In Reply to: You put it well, as does he. posted by rbolaw on May 8, 2016 at 12:29:02:
"they drew a sharp distinction between what they and their colleagues were doing and what Copland refers to as music used as a couch, or what might be called the concept of "easy listening", though not limited to the genre the music business later actually labeled easy listening."
If only Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, and their followers had written as much "easy listening" music as Mozart! No, I don't mean the piano concertos, string quintets, and symphonies (although the symphonies numbered 24 and before might qualify!). I'm talking about the boatloads of divertimenti, cassations, and other easy listening from the 18th century! And who is Copland to pooh-pooh easy listening anyway? No, it's the INability of the serialists to write easy-listening works that reveals some of the true limitations and weaknesses of that whole school, i.e., its inability to encompass a wide range of the human experience. (And, no, if you're looking for easy listening in things like Schoenberg's cabaret songs, that's completely invalid - because that music was not written with serial techniques.)
Indeed, there were some passing comments that Copland made in the article that jdaniels linked to which, under anlysis, might be revealed to be nothing more than mere self-serving assertions, without any evidence at all. For instance, take this assertion:
[The composer] expresses these thoughts (musical thoughts, which are not to be confused with literary ones) in the musical language of his own time. The resultant work of art should speak to the men and women of the artist's own time with a directness and immediacy of communicative power that no previous art expression can give.
Well, that certainly avoids the issue, doesn't it! So Schoenberg's serialism is the music of that time? If a work of art "from the artist's own time" speaks with such "directness and immediacy of communicative power that no previous art expression can give", then I guess someone forgot to tell the VAST majority of the concert-going audience stretching from the time that Copland wrote the article (1949) until the present day.
The serialists had their 15 minutes of fame - now, aside from the niche of a niche of enthusiasts, it's time to put these composers and their synthetic, slide-rule notions of music into the dust bin of history.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Hmm. . . your post gets me to thinking (always dangerous!). . . - Chris from Lafayette 23:52:10 05/08/16 (27)
- You've become a Two-Trick Pony- - oldmkvi 08:24:18 05/09/16 (2)
- BTW, you forgot some of my other tricks: Shostakovich, Eurotrash, Isaac Stern, Barenboim. . . [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 08:59:30 05/10/16 (0)
- Hey, man, it's all good! - Chris from Lafayette 09:44:23 05/09/16 (0)
- RE: Hmm. . . your post gets me to thinking (always dangerous!). . . - rbolaw 07:45:54 05/09/16 (23)
- We're talking at cross purposes here - Chris from Lafayette 08:38:57 05/09/16 (22)
- RE: We're talking at cross purposes here - learsfool 19:34:05 05/09/16 (21)
- OK - but I don't agree on either point - Chris from Lafayette 22:31:22 05/09/16 (20)
- RE: OK - but I don't agree on either point - learsfool 19:39:47 05/10/16 (3)
- The problem is not the dissonance - it's the whole approach and limitations of serialism - Chris from Lafayette 23:37:40 05/10/16 (2)
- As noted musicologist John McEnroe would say, - rbolaw 08:06:43 05/11/16 (1)
- I AM serious: it's hard to believe, but that was the plot of the movie! [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 08:16:58 05/11/16 (0)
- WTF? Since when is not writing "easy listening" music a defect? - Rick W 13:58:08 05/10/16 (14)
- OK - Time for me to define my terms again - Chris from Lafayette 00:19:54 05/11/16 (1)
- Aha! Now I understand where you're comin' from. - Rick W 08:33:46 05/11/16 (0)
- Right on. And as good a definition of "easy listening" as any - - rbolaw 15:35:59 05/10/16 (11)
- Yeah - well, that's not what I mean by "easy listening" - See above - Chris from Lafayette 00:33:01 05/11/16 (10)
- Now, that's just nuts. - rbolaw 12:50:56 05/11/16 (9)
- I think you're grasping - Chris from Lafayette 22:22:06 05/11/16 (8)
- I'm not grasping -- you're wringing. ;-) - rbolaw 07:51:52 05/12/16 (7)
- That's a heartfelt response, and I do respect your personal musical journey - Chris from Lafayette 09:46:10 05/12/16 (6)
- RE: That's a heartfelt response, and I do respect your personal musical journey - learsfool 18:12:12 05/12/16 (0)
- "A temporary dip" - rbolaw 10:56:58 05/12/16 (3)
- What got cut out of my attempted edit - Chris from Lafayette 16:52:39 05/12/16 (2)
- Oh man, I am so done with this thread. That's just nasty. nt - rbolaw 18:24:02 05/12/16 (1)
- But I've got more! - Chris from Lafayette 23:16:46 05/12/16 (0)
- Our server chokes again with diacritical marks - click on the date of my post just above {nt] - Chris from Lafayette 10:06:35 05/12/16 (0)
- Nor I with yours - rbolaw 09:11:23 05/10/16 (0)