John Simon does not care for Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven

[lisa needs braces]

http://uncensoredsimon.blogspot.com/2013/09/music-i-love.html#comment-form


"It seems to me that before the Romantics, music was constricted. I do not dispute that the two Bs and one M were important composers, but for me they were all about technique and technical innovation, but ultimately—even the tonitruous Beethoven—not truly free. Emotion, as I understand it, does not come in until the Romantics, and has been with us at least until Stockhausen and John Cage.

Now it would be nice if I were a musician and able, with illustrative examples and technical analysis, to explain the differences between, say, a passage in Mozart and one in Debussy. But, however enthusiastic, I am only a layman lacking even a college course in music, and can speak only the language of fellow laymen.

It appears to me that Bach and Mozart (Beethoven was somewhat different) wrote predictable, mathematical music, limited in scope, not unlike a caged canary's pleasant but anodyne chirping. It was also perfectly square, by which I mean that from the first two notes of a bar you could predict the next two. Beethoven was, at any rate, impassioned, but not in a fully melodious way.

There were, of course, changes in rhythm and dynamics, and some very modest surprises. But even when the music deigned to be fast and loud, it was still wallpaper to me, which, after all, can also be loud and repeats its pattern rapidly.

Absent, for me, is what some would call sentimentality. There is no ecstasy, a sense of pathos even in the lighter colors, a stirring up of one's feelings, beauty so intense that it almost hurts. There isn't that mercurial quality of sudden changes from comedy to tragedy, a rhapsodic freedom to roam into supermelodiousness, into stirring harmonies and polyphony, into guarded poly- or atonality, into tunefulness that approaches the orgasmic as it fluctuates between gossamer and a kind of endearing grandiloquence. What can I say? Modulation, chromaticism, rapture.

To me, the top dozen geniuses among composers are Barber, Bartok, Berg, Debussy, Faure, Janacek, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Ravel, Shostakovich, Richard Strauss and Stravinsky. Following them there are any number of masters, of whom I want to call attention to only a few, who, not being obvious, are easily overlooked. Among these I cite Berkeley, Dutilleux, Guarnieri, Honegger, Ibert, Martin, Martinu, Mompou, Montsalvatge, Szymanovski, A. Tcherepnin and Tansman, though for a full list of them you will have to consult "John Simon on Music," where you will find essays on most of them."



The point isn't to take issue with the opinion but to point out that this venerable theater critic is still alive and kicking it and blogging no less! 

[lisa needs braces]

Here is his unbelievably snobby take on Roger Ebert:

http://uncensoredsimon.blogspot.com/2013/04/roger-ebert-film-criticism.html

[Mirror Image]

Zzzzzz....

[lisa needs braces]

Zzzzzz....

Maybe you'd find this sort of thing more entertaining:

http://tinyurl.com/lklsehr

[North Star]

Maybe you'd find this sort of thing more entertaining:

http://tinyurl.com/lklsehr

Could you give us a third choice, just in case some of us want something intelligent than that?

[Florestan]

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven ring a bell to me, but I've never ever heard of John Simon. Anyway, thanks for letting us know that he doesn't care for the former. A most interesting and helpful information.

[mc ukrneal]

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven ring a bell to me, but I've never ever heard of John Simon. Anyway, thanks for letting us know that he doesn't care for the former. A most interesting and helpful information.

As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a ma-roon."

[Karl Henning]

As with Daniel Asia and his rant against John Cage (was it?), there seems to me an element of a gnat trying to train a magnifier upon itself, by nattering about a titan.  So that I refuse even to bother with the content of the nattering.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

As with Daniel Asia and his rant against John Cage (was it?), there seems to me an element of a gnat trying to train a magnifier upon itself, by nattering about a titan.  So that I refuse even to bother with the content of the nattering.

Have never thought much of Simon as a film critic, having read his trashings of a number of cinematic masterpieces. Now, I don't think much of him as a music critic. To be fair, he does seem to have listened to a lot of music and has great appreciation for a wide range of composers, which is nice in my book. However, it doesn't necessarily make his thoughts worth reading. I note he has written a whole book about music while admitting to having no education in the subject. If we adhere to the principle that a critic should know more about a subject than his audience does, how interesting could that be?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Here is his unbelievably snobby take on Roger Ebert:

Hm, here's a quote I found on his Wiki, which may explain his take on Ebert:

In his memoir Life Itself, Roger Ebert wrote, "I feel repugnance for the critic John Simon, who made it a specialty to attack the way actors look. They can't help how they look, any more than John Simon can help looking like a rat."

[Karl Henning]

I note he has written a whole book about music while admitting to having no education in the subject.

At least he is man enough for that admission.  Cannot say that of everyone who pontificates on things musical, even here at GMG 

[Brahmsian]

To John Simon,

It's Ok that you do not care for Bach, Mozart or Beethoven.  Many of us still do care very much for their music, and many, many will continue to care and love their music long after we are gone from this earth. 

[Brian]

Hm, here's a quote I found on his Wiki, which may explain his take on Ebert:

In his memoir Life Itself, Roger Ebert wrote, "I feel repugnance for the critic John Simon, who made it a specialty to attack the way actors look. They can't help how they look, any more than John Simon can help looking like a rat."

The Wiki sentence immediately prior to that proves Ebert's point:

"Others have suggested, however, that his negative criticism is mean-spirited rather than constructive. For example, he is known for dwelling on the unattractiveness of actors he does not like: Wallace Shawn is "unsightly", Barbra Streisand's nose "cleaves the giant screen from east to west, bisects it from north to south. It zigzags across our horizon like a bolt of fleshy lightning", while Kathleen Turner is a "braying mantis"."

[The Six]

I wonder why this is in The Diner.

I can't really hate Simon for this. He's basically saying that he doesn't hear real emotion and expression in music until the start of the Romantic Era. Of course he's wrong - Bach is one of the most emotive composers you could find, but I feel that it's a common opinion. It's not immediately obvious just how expressive pre-Romantic music can be.

[kishnevi]

I wonder why this is in The Diner.

I can't really hate Simon for this. He's basically saying that he doesn't hear real emotion and expression in music until the start of the Romantic Era. Of course he's wrong - Bach is one of the most emotive composers you could find, but I feel that it's a common opinion. It's not immediately obvious just how expressive pre-Romantic music can be.

He also seems to think that emotion is lacking from modern music--that Stockhausen and Cage in particular apparently were in charge of a giant purge that rendered all composers after them emotionless,  which is as silly as saying Bach is emotionless. 

I think what bothers people is his dismissal of preRomantic music as something mechanical,  written by men who were technically proficient but nothing more.  Apparently he thinks Mozart's music is as musically limited as a top 40 song.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

He also seems to think that emotion is lacking from modern music--that Stockhausen and Cage in particular apparently were in charge of a giant purge that rendered all composers after them emotionless,

This is a common charge made by anti-modernists; they take the most extreme examples as representative, and are seemingly unaware of the wide range of contemporary musical styles. Simon's list does show some appreciation for modern composers (Berg, Stravinsky), but that's presumably first half of the century stuff: Berg after all died in 1935.

I think what bothers people is his dismissal of preRomantic music as something mechanical,  written by men who were technically proficient but nothing more.  Apparently he thinks Mozart's music is as musically limited as a top 40 song.

Which raises the question of why Mozart's music has a higher reputation than that of Stamitz, Paisiello, Salieri and however many of his contemporaries one can name. If these composers wrote predictable mathematical music, surely there can't be much difference in quality among them?

[mn dave]

I can't really hate Simon for this. He's basically saying that he doesn't hear real emotion and expression in music until the start of the Romantic Era.

Beethoven was the start of the Romantic Era.

[Karl Henning]

M is for Mozart, minuet & Minnesota

[North Star]

Dial M for Mozart

[Wakefield]

http://uncensoredsimon.blogspot.com/2013/04/roger-ebert-film-criticism.html

What a bunch of jerks!