short works will jump from decade to decade, from style to style, in a matter of a few bars, like a chef who feels obligated to add every spice in the cabinet to his dinner.

[greg]

It worked for Schnittke...