From: Chad Wozniak, USA
In concluding this discussion, I would like to focus
on those points upon which, it appears to me at least,
that Mr Hinton and I are in agreement. But first, a
conclusion on the issue of Schoenberg.
Albeit Schoenberg may enjoy better repute among music
professionals and composers, such as Mr Hinton, than
he does among the public at large, the facts remain
(1) that the general listening public rejects his
serial material for very specific reasons that, by and
large, do not obtain for other dissonant styles and
even other frankly atonal styles, and (2) regardless
of whether or not one might apply the
Marx-was-not-a-Marxist analogy to Schoenberg, he
nonetheless did formulate and propagate the ideology
of serialism that has later been put to such
destructive use by some of his followers.
A further point is that I have observed the same
people to whom I referred in my previous post, as
rejecting serialism categorically, being much more
sympathetically disposed towards even Schoenberg's
pre-serial atonal works, such as Pierrot Lunaire and
the Five Orchestral Pieces Op 16. They (and I)
regard these latter works as mediocre at best, in
comparison with other 20th-century composers' work,
particularly Ives and Bartók, but they (and I) do
accept them as viable, if not particularly appealing,
music.
With respect to the analogy which it is suggested that
I draw between Schoenberg and Hitler -- the extent of
what I intended here was to show that even advanced
minds are quite capable of falling for untenable
ideas: the Germans for Nazism, composers who should
likewise have known better for serialism.
However, the thought of a connection is not actually
as far-fetched as might be supposed. Schoenberg is
known to have been a rabid German nationalist right up
to the time the Nazis began targeting him. No matter
Wagner's outspoken anti-Semitism, Schoenberg worshiped
Wagner to the point of idolatry, and of course there
is the matter of that other main disciple of his,
Webern, so enthusiastically, if contrarianly,
embracing the Nazis' racial theories.
To finish this point, I do link Schoenberg with Cage
because Cage is the other principal exponent of an
acoustical ideology that has served effectively to
alienate the natural audience for new serious music.
What the two have in common, ultimately, are their
disregard for audiences as expressed in the material
they produced -- and the fact that the most developed
examples of their techniques (if they can be called
such) sound so disconcertingly alike. As Mr Hinton
suggests, Schoenberg was certainly a larger figure
than Cage -- but this is precisely why I put Schoenberg
ahead of Cage in my list of the villains of
20th-century music.
Now, back to my first point: the points of agreement,
if I understand Mr Hinton correctly, and myself. I,
too, am a composer primarily of tonal music, but not
exclusively so. I am an eclectic, not a neo-Romantic,
and my oeuvre ranges from items almost neo-Baroque in
style to definitely 20th-century -- it includes some
atonal music and some very astringent material -- and a
fair amount of music that is at once both astringent
and quite definitely in well-defined keys. By way of
explanation, it is my ability to appreciate and to
compose effective atonal music, perhaps, that brings
me to hold serialism and its various exponents in such
low regard. This, and the repeated demonstrations I
have personally witnessed of so many non-specialists'
abilities to appreciate non-serial, non-aleatory and
non-minimalist recent musics, are the basis for my
condemnation of the three failed modernisms.
Finally, I join (I think) Mr Hinton in hoping for a
real renaissance of tonal styles, and I believe
fervently that this need not mean a derivative rehash
of the 19th or earlier centuries. Both tonality and
dissonant styles offer so very much room for fresh and
appealing new material, now that (I hope) we are being
liberated, finally, from the modernist tyranny. And
yes, I enjoyed Mr Hinton's parting quip.
Sincerely,
Chad Wozniak
|
