The Great American Symphony

[Cato]

The "good man," as you call him probably knows quite well that the camera is a mechanical device designed by conscious individuals, and the images it produces are objects that are comprehensible to humans. How else would it be?

What the camera and its image shows is that humans can devise recording devices that can capture things in recognizable ways. A microphone is not as sophisticated as an ear nor is a camera as sophisticated as an eye, but do a fair job. The brains attached to the ears and the eyes are going to interpret the frequencies and the pixels, anyway. Not only that, but with photography the brains, or perhaps it's the minds, have also to interpret two dimensional images of three dimensional objects.

Cameras and microphones can also alter things past all recognition. And what that says about the things, I think, is that "it depends."

All true: and these machines will not summon up things to record from the quantum foam!  0:)

Having revisited Schoenberg's letter to Roy Harris (above) I decided to check for recordings of the names which have been stored away in the attic, so to speak.

e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/v/tA4GxXfECrg

...and...

https://www.youtube.com/v/cLLiikYaV1g

Perhaps Schoenberg heard those works in the 1940's?

Not much for Gerald Strang:

https://www.youtube.com/v/B0y94BKdNNY

However...The Krell    may have been involved in this:

https://www.youtube.com/v/PvMeDG2zLvI

[kishnevi]

That was an interesting article, especially for the struggle expressed therein, not explicitly articulated until the last paragraph.

The thing he posits there, that his "experiences of everyday life—[his] real feeling of a headache, [his] real taste of chocolate—that really is the ultimate nature of reality," is first principle kinda stuff for any student of language or literature. I was thinking as I read it, that his struggle was probably a result of his perspective, his training as a scientist. And that is what he says in the last paragraph. A poet, for example, would never have this particular struggle. In poetry, in the arts generally, probably, the idea is that "reality" is what happens when objects and observers get together. Reality only happens then. Neither observers nor objects really ( ) exist on their own. Real reality is what happens when they meet.

Of course, there's something there in each, separately, in order for the meeting to even be possible, but that something, in either case, is quite remarkably different from what results are when the two meet. That's what Hoffmann suggests in his interview, too. A poet would probably start with the results, the pre-existing somethings being, by definition, out of reach, a matter of speculation only.

But that's as may be. More immediately interesting to me is how easy it is for a post like mine explaining how a category can be empty to be followed immediately by a heated discussion in which all the disputants take as given that the category is real, is full:

"marks of greatness"
"on the level of"
"equal to"
"lesser"
"rank" (this one came after an acknowledgement of difference--and only similar things can reasonably be ranked)
"truly great"

So yeah. Just ignore that stuff about the empty category, eh?

And I also expect some high-powered ignoring of (poco) Sforzando's last--and very sensible and intelligent--post. Too early to tell on his, I suppose. Karl's last is a nice adjunct to that. While focussed on the shenanigan's of a particular poster, it does imply the same intellectual premises as inform (poco)'s post.

It was rather Buddhist to me

O Sariputra, Form does not differ from Emptiness
And Emptiness does not differ from Form.
Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form.
The same is true for Feelings,
Perceptions, Volitions and Consciousness.

(the Heart Sutra)

But I agree with most of what you said in your previous post. 

Or at least, the category is so subjective in nature as to be useless.  I am not keen on Stockhausen, so I made a subjectively based jab at him.  And subject to other mental vagaries.  For instance, when I suggested that American symphonic writing is better than European,  I somehow forgot that Henze and Schnittke fit into that time period.  And they invalidate my point (although I don't care for Henze myself, and I have yet to grapple successfully with Schnittke).

But subjective as it may be, I think some  American works are undervalued.  F.i.  I seem to think more highly of Corigliano's symphonies than others do.

And the whole discussion lies under the burden that has already been pointed out:  that the 20th century substantially lowered the importance of the genre.   Boulez and Ligeti---and Stockhausen too--wrote for orchestra, but nothing that can be easily fit into the genre.  And those are just obvious examples.

[Sergeant Rock]

However...The Krell    may have been involved in this:

https://www.youtube.com/v/PvMeDG2zLvI

Try dancing to that...it ain't easy! 

Sarge

[Cato]

However...The Krell    may have been involved in this:


https://www.youtube.com/v/PvMeDG2zLvI

Try dancing to that...it ain't easy! 

Sarge

Even The Krell  would have found it problematic, I think! 

What would Arnold have thought of it?! 

[Heck148]

Another American work worth mentioning is Corigilano Sym #1, [the AIDs Sym, c.1990]...definitely powerful stuff....programmatic for sure, but it is skilfully written, with some very effective devices - the improvised cello tune from his deceased amateur cellist friend forms the basis of a movement, a powerful climax, for sure...
Corigliano also uses some previous material of his own - the demented "Tarantella" theme appears much earlier in his "Gazebo Dances" [1972]....also, some parts of the symphony remind me of the "3 Hallucinations from Altered States" [1982]....some pretty wild stuff!!

[Karl Henning]

And the whole discussion lies under the burden that has already been pointed out:  that the 20th century substantially lowered the importance of the genre.   Boulez and Ligeti---and Stockhausen too--wrote for orchestra, but nothing that can be easily fit into the genre.  And those are just obvious examples.

In the US at present, it is the annex to The Star System which rules conductors and soloists:  unless you already have a name (Harbison, Adams, Wuorinen) you will not have the opportunity to have a symphony performed by a high-profile professional orchestra.  The orchestras (as has been discussed elsewhere) are playing it increasingly safe, and when there is new music programming, the orchestral world in the US has reverted, and there is heavy preference to Euro composers (and conductors), who enjoy more of a favorable environment which cultivates new talent.

[relm1]

In the US at present, it is the annex to The Star System which rules conductors and soloists:  unless you already have a name (Harbison, Adams, Wuorinen) you will not have the opportunity to have a symphony performed by a high-profile professional orchestra.  The orchestras (as has been discussed elsewhere) are playing it increasingly safe, and when there is new music programming, the orchestral world in the US has reverted, and there is heavy preference to Euro composers (and conductors), who enjoy more of a favorable environment which cultivates new talent.

I think the reason for this is arts leadership need cash inflow so are risk averse and this applies to popular European composers being played in the US as well.   Vaughan Williams and William Walton don't get programmed in the US either. If you aren't Shostakovich or Prokofiev, It's a long shot getting a big piece programmed. 

[Karl Henning]

Depends.  I've heard the BSO play both the Tallis Fantasia and the RVW Sixth in recent-ish seasons.  And of course, with all the choral activity (even allowing for attrition over time), RVW is absolutely a known quantity in the States, not a risk in the least.

Walton, well . . . unlike RVW with the choral/church music, Walton hasn't really had the "in" over here.  We arranged a performance of Façade while I was at UVa, but chalk that up to a collective of graduate students with an interest in 20^th-c. music.  I am certain we played a band transcription of his Crown Imperial March when I was in high school.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Walton, well . . . unlike RVW with the choral/church music, Walton hasn't really had the "in" over here. 

Again...depends. The CSO did Walton's 1st a couple years ago, under Bychkov. Also one of the concertos, I forget which.

Contrary to what is often claimed, the major British composers get a fair amount of live play over here. I attended an Elgar/VW program(me) just last month. However, I doubt I'll have the chance to hear a Simpson or Rubbra symphony anytime soon.

[relm1]

Part of my point is specifically to the big works.  2nd and 3rd rate American composers do just fine overall with a small piece.  But the big pieces (the great American Symphony) is a very rare event for any non sure deal composer.  The American League Survey listed the top 10 most often performed composers and they were all 18th or 19th century except for Shostakovitch and Prokofiev.  So its a challenge to be programmed no matter what country you're in unless you are the star.  Russian composers have to compete with Shostakovitch and Prokofiev too.   Again, a 5 to 10 minute piece, its a different issue. 

[Karl Henning]

Again...depends. The CSO did Walton's 1st a couple years ago, under Bychkov. Also one of the concertos, I forget which.

Good!

[Cato]

Another American work worth mentioning is Corigilano Sym #1, [the AIDs Sym, c.1990]...definitely powerful stuff....programmatic for sure, but it is skilfully written, with some very effective devices - the improvised cello tune from his deceased amateur cellist friend forms the basis of a movement, a powerful climax, for sure...
Corigliano also uses some previous material of his own - the demented "Tarantella" theme appears much earlier in his "Gazebo Dances" [1972]....also, some parts of the symphony remind me of the "3 Hallucinations from Altered States" [1982]....some pretty wild stuff!!

I do not want to throw everyone off topic, but consider a Corigliano Symphony #1 WITHOUT any crisis-du-jour strings attached.  Would it be programmed as much as it is?

I once offered this theme in a short story: a work using only the note "A" - which the orchestra bandies around in various octaves - is attached to the Holocaust of WW II, and of course is a sensation full of controversy.

But would anyone have ever programmed it without a Holocaust connection?   

[kishnevi]

I do not want to throw everyone off topic, but consider a Corigliano Symphony #1 WITHOUT any crisis-du-jour strings attached.  Would it be programmed as much as it is?

I once offered this theme in a short story: a work using only the note "A" - which the orchestra bandies around in various octaves - is attached to the Holocaust of WW II, and of course is a sensation full of controversy.

But would anyone have ever programmed it without a Holocaust connection?   

The crisis du jour may have helped its popularity, and Corigliano is one of the few living American composers whose name would be recognized by concertgoers (the Star System, as Karl terms it)...but this symphony I  think is a high quality work that will endure.

[Cato]

The crisis du jour may have helped its popularity, and Corigliano is one of the few living American composers whose name would be recognized by concertgoers (the Star System, as Karl terms it)...but this symphony I  think is a high quality work that will endure.

Many thanks for the comments!

Any votes out there for David Diamond?

I came across a website   http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/what-about-those-great-american-symphonies/  with a discussion similar to ours, but with a different twist, and read the name Primous Fountain who, according to the agitprop, has taken the torches of Stravinsky and Shostakovich and run with them to new territory.

https://www.youtube.com/v/n4_mtLo_63M

[Heck148]

....and when there is new music programming, the orchestral world in the US has reverted, and there is heavy preference to Euro composers (and conductors), who enjoy more of a favorable environment which cultivates new talent.

good point..

[Heck148]

Again...depends. The CSO did Walton's 1st a couple years ago, under Bychkov.

..would have loved to hear that one!!

[Heck148]

I do not want to throw everyone off topic, but consider a Corigliano Symphony #1 WITHOUT any crisis-du-jour strings attached.  Would it be programmed as much as it is?

I don't know...would people enjoy Beethoven Sym #6 as much without the attached program?? 
To me, they are both fine works just on their own...the program provides me an insight into the composer's mind as he wrote the work...

I once offered this theme in a short story: a work using only the note "A" - which the orchestra bandies around in various octaves - is attached to the Holocaust of WW II, and of course is a sensation full of controversy.
But would anyone have ever programmed it without a Holocaust connection?

in Elliot Carter's "8 Etudes and a Fantasy" [WW 4tet] there is one mvt of just the note "G" - above middle C - each instrument sounds just that pitch....it's quite fascinating...tho I don't know how well it stands repeated listening!! 

[Mirror Image]

Any votes out there for David Diamond?

I chose Diamond's 3rd and 4th as two of my favorite American symphonies, so yes, I voted already.

[Heck148]

Any votes out there for David Diamond?

yes, indeed, Diamond is very good...I've been exploring his symphonies of late - I knew 2,4 and 5 from various sources...now I'm into 1, 3 and 8...
the Schwarz/Seattle collection is valuable - decent performances, generally well-recorded...but Lenny/NYPO blows them away totally in #4, the only recording I have with which to compare.
I have a broadcast performance of CSO conducted by Michael Morgan [assist. cond, 1990] of Diamond Sym #5 which is really dynamite - fine work, brilliantly played.

[Mirror Image]

yes, indeed, Diamond is very good...I've been exploring his symphonies of late - I knew 2,4 and 5 from various sources...now I'm into 1, 3 and 8...
the Schwarz/Seattle collection is valuable - decent performances, generally well-recorded...but Lenny/NYPO blows them away totally in #4, the only recording I have with which to compare.
I have a broadcast performance of CSO conducted by Michael Morgan [assist. cond, 1990] of Diamond Sym #5 which is really dynamite - fine work, brilliantly played.

I honestly didn't care much for Bernstein's performance of Diamond's 4th and neither did the composer apparently:

"Leonard Bernstein recorded and played often the Fourth Symphony, and I was never really happy with his way.  We would talk about why I didn't like it, and he said, "Well, I'll try to do it as close as you want it."  This is way back in 1948, and he said, "I'll do my best, but I have a feeling I want to slow it up a little bit here," and I said, "Well, please don't.  You didn't write it.  Do what I say."  He said, "But I don't feel it that way."  Already then he had very strong convictions about what he felt in terms of interpretation.  So now I'm finally hearing the recording of Schwarz's, which is the way I want it, not the way Bernstein wanted it."

From this interview: http://www.bruceduffie.com/diamond.html