Ted, who I didn't know had a blog until just now, has an accurate telling of our show Friday night. And let me just say, if you thought listening to that conversation was strange...trying being in the middle of it! There were seriously points where I had no idea what was going on! Birds were singing; cats were purring; impersonations were being done. It was totally surreal.
The conversation itself has apparently become known as "the most tense and uncomfortable twenty minutes in the history of concert going." (...and the concert on the whole was also called "controversial," in addition to the "innovative" New York Magazine gave us in their listing. - Awesome.) This is not a quotation from anyone in particular, but rather one culled from assorted buzz, and while it is no doubt hyperbolic, I can't help but wonder if, from a concert going experience, this is a good thing.
I mean, why shouldn't there be moments of tension at events like these? I am honestly pretty tired of everything being so nice all the time, because, you know what, that's fakery. I secretly love it when these "old coots" as C>T> called them, like Rzewski and even Andriessen are interviewed, and just sort of give the interviewer hell. I have learned, through spending time with both of these gents, that this apparent aggression is really just a high level intellectual discourse, where you speak your mind, freely, disagree openly, and then move on to the bar. Passion lives neatly alongside detachment. For example, for however much we disagreed during our talk, Frederic was lovely and grateful after the show, as well as the next morning when I saw him. (Oh, and hey Park Central Hotel: get your act together! You are a drunken mess! But I digress...)
And to be honest, when you call an event "Which Side Are You On? - Music By, For, and Against Frederic Rzewski" - you are sort of inviting confrontation. As for Frederic talking through the second half, what can you do? I think that that's one of the things that we relinquished when we left the strictly-classical world. Ted hits is just right in his post actually. And it's not like you couldn't hear the music over it. Trust me, you could. It was loud. I just hope that the recording doesn't pick that up in Ted's piece, which has some wonderfully delicate bits.
As for his notion that there are no boundaries to be obliterated, I'll save that for my forthcoming New Amsterdam post. All I will say for now is that I cannot imagine Rzewski's The Price of Oil, or really many of the pieces in our rep at a classical venue. Not that we wouldn't love to play there. I just suspect that these venues might just not know what to do with us. I feel like we'd be too loud for their resonant spaces and they'd want us to turn down. (We've been there before...) Plus, where would they place us in their elaborate marketing schemes?! Either way, I guess time will tell on this one.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
music, politics, newspeak, and more.
The title of this blog comes from the 1934 Workers' Songbook, which states in its foreword: "Music is a Weapon in the Class Struggle." This idea served as justification/ motivation for many young, left- leaning composers of that period, like Seeger, Eisler, and Blitzstein. From what one reads, these composers really believed—at least at the time—that music could bring about real social change at a time of great social crisis, and composed their music accordingly.
At a time when history may well be repeating, these seem like interesting and important ideas to once again consider. ( I am also writing my dissertation on related issues, and intend to share bits of that when they're ready.)
I also write about heavy metal. Sometimes.
At a time when history may well be repeating, these seem like interesting and important ideas to once again consider. ( I am also writing my dissertation on related issues, and intend to share bits of that when they're ready.)
I also write about heavy metal. Sometimes.
Posts
8 comments:
Yeah, that was pretty out. Still, I guess when you're an older established composer why not get into tense semantic debates during radio interviews? It reminds me of that part in Poetics of Music where Stravinsky goes on for pages about why he doesn't feel that The Rite of Spring was "revolutionary" in the strictest definition of the word. It's like, k we get it maestro.
But what better for a confrontational ensemble than a confrontational concert? We could use more of those. I remember a Robert Ashley opera I went to in Berlin where some people openly booed at the end. I was like, can you do that? Those of us who enjoyed it clapped and cheered louder and it actually felt interactive. We don't get that enough here.
Although, that "composer dying" shit was real out there!
The person I really felt sorrry for was Terrance. After asking a good question was forced to stand there as Fred went on about Attica.
I think obliterate was the correct term. Except it needs to be applied to the music directors and programmers who are afraid to take the chance and see where this music is really going. The future audiences who will be attending places were raised on rock and will be the ones filling the seats in the future. The lines are drawn between the classical and rock but not by today's composers but by people who are afraid to put their paycheck on the line and take a chance and see how audiences would react. Wait a minute - didn't Mozart obliterate the line between the aristocrat(classical) and the common (rock) people with his operas or was that something I saw in a movie.
The concert was great and I really enjoyed it.
I didn't feel sorry for Terrance or Ara Guzelimian the night before. It felt, to me, like they didn't do their homework, as though they hadn't spent enough time with the composer's music or writings or anything, and just asked the same superficial questions about "political" music that's become the meme attached to FR. Then, out of what I'm sure they thought was deference, they let FR hijack the interview, and play his magic cup and ball game, until everyone has forgotten what the question was in the first place. It's entertaining, sure, but I've heard the singing-birds-music-is-autoerotic story about four times in the past two years now. It's never really in answer to any question; it's just a story FR likes to tell. I'd like to see some moderator who digs a little deeper, is less in awe of 'great composer,' and instigates a real dialogue, instead of all this nicey-nice.
Andrea, you're totally hired to moderate the discussion for our next Rzewski concert... "The Singing Birds of the Autoerotic: Frederic Rzewski @ 80." Sound good?
i'm there. maybe i'll even be done my dissertation by then...
haha. yeah, me too!
Okay, first of all - I appreciated the links to the mp3s and video from your Rzewski concert. I'm not familiar with Rzewiski's music and his explanation of "Coming Together" was very moving. And I thought your performance was well done. Is this piece done with male and/or female narrators? I'm assuming any kind of voice can perform it?
But its apparent from these other posts that I missed some dialog that made the audience uncomfortable?
On another note - and please don't take this as a criticism - but I don't think your ensemble is all that different from any other chamber group. You all aren't THAT loud, man - not compared to rock bands. And it seems too from your PR and rep that you all fit pretty comfortably into the world of chamber music presentation. I think the minute you try to point out how anti-establishment you are, you sort of fall into a trap of becoming a part of...uh...an establishment.
I guess I'm saying (and obviously you don't need to hear this) don't worry about what other people think of you. Just be yourselves.
well, if we weren't that loud i don't know what the ringing in my ears was...
maybe it was the sound of boundaries being obliterated that made frederic move back a few rows? ;)
Post a Comment