I saw “A New Hope” with both the NSO and the BSO in September and found that the experience confirmed something I had started to suspect: As a classical music critic, I was clueless. That is: While I liked John Williams’s music just fine when I first saw the film at age 12, by the time I had attained legal adulthood, laden with a cargo of acquired snobbery about the superiority of Western civilization, I had learned, and bravely parroted, that “film music” was somehow beneath me. And for the next three decades, through all the sequels I didn’t see and the quartet Williams composed for the inauguration of Barack Obama in 2009, which I did, I continued to use “film music” as a pejorative term that, if looked at closely, probably meant to me something akin to “something which one enjoys, but shouldn’t.”I detect something of a forced confession here. This is a standard trope these days as all classical critics are supposed to humble themselves and, of course demean the classical traditions of Western civilization. I think you have to sign a disloyalty oath or something. Let's let Anne continue:
This isn’t a reflection on Williams, who is one of the most successful and popular composers of all time. It’s a reflection on me, and a reflection on the notion of the canon that so many classical music lovers unquestioningly embrace. Buying into this hierarchy seemed for years to be an entry-level requirement for the kind of life in the arts I hoped to live: initially as a Serious Writer With Intellectual Pretensions; later as a classical music critic. Film music, and populism, were easy targets. It has taken me half a lifetime to fully realize what most people knew at the first hearing: Good means good, effective means effective. Given that I’ve always made a point of embracing the best of popular fiction — Rex Stout and StephenKing and John le CarrĂ© — why was I so closed to the best of popular music, including a score that always had me, and everyone else, humming along?
It’s not that I had a conversion experience only this September. I first started to realize the merits of the Williams score when the BSO programmed Williams alongside Philip Glass, and I realized that Williams held up just fine.More straw-man stuff. The phrase "notion of the canon" is already assuming the conclusion as does the subsequent phrase "that so many classical music lovers unquestioningly embrace." I can assure you that, as a matter of course, I question the quality of all the music I listen to! "Buying into this hierarchy" is another phrase making a foregone conclusion. Wouldn't it be nice if someone actually argued their point instead of just assuming it?
I had to chuckle at the Philip Glass comparison. Oh yes, Williams does hold up just fine alongside Glass. They are both very effective and rather thin musically. The truth is, if we wanted to actually pretend to be music critics for a moment, that John Williams is an enthusiastic looter of every striking orchestral effect used in the last hundred years from Rimsky-Korsakov to Gustav Holst, from Berlioz to Mahler, if there is a good trick, he has likely used it. Oh, I forgot Tchaikovsky. Sure this is good music but while effective it is also deeply, dare I say, derivative, which is why we enjoy it as a soundtrack but likely don't want to put it in the same category as some really great orchestral music by, you know, Rimsky-Korsakov, Gustav Holst, Berlioz, Mahler and Tchaikovsky who actually came up with these ideas and devices in the first place. See what I mean?
We need envois by Williams and some of his mentors. Here is a suite from Star Wars:
Here is a little Holst:
And a little Rimsky-Korsakov:
8 comments:
I had many thoughts while I read the excerpts from Anne Midgette's writings, and a few lines later you summarized them better than I could: my love of the western canon (something very real and for very real aesthetic reasons) has nothing to do with assertions of "superiority" but rather genuine admiration for the best of our cultural inheritance, which is indeed rich, beautiful and deep. And I don't much include Philip Glass in the highest ranks of western artists, though he undoubtedly employs great skill. Musically he has NEVER carried me away as Mahler and Bach and Dvorak and some others have, though recently I was surprised to at least "like a little" a piano concerto of his. No doubt any comprehensible composer must have some sense of "order" but Glass always strikes me as a slave to his own devices, a spirit suffocated.
Bryan I don't pay critics any attention, I'm too busy as an adult learner trying to learn to make music myself, and I've always been an independent thinker who forms my own opinions anyway. But since you are a professional musician decades ahead and embedded in the field, you seem to have the time energy and interest to engage their pathetic immediate political reflections laced with shame for their own civilization. I'd thank you for your struggle if I thought it mattered, but my thinking is the great art will stand the test of time and the momentary political critics will soon be forgotten anyway.
Thanks, as always, Will. I just enjoy the critical challenge of debate and of aesthetic evaluation. Plus it is a good way to put off working on my new piece!
What I find baffling about AM's approach is the confession of snobbery narrative ... which seems to mainly be found among those who have aspired to attain some kind of respectability in terms of class or caste. Another way to put it is to point out that when I studied composition my composition teacher told me it was perfectly fine to admire the music of John Williams as he's one of the better contemporary soundtrack composers. It's also fine to admire Bernard Hermann, too. That doesn't preclude admiring J. S. Bach or haydn or Stravinsky or Tallis or Byrd or Ellington or Stevie Wonder. It also doesn't preclude recognizing, as I discovered later, that Williams was influenced by the music and work of Castelnuovo-Tedesco. To the extent that AM didn't bother to mention CT's role it seems like lip service to "I used to be a snob but now I'm not". An actual not-snob could point out that JohN Williams has used a lot of existing ideas that are public domain and owes a debt to Castelnuovo-Tedesco, too. None of that is to say Williams' work is bad.
But there's some kind of weird hipster fad going on in which journalists approach the canon as a straw person that they keep talking about rather than talking about other stuff. When I don't feel like writing about Sor or Giuliani I write about Annette Kruisbrink or German Dzhaparidze or Wenzel Matiekga or Atanas Ourkouzounov or ... some composer whose work is not, I think, getting enough attention and whose work I want to discuss. The problem isn't that John Williams is bad at what he does, it's that he's never needed the help of WaPo contributors! Castelnuovo-Tedesco, who I think was a fantastic composer, DOES need some more advocacy and even if I think Norman Lebrecht is a crankypants two thirds of the time he gets this, he gets that nobody may know about Castelnuovo-Tedesco or Weinberg if he's not going out there and openly advocating for more attention being given to their music.
Personally I like to flaunt my snobbery! And then go on and make an argument for why I am an admirer of such and such a composer. Thanks for mentioning Castelnuovo-Tedesco. As a guitarist I have played a lot of his music and think he is a fine composer. But I am sorry to say I don't actually know his film music.
from what I've been able to read so much of Tedesco's film work was ghost-written a full accounting of it is probably not possible. So we may not be able to know. Fortunately his music for guitar can be with us. :)
I don't know if I could describe what I do as snobbery since I could make an argument that there is a kind of cult of highbrow art that doesn't recognize its cultic tendencies as readily as those who embrace lowbrow. People who go to a conference discussing an established composer may not recognize they are part of a cult of devotion with a Mahler or Stravinsky as readily as someone who slogs through the line at a comic book convention, to put it in a joking way, but both sorts of people are devoted to a cause.
If I try to put a positive spin on what writers like AM are grappling with it's that they are trying to recognize that they have exempted themselves from identifying as being in some kind of art cult on the basis of class or education issues. They win a no-prize for admitting to stuff like that.
I was being ironic, of course. That is still allowed at the Music Salon! If we take the Wikipedia article definition of "snob" as a guide, I am certainly not a snob: "Snob is a pejorative term for a person that believes there is a correlation between social status and human worth. Snob also refers to a person that feels superiority over those from lower social classes, education levels, or other social areas." Just to be clear, I think that human worth fundamentally is the product of two main things: moral acts and competence. In other words, how you act morally and the competence with which you do things. In the area of music, I try to give praise to that music and those composers who seem to most deserve it while offering the occasional critique of those who might not. I am actively critical of those who seem to be unthinkingly following the herd in their adherence to the litany of pieties of the day.
J.Williams has also robbed Vaughn-Williams "Dona nobis pacem", there's a very striking two-chord motive that was lifted verbatim. I think it is used when the story pivots over to whatever the bad guys are doing.
shameless....
I ran across a video on YouTube the other day in which several of Williams' themes are traced back to their source in Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, et al, but the narrator classifies them as an homage or something!
Post a Comment