The essay I am currently wrestling with is titled "Which Way Is Up? On the sociology of taste" and it is a knotty one indeed. The issue revolves around the problem of modernism and modernity and the sociology of taste, specifically how the taste for the finer arts, classical music and its more challenging examples, has been promoted to the masses as an enlivening and upwardly mobile product. The issues are complex and Taruskin skillfully unveils the history of what used to be called "middlebrow" taste and aspirations. Everyone is going to learn to like Beethoven, and perhaps even Stravinsky, whether they want to or not! He remarks:
Taruskin takes aim at some of the more uncompromising figures in this project such as one of my own heroes, Joseph Kerman, as follows:More advanced technique is now to be equated with enhanced moral standing. That way is now up. And so it is with the politicized critical vocabulary we use today, in which progressive is given a default aesthetic privilege and conservative is stigmatized.Taruskin, Richard. Cursed Questions . University of California Press. Kindle Edition.
Ignoring the recurring slaps ("moralistic contempt," "proper," "willful little pantheon," "irritable and prim," and so on) that Taruskin assembles to cue us as to how to evaluate Kerman's stance, I pretty much am on Kerman's side here. But, as aforementioned, with a disturbed uneasiness. Perhaps my own belief in some sort of aesthetic standards and purity is just so much codswallop. But I really can't disavail myself of the notion that yes, despite the enormous intellectual smokescreen Taruskin releases to hang over the battlefield, there is such a thing as aesthetic vulgarity. I offer as evidence a truly nauseating arrangement by André Rieu of the middle movement of the Concierto de Aranjuez by Joaquin Rodrigo with the guitar solo given to a set of bells.Was there ever a musical writer as militantly highbrow as Macdonald? None but Joseph Kerman comes to mind. His Opera as Drama—derived from a series of critical essays he had written in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when he was a very young man, for the Hudson Review, one of the many “little magazines” devoted to high culture in midcentury America—is the only musicological book (or perhaps I should say, the only book by a certified, sheepskin-carrying musicologist) that seems to exemplify in all its purity the highbrow or snob position defined by Richard Peterson, the leading American sociologist of brows, as “moralistic contempt for and distancing from all cultural manifestations that do not fit with what is taken to be proper.” Kerman’s book has been compared with F. R. Leavis’s The Great Tradition as an exercise in winnowing. Its ten chapters comprise what John Updike (thinking of Vladimir Nabokov’s literary judgments) called a “willful little pantheon” of exemplary works. Its tone is suitably irritable and prim, in keeping with the class anxiety to which snobbery gives outward expression. As Peterson writes, to a thoroughbred highbrow “even the ‘serious’ study of popular culture by academics is a threat to ‘standards,’ because, within the received perspective, it is seen as lending legitimacy to that which is vulgar, and it thus threatens the sanctity of the status boundaries distinguishing between what is fine and what is common.” Opera as Drama starts right off with a warning that “flabby relativism is certainly the danger,” and with foreboding: “it is hard to think that all our operatic activity can proceed much longer without standards.”Taruskin, Richard. Cursed Questions . University of California Press. Kindle Edition.
But after Taruskin has delivered his devastating analytical blows to the whole sociological history of high, middle and lowbrow consumption of art, one almost wants to emulate Whoopi Goldberg and simply shave off one's eyebrows!
If one sees the idea that art can improve oneself in some way as being illegitimate, then what does that leave? Art as a purely formalistic pleasure with no social context? Surely that is not what Taruskin is arguing?A religious, ethical impulse undergirds all art promotion that sees art consumption as a means of self-improvement. That especially includes middlebrow promotion, going all the way back to Matthew Arnold himself.Taruskin, Richard. Cursed Questions . University of California Press. Kindle Edition.
I had a bit of sober academic fun debunking these religious appeals in The Oxford History of Western Music, as regarded both César Franck and Elliott Carter. Nobody paid much notice in the case of Franck, but there was a furious reaction to the discussion of Carter, especially because the Carter chapter was paired with one on Britten to illustrate what I was calling “the essential question of modern art,” namely, “whether artists lived in history or in society.”126 Pretty much everyone with a stake in the question assumed I was coming down heavily on the side of society, and therefore on the side of Britten. That is how I gained my middlebrow and antimodernist spurs.
Taruskin, Richard. Cursed Questions . University of California Press. Kindle Edition.Taruskin makes the claim that the history of the 20th century, specifically that of the relationship between the Nazis and classical music, forever severs claims to the moral benefits of classical music.
Without a moral claim, what is left of our brows? Just taste, which, to remind you, Bourdieu defined as “manifested preference.” The definition is important: it shows why de gustibus non est disputandum gets it wrong. We incessantly declare and dispute, in pursuit of social capital or (as it used to be called) social advantage, the very thing that the proverb tells us is beyond dispute. In an important sense, then, our tastes are not even tastes unless we are disputing them. As long as there was perceived social advantage in a taste for high art, and as long as its pursuit mandated the negation and avoidance of the low, the middlebrow could thrive—but, much more vitally, so could high art itself in countries, like the United States, without a tradition of aristocratic patronage. The middlebrow was part of the support system that sustained the art that could not pay its way, of which classical music was perhaps the archetype. The middlebrow’s much-deplored, easily derided commercial enterprises gave classical music a purchase it now seems to be losing irreversibly.
Taruskin, Richard. Cursed Questions . University of California Press. Kindle Edition.But, you know, my own personal history is at odds with this. I really never pursued classical music because of some notion of social advantage as there was none--not where I came from. There was only a sort of diffuse notional advantage in that knowledge of classical music, along with literature, philosophy, history and so forth, did offer one a wide perspective that, patently, was not very common.
I think the most disturbing thing about Taruskin's discussion is that he seems too fastidious to make any simple claims of value. He won't argue outright for cultural relativism, but he acts as if it were an unavoidable truth. Or am I just missing the point?
At the end of the day, Richard Taruskin, in addition to his monumental five-volume history of Western Music, wrote another monumental two volume, 1,800 pages, devoted to the music of Igor Stravinsky. Not André Rieu!
I have never been in a war but I have been near a war. In Central America during the 1980s I was close enough to the sounds of guns going off to start praying and nearly wet myself. My one consoling thought was: all these houses are made of cement so bullets won't be entering through the walls. Point is, we civilians don't realize how a war can be going on a couple blocks away while we are making morning coffee. We usually conjure up great battlefield scenes such as in WWI or the Civil War. But even in the Civil War the generals would get angry at the non-combatants lining the crests of hills to watch the carnage below. My point is: Bryan, I don't think this is your fight, in this culture war of the high-middle-low brows; this is largely a critics' war. As an artist -- and you are an artist -- you can draw from anything around you and transform it into something beautiful. Is it vulgar to hear a melody from a bird and turn it into a guitar piece? In Japan I heard a child play on a rusty swing that gave off a perfect whole tone step of E to D; I wrote a tune called -- what else? -- 'The Rusty Swing' (on Soundcloud). Also in Japan I was charmed by the melodic cries of the broom salesmen driving through neighborhoods in the mornings. As an artist, you are exempt from these critical battles; the entire sonic world is your palette. The concept of "brows" for a creator is inadequate. The analogy of a tree is much more accurate: the roots and the top leaves are in constant communication, nourishing each other. The whole discussion touches on a major peeve: classical guitarists trying to haul the classical greats across the transom for the guitar. Classical guitarists don't seem to realize that their competition is not Beethoven but Hank Williams. Let the great Clive James serve as a reasonable mediator between Taruskin and Kerman; check out his "Cultural Amnesia". It is something of a liberal humanist handbook for artists (and civilians). A month in jail for the bell ringer during Rodrigo should straighten things out. Don't shave your eyebrows.
ReplyDeleteGood metaphor. And I think you are right, this isn't my fight, though I do find the debate interesting. Thanks for the Clive James suggestion, I will have a look, just downloaded it on Kindle.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a reasonable punishment for the bell ringer.
Dex, you are an artist yourself!
Hello Mr Townsend, and thanks at long last for reading me so seriously and commenting so seriously on what I've written. You are of course right: I love classical music and high art as much as anyone (even as much as you, I'll bet). My question is whether I am entitled by my love for it to regard myself as a morally superior person. I of course say no, and the piece on which you are commenting is my lengthy justification for my refusal to pat classical music lovers on the back. It's the sober academic version of that Musical Mystique piece from the New Republic a dozen years ago, about which people got rather exercised. But neither piece was an attack on the music or anyone's love for it.
ReplyDeleteAll good wishes, Richard Taruskin
Dr. Taruskin, thanks so much for your comment! This is what I love about doing this blog--sooner or later everyone turns up. I think that this is a very good clarification of my confusion. No, our love in no way implies a moral superiority, well put.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize you read my blog! A little while ago I commented on a piece by Ted Gioia and was shocked to see a comment from him the very next day.
Heartfelt thanks, by the way, for all of your thoughts and writings on music.
We almost met a few years ago in, I think it was the AMS meeting in Baltimore in, what was it, 1997? My advisor, Tamara Levitz, was making some comments about something you wrote on neo-classicism. Oh, and a Russian musicologist had some interesting comments on Russian modes in Tchaikovsky.
ReplyDeleteArt is not morality so one cannot be more moral liking it. In many ways art is anti morality and gives all the good tunes to the devil as has been said. Shakespeare said "there are more thing in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in thy philosophy" and that is the position of Art. It seeks to embrace and justify Heaven and Hell and the Earth between as people more dumbly do in their lives. The better the Art the more it embodies the deep connection in all things real and imagined.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the class and brow elevation battles are from earlier decades. The past 20-30 years the argument is that classical music makes you work better, helps ease the commute and makes plants happier.
"Makes plants happier"! Now that wins the thread!
ReplyDeleteA visit from Richard Taruskin himself .... how cool!
ReplyDeleteThis discussion made me think of one of your guitar/violin pieces (can't think of the name just now - I would have to track it down in the search). It is a wonderful piece that would do any classical stage proud; at the same time it would get a fine reception in any Irish pub - there's your creative tree for you ....!
It sounds like you are thinking of my "Surreal Reel"
ReplyDeleteI'm not as far into the book as you are Bryan but my sense has been Taruskin has been pretty clear in his work about what he's saying vs what people claim he's saying: There's nothing wrong with loving classical music and high art, there's all kinds of things wrong with concluding from those loves that one is a better person. It's encouraging to see Taruskin confirm it so directly, of course, because it's always possible to misunderstand someone's arguments. :)
ReplyDeleteI've been having a lot of fun reading Taruskin's latest and am looking forward to finishing it.
Yep.
ReplyDelete"I love classical music and high art as much as anyone (even as much as you, I'll bet). My question is whether I am entitled by my love for it to regard myself as a morally superior person."
ReplyDelete"There's nothing wrong with loving classical music and high art, there's all kinds of things wrong with concluding from those loves that one is a better person"
How fun! Taruskin himself! I just bought the first volume of the Oxford series.
Serious question, though, who thinks this? Who makes the leap from what's on their iPod to moral superiority and better personhood? Does everyone do this? Are we just tilting at snobbery? It seems to me that the Great Flattening is far enough along that, as Maury says above "...the class and brow elevation battles are from earlier decades"
Good point, Jives. But if I were to be really honest and look deep into my own heart (and bearing in mind the quote from Solzhenitsyn that "the line between good and evil runs through every human heart") I would have to say that sometimes I do feel as if there must be some benefit from being a classical musician, apart from the obvious ones. Doesn't the discipline and devotion required somehow feed into our character? Doesn't it make us better in some way? But as Taruskin and others have pointed out, no, this does not entitle us to any moral superiority.
ReplyDeleteStill, if we can keep in mind the salutary injunction, then perhaps we will be a bit better. Humbler, at least!
Since Jives DID ask, how about this?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.futuresymphony.org/about/
COMPRISED OF A GROWING COMMUNITY of the world’s best and brightest thinkers, scholars, theorists, researchers, artists, craftsmen, and business minds, the Institute focuses on providing visionary leadership and contributions to strategic thinking, scholarly research, policy formation, and public dialogue.
Our work is built upon the values we hold dear. Among these are happiness experienced as the pursuit of a good life well lived; human flourishing, community, and civic virtue; the persistence and intelligibility of natural order and hierarchy; recognition of exceptional human talent and the importance of earned success; the time-honored principles of free enterprise and free association; the traditions of Western Civilization; beauty, goodness, and truth as eternal and supreme transcendentals; the wisdom and dignity of old age and the value of maturity; and the importance of education as that which instills in us the higher virtues and develops our character.
Vision & Mission
OUR MISSION IS TO FORMULATE a strategy for the renaissance of live classical music and to translate that strategy into programs made freely available to everyone they may benefit.
By the term classical music we mean the Western tradition of art music, which, together with the symphony orchestra, represents an achievement unique and unparalleled among cultures in this or any other age.
...
A renaissance for classical music means a renaissance for humanity.
***
Now WOULD a renaissance for (Western) classical music actually mean a renaissance for humanity the world over? That seems doubtful.
There is always room for a group of well-intentioned people with high ideals who will undoubtedly sponsor some good works. But on the other hand, there also always seems room for opportunistic, careerist climbers of dubious understanding who stand ready to mess things up.
ReplyDeleteBut I have to admit I really like the bit about "the importance of earned success; the time-honored principles of free enterprise and free association" because with those the likelihood of good things is better than not. It is when the high ideals of an organization seem to require the oppression of a large number of people that the trouble arises.
Bryan wrote (and quoted):
ReplyDelete'But I have to admit I really like the bit about "the importance of earned success; the time-honored principles of free enterprise and free association" because with those the likelihood of good things is better than not. It is when the high ideals of an organization seem to require the oppression of a large number of people that the trouble arises.'
Western art music or classical music taps into an emotional reserve that only seems to flow with the opening of this particular tap. It can't be a total illusion that great music makes us feel great; it draws on so many positive human qualities, as Bryan hinted at: energy, discipline, dynamism, positive thought and emotion, sadness, joy. Are we not at our best when we play and listen to classical music (give those last two words the broadest definition)?
I certainly feel it enlivens my life!
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteI would like to share a comment by Theodor Adorno on Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande
Here is what Adorno wrote:
>"The problematic of style is strikingly apparent in works of the highly stylized domain of early modernism such as Debussy's Pelléas. Without making the slightest concession, with exemplary purity, this lyrical drama pursues its principium stilisationis. The inconsistencies that result are in no way the fault of that supposed thin-bloodedness that is criticized by those who are no longer able to follow the work's principle of stylization. The monotony of the piece is striking and well known. The rigor of the work's refusals prohibits the formation of contrasts as cheap and banal or reduces them to mere intimations. This damages the articulation, the organization of form by subsidiary structures, that is so indispensible to a work whose ultimate criterion is unity of form; here stylization ignores the recognition that a unity of style must be the unity of a multiplicity. The uninterrupted psalmody, particularly of the vocal line, lacks what older musical terminology called Abgesang, a concluding phrase or section: redemption, fulfillment, pouring forth. Its sacrifice in the interest of a feeling for a past that is eons distant causes a rupture in the work, as if what had been promised had not been redeemed. Taste, raised to the level of totality, rebels against the dramatic gesture of the music, and at the same time the work cannot do without its staging. The work's consummateness also leads to the impoverishment of the technical means, the persevering homophony becomes meager, and the orchestration, though devoted to the exploitation of tone color, becomes grey on grey. These problems of stylization point to problems in the relation of art and culture. Any classificatory schema that subsumes art as a branch of culture is inadequate. Incontestably Pelléas is culture without any desire to denounce it. This is of a part with the speechlessly mythical hermeticism of the subject matter, which precisely thereby neglects what the subject seeks. Artworks require transcendence of culture if they are to satisfy culture; this is a powerful motivation of radical modernism"
************************
Ok, I had already known that Adorno was particularly invested in dismissing Debussy’s opera but this to me is senseless. It sounds as if he's just bored with Pelléas — he finds half a dozen ways of saying that — and needs to contrive some justification that will impress us...... (IT DOES NOT)
Question.
Have you ever felt that Adorno was a pretentious windbag with a censorious attitude to the human heart?
Alex
I usually have a more ambivalent attitude towards Adorno. He has something to say, but the way he says it is often off-putting.
ReplyDelete