The New York Times has the obituary: Richard Taruskin, Vigorously Polemical Musicologist, Dies at 77
“He was the most important living writer on classical music, either in academia or in journalism,” said Alex Ross, music critic of The New Yorker, in a recent interview. “He knew everything, his ideas were potent, and he wrote with dashing style.”
At a time when the classical canon was considered sacrosanct, Mr. Taruskin advanced the philosophy that it was a product of political forces. His bête noire was the widespread notion that Beethoven symphonies and Bach cantatas could be divorced from their historical contexts. He savagely critiqued this idea of “music itself,” which, he wrote, represented “a decontaminated space within which music can be composed, performed and listened to in a cultural and historical vacuum, that is, in perfect sterility.”
You should read the whole thing, which is a pretty fair summary of his career. Right now I am exactly halfway through my third reading of his Oxford History of Western Music, likely the finest historical summation we are ever likely to see. On the occasion of his latest collection of essays, Cursed Questions, published in 2020, I wrote a post discussing some of the knotty issues presented. Richard Taruskin honored this blog by posting a comment which I treasure:
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.
All good wishes, Richard Taruskin
So I am forever disabused of the notion that listening to classical music makes you a better person. Though perhaps the jury is still out on whether playing it might help.
Our heartfelt thanks to Professor Taruskin for his lifelong commitment to the critical examination of classical music and its scholarship, a project that too few actually pursue.
UPDATE: There is a nice followup in the NYT by James Oestreich: Music’s Towering Intellectual, With an Appetite for Trouble
I don't think I've ever had so much fun reading a book about music as I did, lying idly in bed in a grotty student flat, reading The Danger of Music -- it was challenging and provocative in the best sense. I must return to his History, which for a variety of reasons I never finished. Such incredible achievements.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more. In a time when so much scholarship is little more than dreary ideology, a truly critical scholar is essential. There are several collections of his essays and I can't recommend too highly his two-volume monograph on Stravinsky.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't help but write a few thousand words about Taruskin's positive impact in my thinking about music. It gets into the weeds of a mixture of both religion and politics, to give a bit of warning.
ReplyDeletehttps://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2022/07/richard-taruskins-lifelong-argument.html
I've been reading a wonderfully informative book on Bartok's divided legacy in the Cold War that Taruskin edited so I couldn't resist writing about how Taruskin's ideas and arguments aren't just in what he wrote but also in his editing legacy. Some of the authors he's shepherded to publication have done a great job of highlighting how composers like Bartok ran afoul of the idoelogies of the West AND the Soviet bloc.
Thanks, Wenatchee. I followed your link to the article.
ReplyDelete