I'm reminded of that quotation of Stravinsky about Webern and diamonds; let's see if Google helps . . . Alas, no, but Joseph Machlis does! "Doomed to total failure in a deaf world of ignorance and indifference, he inexorably kept on cutting out his diamonds, his dazzling diamonds, of whose mines he had such a perfect knowledge."
There can be no doubt that classical music has spent the last hundred years in taking itself as far from popular taste as it could.This seems extreme to me. The nineteen-twenties certainly saw this phenomenon, but the new classicism of the 'thirties and 'forties gives it the lie, no? And there are tons of composers--at least North and South Americans--who found commercial as well as critical success in combining Western tonality with folk motifs. Off the top of my head, Copland, Bernstein, Ginastera, the contemporary (and stunning) Eric Whitacre
( ... )
If you look hard enough, you can always find an exception to any statement. If your definition is loose enough, then Katharine Jenkins is a classical singer. Heck, Bob Dylan is a classical singer. Let us just assume that words mean something and exclude something else, all right? You seem to have missed the point of the whole essay - that when Sir Paul McCartney tried to move into classical music, something for which he had an instinct (which he was doomed never to fully fulfil), he did so as into something alien and unknown, because a whole generation before his had been alienated from classical music.
But my point was that I found the "whole generation" argument specious. Your argument concerning McCartney's father is certainly valid, but it seems indicative of one man at one historical moment rather than a whole movement. Perhaps this is a US perspective complicating things--are there musical programs in public schools in Britain? (Erm, public meaning grammar, I suppose.) In the US, most children with a yen for music can learn at least the rudiments in school, regardless of parental disapproval.
So the question here is really: was Sir Paul's father typical of his generation, and was his son's upbringing typical of his? I honestly don't know much about McCartney's life, and I have no trouble believing he grew up approaching classical music as an alien subject. But does that mean everyone else did, too?
The last classical musician capable of an enormous popular success died in 1921 (Puccini). End of story. If you don't want to recognize the difference between a Brahms and a Bartok (to go no further), I am not disposed to try to explain what you are so obviously determined not to see.
Interesting essay. And you're right: Puccini was in bits and pieces, part of my grandfather's whistling through the day, and I can't think of any of the later classicists who have so thoroughly penetrated society.
Comments 13
Alas, no, but Joseph Machlis does!
"Doomed to total failure in a deaf world of ignorance and indifference, he inexorably kept on cutting out his diamonds, his dazzling diamonds, of whose mines he had such a perfect knowledge."
There can be no doubt that classical music has spent the last hundred years in taking itself as far from popular taste as it could.This seems extreme to me. The nineteen-twenties certainly saw this phenomenon, but the new classicism of the 'thirties and 'forties gives it the lie, no? And there are tons of composers--at least North and South Americans--who found commercial as well as critical success in combining Western tonality with folk motifs. Off the top of my head, Copland, Bernstein, Ginastera, the contemporary (and stunning) Eric Whitacre ( ... )
Reply
Reply
So the question here is really: was Sir Paul's father typical of his generation, and was his son's upbringing typical of his? I honestly don't know much about McCartney's life, and I have no trouble believing he grew up approaching classical music as an alien subject. But does that mean everyone else did, too?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment