Elliott Carter, 1908-2012

[Al Moritz]

*Ducks for cover*

*wraps self in asbestos blanket to avoid the flames*

I think you have nothing to worry about. I had already concluded from the lack of angry outcries about my comments on Mozart before you posted that probably most people here agree anyway.

[Al Moritz]

Carter has often spoken of the need to make every note "tell,"

Interesting, Joe. While listening to the masterful Musik für Oboe und Orchester (basically an oboe concerto) by Wolfgang Rihm last night I had exactly that feeling, that the composer makes every note tell. Not only is each note searched for, but each note seems to search its way through musical space as well. Fascinating.

Perhaps I am less smitten by "effortless masterpieces" than by masterpieces where the composer searches for the musical narrative through every note that he writes down in a hard-fought for, or at least thought-out and careful, way. Perhaps this less glorious manner of music-making frequently results in the more interesting music, after all.

I am wondering how this all relates to Bach. Perhaps a part of why I now can appreciate his music so much is that I have discovered that it is much less "prefabricated" than I had suspected for so long. Each cello suite, each sonata for solo violin, each concerto for violin and harpsichord, each organ piece in the Clavierübung III is so newly thought through that it is just a pleasure to go with the composer on that journey. Sure, some music in the cantatas seems rather prefabricated, but the overall level of music-making there is so high that this hardly matters either. And it surprises me how much variety Bach is able to present even under the time pressure of having had to deliver a new cantata frequently.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Bach is so incredible, just untouchable...every note written has value & purpose and it's uncomparably rich. No one comes close. Mozart? Yea...I credit his formal innovations and even like a few things but he's a very overrated composer.

Then I will continue to overrate him.

[(poco) Sforzando]

You do that; with the rest of the sheep. 

Baa! baaa!

[karlhenning]

Did you see James's (budget?) Apex disc of Carter, Joe?

[Joe Barron]

Did you see James's (budget?) Apex disc of Carter, Joe?

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

[not edward]

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

It's a single-disc reissue of Boulez's Erato Carter disc....I have it in a previous issue 5-CD set with Schoenberg, Berio, Grisey, Ferneyhough, et al.

Funnily enough, I *still* don't get Penthode. It and the 4th quartet are about the only Carter works that don't speak to me yet.

[karlhenning]

It seemed to me that it must be a reissue, thanks, Edward.

[Joe Barron]

It's a single-disc reissue of Boulez's Erato Carter disc....I have it in a previous issue 5-CD set with Schoenberg, Berio, Grisey, Ferneyhough, et al.

Funnily enough, I *still* don't get Penthode. It and the 4th quartet are about the only Carter works that don't speak to me yet.

Oh, I've had that disk for years. I agree, it doesn't show off the Penthode to best advantage, which is a shame, because I've heard the work live at least half a dozen times, and each time it's been wonderful. Something about the piece cries out for space. The fourth quartet seems to be the poor stepsister of the bunch. Compared to the rest of the family, it doesn't seem to have the feel of a breakthrough,. but taken by itself, it's perfectly fine. To me, anyway.

[Mark G. Simon]

It always puzzles me why otherwise intelligent musicians can't hear the incredible depth of expression in all of Mozart's mature works (that would be everything from around K.400 on, and a goodly number of scores from the K. 300's). Seems to me a kind of selective deafness. Perhaps a reaction against the post-Amadeus fetishization of Mozart, as if he were somehow behind the "Mozart effect" nonsense. All I can say is, you guys are missing out on something incredible.

I think the so-called "prefabricated" elements of music are just as important as the original "hard-fought" ones in that they provide a context into which the original contents may acquire meaning. To make a linguistic analogy, they provide the punctuation and stock phrases which everyone needs to clearly express what they need to express.

In Carter's case, his technique of layering pulses in multiple simultaneous tempi, as well as the harmonic formulas presented in his "Harmony Book" have provided him with ample prefabricated material to work with, and that's how he is able to churn out score after score with increasing rapidity. Carter is not starting from scratch with each composition, nor are his ideas "hard-fought".

In my recent survey of my Carter LPs, it seemed to me that by the 1970s he had his prefabricated elements throroughly established, and I hear them more strongly than whatever distinctive ideas he may bring to each score. I know a lot of you guys are quite fond of his later music, but I simply don't have enough room in my head for them (other than the works involving clarinet, which I take an interest in simply because they involve my instrument). The works which have a deep meaning for me are the ones written during the 60s and 70s, the ones that I got to know first. But I find his  poly-tempo technique interesting, and am always hoping that a study of it will help me find a way into these later scores.

[not edward]

I think quite a lot of us would agree with the view that the best of Carter was his work in the '50s and '60s and that his more recent work hasn't reached the same heights. I know that if I were to name my favourite Carter, the works that would immediately come to mind would be the first two quartets and the three concerti from the 1960s. While I'd probably add Symphonia the Boston Concerto and perhaps Tempo e tempi to that list, I know they wouldn't be quite at the heights of the five works I mentioned initially.

What I do find appealing about the more recent works is the sense of ease and grace about them: something which I am sure is entirely related to him having had the elements of his music at his fingertips for 20 years or more, and which allows him to toss off new works with surprising facility in comparison to those hard-won earlier creations.

[Joe Barron]

Edward, I think I'd add the 1970s Mr. Carter's peak period. To my mind, Syinga, the Brass Quintet, the Third String Quartet and A Symphony of Three Orchestras rank with the earlier pieces you mention. While I agree the late works may not consistently reach those heights, some do, I think, such as the great Piano Quintet and the Cello Concerto, in addition to the Boston Concerto. Many of us who heard Kate Lindsey's  compelling performance of "In the Distances of Sleep" at Tanglewood might be tempted to include that beautiful work. As I've said before, though, Mr. Carter has nothing left to prove. The wonder of the late music is that he can afford to relax.

Mark, I liked your last post a great deal, but I think we may be thinking of two different things when we talk about "prefabricated" music. I meant found objects such as scales, broken chords and cadences, things Mozart inherited as part of his musical training. I don't think I (or Charles Rosen, from whom I ripped off the observation) would include the sort of metric modulations and polyrhythms Mr. Carter invented, or even Schoenberg's tone rows. These things still require a selection of notes in a way that Mozart's prefab material does not. Once the the key is selected, the scales and chords are right there. None of this, of course, is intended to detract from Mozart's achievement. I think Rosen meant only to point out a trend in the evolution of composition. He was not making comparisons to the detriment of one composer or the other.

[Joe Barron]

Speaking of late works, here is the latest addition to the Carter canon on the Boosey Web site. And nine minutes, it sound like a substantial work (longer than Varese's Ionization).


Tintinnabulation (2008) 9'
for percussion sextet

Scoring
perc(6) I: 2congas/4bongos/lg.log drum/flat gong/Chinese opera gong/wood drum; II: guiro/maracas/2cyms/tgl/slap stick/alto nipple gong/3tom-t/alto SD/picc.wdbl; III: bass nipple gong/splash cym/high SD/claves/ratchet/darbouka/timbale/tom-t; IV: sop.nipple gong/talking drum/shaker/med.SD/lg.tam-t/sm.tam-t/Japanese wdbl/sm.log dr; V: 5tpl.bl/2wdbl/tenor nipple gong/low SD/3pipes; VI: 4almglocken/2wdbl/BD/hammer/tom-t/bari.nipple gong

Right now, I'm hot for a nipple gong ...

[Al Moritz]

It always puzzles me why otherwise intelligent musicians can't hear the incredible depth of expression in all of Mozart's mature works (that would be everything from around K.400 on, and a goodly number of scores from the K. 300's). Seems to me a kind of selective deafness. Perhaps a reaction against the post-Amadeus fetishization of Mozart, as if he were somehow behind the "Mozart effect" nonsense. All I can say is, you guys are missing out on something incredible.

Well, I am not a musician, but I don't have a reaction against fetishization of Mozart. I listen to the music on its own merit. And my ears tell me that there is indeed some incredible music that Mozart wrote, such as  the late piano concerti, among others. Yes, I am skeptical, but I have open ears too. Recently, for example, I was totally blown away by the Don Giovanni overture, and sometimes early works also strike me as fantastic. Among these were a symphony in the #20s where I said, "holy sh.t", this is really great! (while another one, # 28, once left me utterly bored), and I had a similar reaction to an early piano sonata as well (while again another one left me bored to tears). But then, a lot of also the later music doesn't really strike me as thaaat good.

As I said, perhaps I am wrong and I am missing something substantial, but I just don't see it at this point. Right or wrong, there is a remarkable number of people I know who share my opinion: yes, Mozart made some great music, but... Either we are all right, or there is something utterly prohibitive in Mozart's music that just makes it hard for many to hear a consistent greatness, if there is one.

With Bach I also  had difficulties until 2 years ago, yet it was never that I found his music not to be great. I just didn't get it and I knew that I didn't (now I do). With Mozart, on the other hand, I rarely have the feeling that I don't get it, but I think often it just isn't as great as it's made out to be.

Joe,  you may sound your off-topic alarm.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

As I said, perhaps I am wrong and I am missing something substantial, but I just don't see it at this point. Right or wrong, there is a remarkable number of people I know who share my opinion: yes, Mozart made some great music, but... Either we are all right, or there is something utterly prohibitive in Mozart's music that just makes it hard for many to hear a consistent greatness, if there is one.

Very short OT endorsement of Al Moritz' sentiment. Mozart can move move me to tears or exhilarate me when all the familiar elements are fused together in an utterly compelling way. But he can also be tritely formulaic. Too much learning may be a bad thing. But so is too much facility.

End of OT posting.  0:)

[Mark G. Simon]

There's obviously something in the modernist aesthetic and Mozart's aesthetic that are antithetical.

That's why I have so little respect for modernist aesthetics, and why I find Stockhausen such a pretentious bore.

[Al Moritz]

Mark,

I know, attack of modernist aesthetics is a pet project of yours, but I think you frame the issue in too simplistic terms.

I don't think this has much to do with modernist aesthetics at all. Why do I find Monteverdi and Bach more interesting than the average (not the best) Mozart, why do I find Mozart's contemporary Haydn on average more interesting than Mozart (even though I have stopped pretending to myself that he ever, or more than very rarely, reaches Mozart's heights when that composer is at his most sublime), and why do I find Beethoven more interesting than the average Mozart?

Al

[Joe Barron]

There's obviously something in the modernist aesthetic and Mozart's aesthetic that are antithetical.

Not necessarily, Mark. Carter has often stated that Mozart is his favorite composer, and that the three Da Ponte operas would be his desert island disks. He also once startled a critic by saying he wanted his music to "be like Mozart's." According to David Schiff, what Carter finds compelling in Mozart is his emotional ambiguity --- "happy when sad, major when minor." It was this same quality, that troubled listeners as astute as Beethoven and Wagner. Their troubled response also proved how much better they heard the music, as opposed to those who find it "merely beautiful," at least according to Schiff.

Modern composers can find the difference in aesthetic a stumbling block, rather than a point of pride. Back when he was writing only three pieces a decade, Carter (to get back to the topic) said he felt he needed to rewrite the musical language every time he picked up a pen, which something Haydn never needed to do. Brahms expressed the same frustration --- that in Mozart's day it was easy to write music. He envied the ability to write with prefabricated material.

The problem with that reasoning, as I see it, is that if it was so easy to write music in the 1780s, why did only two composers --- Haydn and Mozart --- leave us anything we still find worth listening to? A lot of composers were active in the 18th century. No others were active at such a high level.

I find it odd when critics and listeners use Mozart a s club with which to beat Carter's aesthetic. Why, oh, why, can he not write music as beautiful as Mozart did? The irony is that Carter understands Mozart's music more deeply than they, or I,  ever will.

[Catison]

There is an article about the french horn on NYTimes that features an excerpt of Carter's Horn Concerto.

You can find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/arts/music/13horn.html?em

[DavidRoss]

a lot of terrific new stuff is being left by the wayside by the "establishment" who continues to cash in on safe & popular Mozart, who wrote some fine stuff but who is way too overhyped to a suffocating effect that it's simply beyond parody & ultimately it stagnates the artform and turns it into a dusty museum.

This defies credulity.