The Wikipedia article provides more information, critical comments and a list of works. All this got me interested enough to acquire the CD of the Previn recording of Shapero's magnum opus the Symphony for Classical Orchestra. I am surprised to find myself disagreeing with this long list of famous musicians, but this is not very good music! Which does explain how a composer like Shapero, who really had every advantage you could possibly imagine, still managed to sink into complete obscurity. He studied with everyone you can think of: Nicholas Slonimsky, Ernest Krenek, Walter Piston (he entered Harvard at age 18 to study with him), Paul Hindemith and Nadia Boulanger. He became friends with Leonard Bernstein and associated with Igor Stravinsky. He was awarded all sorts of fellowships (Naumberg, Paine) and prizes (the Prix de Rome and George Gershwin Memorial Contest). Indeed, it is hard to think of any way in which he was disadvantaged. Despite all this and the admiration of composers like Aaron Copland and Leonard Bernstein, he never became celebrated by the musical public. The reason is simple: he is not a very good composer.The American composer Harold Shapero, who died two years ago at the age of 93, is a prime example of the perpetually rediscovered artist. He was extravagantly admired by his contemporaries, foremost among them Aaron Copland, who praised his “phenomenal ear” and “wonderfully spontaneous musical gift.” Bernstein gave the premiere of his Symphony for Classical Orchestra in 1948, then recorded it to thrilling effect five years later. Alas, the winds of favor blew elsewhere, and soon Shapero was devoting most of his energies to teaching instead of writing music of his own.In 1986, AndrĂ© Previn and the Los Angeles Philharmonic made a second recording of the Symphony for Classical Orchestra. That put Shapero back in the news—but only for a brief time. Thirteen years later, Anthony Tommasini, the chief classical music critic of the New York Times, published a profile of Shapero in which he wrote about the symphony with the utmost enthusiasm. “How can a major work, introduced so auspiciously, get lost for more than three decades, then come back and get lost again?” he asked. But that didn’t work, either, and Shapero retreated once more into an obscurity so profound that I didn’t learn of his death in 2013 until weeks after the fact.
It is very interesting to listen to his music, though. Not because it is good, as it is not, but because of the ways in which it is not good. What I hear is a rather characterless music that bangs about in a robust way, but also in a dreary and undistinguished way. There are very, very few striking or memorable moments. There is an ongoing harmonic dullness. For an example, listen to the end of the last movement of the symphony where Shapero can find no other means to end the piece except by bashing away at the tonic in dreary quarter notes until we get very tired! You may think of this as being modeled after Beethoven if you like, but it is like Beethoven with 100% of the magic removed. There are hints of Stravinsky, especially in the Scherzo that occasionally sounds a bit like the Octet. But a very uninspired echo of the Octet. Rhythmically there is just nothing interesting going on. Most of most of the movements tend to sound alike. The slow movement is not very slow and, except for the beginning and end, sounds very much like the first and last movements.
It always seems as if something interesting is about to happen--but it never does. To me there is no mystery in why Shapero remained an obscurity despite periodic efforts by influential people to promote his music. He was a composer that just lacked charm and originality. Probably most aspiring composers in most places at most times are just this dull and uninspired. Great musical genius is extremely rare. The mystery to me is, why did so many better musicians have so many nice things to say about Shapero? Why did Aaron Copland praise his “phenomenal ear” and “wonderfully spontaneous musical gift”?
I would like to put up a clip of the Symphony for Classical Orchestra so you can judge for yourself, but, alas, it is not available on YouTube. Instead, have a listen to his Piano Sonata No. 3 written a couple of years before the symphony:
To me that sounds like an awkward blend of Haydn and Stravinsky. But it is also a lot more charming than the symphony. If you can find a copy of that and listen to it, I would welcome some comments!
For the sake of comparison, let's listen to another symphony, also in neo-classical style, written around roughly the same time. Here is the Symphony No. 9 of Dmitri Shostakovich, composed in 1945, conducted by Bernstein:
As an example of a very distinctive moment, I direct your attention to the hilarious dialogue between the trombone and piccolo around the one minute mark.
12 comments:
All I can offer in reply to these comments, is my sympathy. To be unable to revel in the pure beauty and poetry of this music is sad.
I'll choose the opinion of Copland, Bernstein, Fine, Previn, and my own ears, over yours anytime.
Best wishes, Brian Ferrell
Having a difference of opinion about musical aesthetics is, on the whole, a good thing, which is why I am unashamed to differ. But I asked for comments and thanks for yours. Would you care to specify a bit about what you mean by the "pure beauty and poetry" of Shapero's music. Maybe I just missed it!
Oh, and for future reference, condescending arguments from authority have very little traction here at the Music Salon.
Hello Bryan - I find your comments about Shapero's music rather startling. Are you familiar with the American neoclassical school of composers? Shapero epitomized that school, along with Walter Piston, Irving Fine, Arthur Berger, and others. They were all strongly influenced by the rhythmic drive and formal elegance of Stravinsky's neoclassical style, and sought to combine this with a distinctly American sound derived in part from Copland. The Symphony, while not perfect, does an excellent job of updating Beethoven's style for the 20th century just as Prokofiev did for Haydn's style in the Classical Symphony. I'm amazed that you can say that "rhythmically there is just nothing interesting going on." There are syncopations and rhythmic displacements happening on every page of the Symphony. And you say that "most of the movements tend to sound alike"? The slow movement is exquisite, in my opinion, and its poise contrasts well with the rhythmic energy of the fast movements. The reason Shapero sank into obscurity was that his neoclassical style came a bit too late (late 1940s), just as avant garde and serialism were about to come on the scene and sweep more traditionalist styles away.
Hi Michael,
You make a very good argument for Mr. Shapero and as soon as I get a chance I will have another listen. I just call things as I see them and I don't always see them in a conventional way. For example, I am also NOT a fan of Mahler, which puts me in a minority. But I like challenges and so I will have another listen and get back. And yes, I am a bit familiar with the history of music in the 20th century. Interesting theory as to why Shapero did not achieve a lot of popularity.
Later...
Well, disagreement is all part of the game. But it´s different to say "he´s not a good composer" than "I don´t like his music" (which is essentially what I got from the article). Those others who did appreciate Shapero disagree with the article, but that´s all besides the point. The important thing is for each to experience for himself.
I recently discovered his music and love it: it´s playful, melodic, jumpy, well-crafted, sometimes a modernly quirky revisiting of classical composers like Haydn and others. Along with Irving Fine, Nicolas Flagello, Paul Creston and Walter Piston, he belongs to an extremely creative moment of modern American classical music. B
Is he a major composer up there with Barber, Copland and Piston? Can´t answer that, but whether or not he´s major, minor, remembered or forgotten is irrelevant if he grabs my ear.
Nevertheless, an informative article.
If you are a thorough-going relativist then you believe that all good or bad statements about art are simply variations on "I like it" or "I don't like it". I am not a relativist, however, so what you might want to do is look at my reasons and challenge whether they are appropriate or not.
"what you might want to do is look at my reasons and challenge whether they are appropriate or not."
I'll have a go. You say that "Shapero can find no other means to end the piece except by bashing away at the tonic in dreary quarter notes until we get very tired!" But you fail to notice that the tonic notes you refer to are syncopated and that Shapero changes the chord spacing and timbral arrangement of the chords (changing from B flat triads to fifths and ending finally on a unison B flat), much as Stravinsky might do. So as you say, Shapero is writing a rather Beethovenian ending, but in an updated "jazzified" way.
Hi Michael and welcome to the Music Salon. Thanks for contributing! OK, now I have to go and listen to Mr. Shapero again to see if I was off-base in my critique. Actually, I think that the only place Stravinsky might do as you aver would be in one of his less-inspired neo-classical pieces. But I will have another go at Shapero...
Sorry, MIchael, I see you commented previously.
No problem. To add a final note, I maintain that the reason Shapero fell into obscurity was not that his music wasn't good but rather that he was a victim of musical fashion. He came to maturity just as the musical winds were changing in the direction of serialism, and while a number of Shapero's colleagues were amenable to these new trends Shapero was apparently not.
That seems a plausible theory. There were quite a few 20th century composers that were shoved to the side due to the autocratic pronouncements of the ideologues. So, as I said, I will dig out my Shapero CD and have another listen this weekend.
Post a Comment