Wednesday, January 19, 2005
who's important?
In my view, the question of a composer's importance is of no meaning, bordering on the absurd. I may like music by Glass, Reich, Feldman, Bloch, Schoenberg, Bach, etc. and that's great. Someone else might like Strauss and Carter, both of whom I can't stand. But that's fine too. Music and other art forms are just too personal. That's why I think the entire concept of teaching composition and "winning" a composition contest is silly. How do you teach someone to write music, other than the mere technical aspects? I learned more from reading through 10 or more orchestral scores each week while in high school than I ever did from my composition teacher. Similarly, it makes no difference to me as a listener if someone's music won or lost a contest. Not to sound like the great (and late) physicist Richard Feynman, but such contests are silly. Ives, as an example, won the Pulitzer for his third symphony, which in my opinion pales before many of his other works. Others, such as Feldman, Reich, and numerous others who I like did not win prestigious awards. So what?
Whether or not someone is historically important is a matter of academics, best left to historians. If someone writes music that appeals to me, then that person is pretty important to me as a composer. Similarly, if someone who is "generally accepted" to be important writes music I can't stand, then he or she is irrelevant to me as an individual.
posted by David Toub
5:23 PM
|
