my intent was to sit here in the living room of my apartment, listen to the beatles and play runescape (an online game). two of my roomates are here, one is watching an old movie and the other is online chatting. however, as i began to listen to "Martha My Dear" I realised that some music makes me really happy. That song, in particular, is a song that makes me feel really good. i think a lot of time, particuarly when i am in class at the university, i feel a lot of anger when i hear music. a lot of the music is violent, aggressive, hateful. i do not agree with it. sometimes i get so angry because i really do not think certain composers should be acknowledged. but then, am i being oppressive? i had just finished reading cornelius cardew's monumental work, "stockhausen serves imperialism" when we began discussing milton babbit and in particular, carlheinz stockhausen. i was filled with the idea that music that was so oppressive should not be heard at all. as a matter of fact, i even argued with my professor that we should not even be discussing stockhausen because he was a fraud.
carlhienz stockhausen, to many people, is a genius. but what is a genius? as far as a professor of mine believes, a genius is someone who can write rather engimatically so that it is very difficult to decipher the meaning in everything. this does not just go for his analytical writing, but for his compositional writing as well. i do not agree with this idea. as a matter of fact, i detest it. not because i hate stockhausen but the idea that he has come to represent is what bothers me greatly. i think maybe its fascist, in a way. if you cannot understand someone they must be very intellegent! we must blindly follow!--that sort of thing.
stockhausen's music is a joke, in my opinion. i took a course that covered 'compositional techniques since 1945' and one of the pieces we looked at was klavierstuke no. 3. it was apparently an example of intergral serialism. however, there was only one problem. no one could analyse the work. as a matter of fact, theorists have spent hours staring at the short piece and have been unable to come up with a good analysis. when comparing stockhausen's writing on his rules for his particuar compositional style to the actual work, there are many discrepencies. essentially, his work does not fit his outline. his work is not concrete except for the mere fact that it is clearly printed on a piece of paper. my question is this: why do we bother to study a piece of music that is, when put to the test, nothing but a bunch of nonsense? some would answer my question by saying that his work is not entirely nonesense. there is meaning! i would respond with a follow up question: where is the meaning?
as far as i can tell, it is no where. there is no organization, no method to the madness. what compositional technique did i learn the day we discussed stockhausen? well, i learned that if i appear a bit eccentric, speak in large words, look down on others, and make myself sound very intellegent by being convoluted, then i can make everyone think i'm a genius. furthermore, everyone will eat up anything i produce.
so i came to the conclusion that stockhausen should not be taught at the universities since he appeared to be nothing more than a mediocre composer, propped up by some people with an agenda to propagate oppression through his music. what do i mean by oppression? well, please read what is posted at this webpage:
http://www.artnotart.com/fluxus/hflynt-fightmusicaldecor.htmlPlease do not be discouraged by some of the spelling errors. I think it was copied onto the webpage from a flyer. Anyhow, I have lots of spelling errors in this post, no one is perfect.
The point is, Stockhausen's music represents fascism. That is obvious.
There is someone else that I want to make a point of discussing. As you recall, question two asks what I have experienced as a student in regards to the application of positivist musicology in the universities. the second half of this post focuses on a man named george crumb.
perhaps you can imagine how i have been feeling. during the spring semester i seemed to begin seeing things a little differently. it was that little difference that made me angry and seem quite extremist. i sat in my history course (music from the 19th cent to the present) rather frustrated. it was not the fact that i was often discouraged from classroom discussion that made me so angry and frustrated. but the details of the course that made me feel this way. furthermore, it was that i began to realise it was not just a unique case, such attitudes were everywhere and the promoted norm.
so, george crumb came to orange county and was to give a lecture at our university. how thrilling. that was, actually, not a bad thing. what was bad was how mr. crumb and his music was used for purposes that, perhaps he was unaware, less than honest. i'll have to admit that i found some of crumb's music, on the onset, somewhat interesting. however, as crumb was forced fed to us and i began to learn more about his music and what he had come to represent over the years, i grew to despise his music and what it represented. my anger toward the system spilled over into a concert critique for the crumb concert. hm, perhaps i should explain how we were force fed crumb.
crumb was coming to our school at the end of april, we knew it from the start of the semester. i remember when it was announced that i turned to carl and we both thought it was very cool and we were wholeheartedly excited about the affair. an composer, a living composer, was coming to see us! what joy, rapture! we better make the most of it, you know, he won't be alive much longer. well, as the semester went on and we got closer to the concert and the lecture, crumb was brought quite often. we were required to study a set of program notes that was distributed to the students that included interviews with crumb and john adams. the adams interview was very enlightening and i only wish that adams would have spoken at our university. however, he did not. the main focus was on the man known as crumb. his music, we had to know. we had to be familiar with the interview that took place between joseph horowitz, journalist-moderator-whatever, and george crumb. this interview and the background informaion given by horowitz and my history professor was alarming. i just could not understand how crumb could be a composer on the cutting edge of his generation, taking the 'exotic' and making it household. that is far from the truth. i know it is. his music incorporates theatrics that, while they may be entertaining, are just as degradng to the cultures they mock as a minstrel show. i do not deny the fact that crumb comes from a different generation, but he should be subject just like the rest of us to the requirements that those of us born after his generation are expected to follow. that is a respect for other cultures, equality, etc. when i listened to crumb's music, and watched video clips of performances, i began to feel that crumb was promoting many foul ideas that do nothing more than to harm our society. i felt that joseph horowitz was promoting crumb as something he was not and his music as representing something it did not. i recall a question that horowitz asked crumb. he asked him about his travels. he asked him if his travels to many foreign countries had an affect on his music. afterall, crumb is proclaimed as incorporatng non-western music into his rather western compositions. however, crumb answered that he had visited countries like australia, parts of south east asia, he had heard the digeroo, but that was it. it had no effect on his music whatsoever.
did i hear correctly? the non-western music he heard did not influence his music? that is impossible! i was just told that he brought non-western styles to western audiences in a highly palatable form! anyhow, in my critique i attacked crumb and called him ignorant, a fraud, and a bigot. perhaps it is not that he is a bigot. but certainly he must be ignorant and somewhat of a fraud in that people claim that his music is something that it is not. some might argue that he does not believe his music is what people make it out to be, so therefore he cannot be a fraud. but i claim that crumb is a fraud because if he believes the above statement then he is guilty of not making a point of clearing up the position his music has in society. however, we cannot discuss that. that is not allowed. that is why i cannot compare crumb's theatrical presentations of some sort of eastern seance (fancy that, in the east they have seances!) to that of a minstrel show. how can i do such a thing? how can i even think of tarnishing the great name of crumb by placing him society?
i don't know. sometimes i do not think my writing is clear. at least, i feel as though what i write is a bit confusing. my paper on crumb is on my main computer. i will transfer it to this one and post it for you. you can read what i said.
i think, that i should make my stance clear. in a way, it was unfair to attack crumb as harshly as i did. crumb is just a victim, a pawn. but i think that crumb is not without responsibility and that he is not completely incompetent. therefore, he deserves some criticism. you know, it is not enough to say that some of his music lacks an overall structure or abuses the instruments. that is too superficial. we must do more than that. george crumb was not directed by god to write his music. and neither was bach, stockhausen, wagner, beethoven, mozart, webern, or schoenberg (mind you that i do infact like at least half the composers i listed). everyone must be held accountable. i have to be accountable for what i say, what i write, what i do that is in the public sphere. our government must be helf accountable for it does in the name of its citizens. what goes on in the sphere music is not isolated from the world. music is very public and what we put out there as musicians, composers, etc, should be put to a test. not just compositionally, but on a social level. what does this piece of music represent? is it oppressive? does it represent fascism? does it represent violent uprising? music does have the ability to represent all those ideas. we just have to make ourselves more keen to notice. we have been told over and over that music is so pretty and nice. "listen to classical music if you want to be calmed." "classical music is not angry or violent." that is what we are told. we have been told this over and over again that we truly believe there is no meaning in music unless it is programatic.
i get angry now when i hear someone listening to a classical music station. not because i hate the music they listen to but because of what it represents in our society. to me, such "classical" music is used as a tool by those who wish to oppress us, to divide us. i really do not know how to explain what i feel. but when i pass by the mainstream classical music station i just feel disgusted. maybe i will figure out exactly why i feel it is such an oppressive tool. when i do, i'll post it.
goodnight.
