In the preface to volume 4 of the Oxford History of Western Music Richard Taruskin outlines the way his treatment is going to be different from those of the past:
In common with its companions in this series, this volume resolutely rejects the romantic viewpoint that asserts a fundamental divide between art history and world history. In particular, the fundamental tenet of neo-Hegelian art history--that the arts steadily progress toward a state of ever more perfect autonomy--is discarded as impeding by design the investigation of the actual causes of esthetic and stylistic evolution, which are to be sought within rather than outside the histories of social and political affairs. The narrative thus offers an uncompromising challenge to the viewpoint adhered to by a majority of practicing musicians and composers, even down to the present.
Well, fair enough. But I am an Aristotelian and as such I am wary of extremes. Taruskin's history was published in 2010 and the genesis was undoubtedly over the preceding decade. In a sense I feel he is like a World War I general fighting the last war and not the current one. Searching today's music schools, I doubt if you could find an example today of someone with the viewpoint of Pieter van den Toorn whom Taruskin quotes for his adamant view of the autonomy of modern music. I recall a heated debate at one of the American Musicological Society meetings between him and a few others back in the late 90s. But that controversy is long past, I think. And those arguing for the autonomy of music pretty much lost the debate. And perhaps they should have because the claim that music is an art form that is so remote from ordinary life that it is unaffected by social and political affairs is obviously wrong.
But does that mean that the opposite is true? That everything in art music is the mere byproduct of social and political affairs? It seems that this view is becoming predominant when conductors and singers seem to have to be chosen on the basis of race and gender alone. Taruskin is right in pointing out that music history has focussed on the production of music and almost totally ignored the reception of music. But we seem perilously close to a time in which the only lively discussions about music center around how many sales an artist has made to the exclusion of any examination of the music. In pop music we are already there, of course.
I think it is easily possible to swing from one extreme to another, from a myopic examination of pitch series to an equally myopic focus on the economics or sociology of music.
I welcome your cards, letters, and comments.
9 comments:
It is hilariously untrue that "conductors and singers seem to have to be chosen on the basis of race and gender alone." Some long-overdue efforts to improve representation in classical music institutions does not change the fact that it remains an overwhelmingly white and upper-class profession.
Well, it may be partially untrue or largely untrue, but HILARIOUSLY untrue? It certainly seems to be true some weeks.
"Seems to be true" is different from "true." The presence of a few more women and POC than there were historically doesn't change the basic demographics (or values) of the profession.
Also, I take issue with the statement, "the only lively discussions about music center around how many sales an artist has made to the exclusion of any examination of the music. In pop music we are already there, of course." I guess you and I read different blogs, books, articles, Twitter feeds etc.
Are you sure you aren't just a bit behind the times? Las year one English critic was proposing that publishers only issue works by women authors for the foreseeable future. And I'm pretty sure that there are people that would strongly advocate for only hiring women and people of color until historical disadvantages are evened out. As a matter of fact, when I was employed at university there was a movement to force the hiring of at least one woman in the math department because it was all male. This goes back a long time and there has always been support for these kinds of policies. But in music it is relatively new.
Taruskin's polemics can be understood in terms of his framing of the issues that concerned him. I think it was in an essay from The Danger of Music in which he explained that the believed that while the dogma of the autonomy of the arts and art for the sake of the arts made sense as a bourgeois innovation embraced by artists and creatives in the midst of the decline of court and religious institutional patronage, by the Cold War the dogma had calcified into the insular technocratic hot house of Western academic music programs and that the pendulum had swung so far in this direction that literally any swing of the pendulum back toward audience reception and social/political concerns would be a swing "toward" fascism. Taruskin granted the point but argued that the insularity of classical music scholarship and study had swung too far in one direction and that there needed to be a swing back into some kind of "middle" because a top-down Socialist Realist bugbear was not going to actually happen no matter how much fans of integral serialism et al warned it might if the audience was given any input.
Although it can seem as though the pendulum has swung all the way to the other side where only sociological/political and other variables are considered we are still a long, long way from stuff chronicled by Pauline Fairclough and other historians regarding socialist realism during the Stalinist period. I've seen Ian Pace register some complaints about the influence of Stuart Hall and disruptive readings of pop culture and, well, mostly what Pace's Adorno-sympathizing concerns (carefully framed as they were) got me thinking about is, okay, I'll probably go read some Stuart Hall. The idea that cultural reception isn't top-down alone and that recipients can knowingly misread and reinterpret pop culture for subcultural interests is axiomatic in pop culture. It's also basic in communications theory whether for journalism or other media studies. The gay/camp reading of Batman a la Adam West is notorious and I enjoy that take on the character and other more grimdark takes on Batman, too. ;) I just like the character. I can dig both Batman vs. Two-Face and the Nolan films, much like I can enjoy the Raimi Spider-man films and the newer Tom Holland ones. And in the midst of all that I can still go back and admire Angelo Gilardino's guitar sonatas and J. S. Bach.
I do agree, though, that in some real ways Taruskin was waging an earlier battle. I think for folks in their 40s (signaling my age here) the Wagnerian art-religion highbrow stuff was a previous generation's battle. I love that Taruskin was willing to fight that fight but I think restoring synergistic practical and theoretical relationships between pop and classical is where the actual legwork in musicology and other studies can be going now. In a nutshell that's why I like reading this blog and Ethan's blog and why I lock horns with Borstlap from time to time. Most of the time, at least on my end, even the disagreements have been respectful and productive. But then if I were actually in academic I might feel and think differently. Taruskin definitely aggravated a lot of people along the way.
You know, Wenatchee, I don't think there is a single thing you said that I would disagree with.
The larger social context seems to be influencing this guitarist:
https://www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2022/08/29/1114352572/sean-shibe-a-shape-shifting-artist-redefines-the-idea-of-a-classical-guitarist
It isn't actually a new thing to hire people based only on their race and gender. It's just that for hundreds of years, institutions were hiring on the basis of people being white, male, or ideally both.
Post a Comment