Friday, February 18, 2005
re: politics and music
In my opinion, it's the music that matters. On one hand, you cannot divorce your art from your politics. On the other hand, art has to be divorced from politics. Guernica is a great painting, period, regardless of whether one agrees with the political undercurrents. Some of what I've heard of Klinghoffer is great music, some isn't, but none of that has anything to do with politics. In other words, it's fine to express one's political views in music. But the music has to stand by itself. Luigi Nono is perhaps better known for his politics than the music that conveyed them. I think the music should have come first, or at least had been the primary focus, rather than Nono's politics.
I've long toyed with the idea of a three-part opera about what I consider to be a sad paradigm of racism, hatred and evil, namely an opera about Meir Kahane, Baruch Goldstein (a physician who killed over 20 Palestinians as they worshipped at the Al-Ibriahmi Mosque in Hebron), and Yigal Amir (a religious zealot who killed Yitzhak Rabin). It's an interesting subject-the idea that a fellow physician would murder in cold blood, the notion that a religious leader [Kahane] could be so filled with hatred, and that a religious follower could kill a member of his own faith without remorse. The reason I haven't done anything with it (besides a chronic absence of time) is that the issues are important and thought-provoking, but could easily be trivialized by setting it to music. In addition, there just aren't any positive characters-if everyone involved for the most part is "bad," any opera rapidly loses interest.
So I'm stuck with an intriguing concept for an opera, one that would likely get me into a lot of hot water with my coreligionists (far worse than Adams), but no interest in writing one that has only negative characters. Again, the music has to come first, since that needs to transcend the politics. That said, I think I'd still have a lot of trouble enjoying a work extolling our current administration, no matter how beautiful the music...
posted by David Toub
2:58 PM
Music & Politics
Among the many refreshing things about The Gates, Christo and Jeanne-Claude's spectacular February gift to New York City is its inclusiveness. In a society so fraught with political tensions that even Clint Eastwood movies create controversy, it is a cheerfully apolitical event that makes most people smile even if they think the whole idea of draping 23 miles of Central Park in saffron schmate is kind of nutty. By raising the money to stage the event themselves, donating the proceeds from the sale of any authorized books, T-shirts and so on to a Central Park nature fund, refusing to accept corporate sponsorships or advertising money, and steadfastly declining to create an agenda by explaining what it "means," the artists have removed the project from the unpleasant realities of modern life. Laura Bush loved it; Abbie Hoffman would have loved it.
Which brings us to a topic. (By the way, CF bloggers, don't wait for me to ask a question. Write whatever is on your mind when the spirit moves you.) Do art and politics mix and, if so, what are the consequences. John Adams provides a useful cautionary tale in the saga of Klinghoffer which has clearly suffered somewhat because of its evenhanded treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The meta-issue, of course, is should we care that Wagner had political ideas we might find abhorrent or should we shut up and listen to the music?
posted by Jerry Bowles
11:44 AM
Monday, February 14, 2005
awards
Congrats to John Adams for well-deserved recognition at the Grammies. Surely it is fruitless to expect any award to give an unequivocal ranking to any work of art, so arguing about which piece should get which award, which composer is over- or under-rated is bound to be nothing more than an endlessly diverting pastime.
As for those who may taste a tinge of sour grapes, I recommend Samuel Johnson’s words on the life of a writer, from 1750: “But, though it should happen that an author is capable of excelling, yet his merit may pass without notice, huddled in the variety of things, and thrown into the general miscellany of life. [The person who] endeavors after fame by writing, solicits the regard of a multitude fluctuating in pleasures, or immersed in business, without time for intellectual amusements....appeals to judges prepossessed by passions, or corrupted by prejudices, which preclude their approbation of any new performance. Some are too indolent to read any thing, till its reputation is established; others too envious to promote that fame, which gives them pain by its increase. What is new is opposed, because most are unwilling to be taught; and what is known is rejected, because it is not sufficiently considered...The learned are afraid to declare their opinion early, lest they should put their reputation in hazard; the ignorant always imagine themselves giving some proof of delicacy, when they refuse to be pleased: and he that finds his way to reputation, through all these obstructions, must acknowledge that he is indebted to other causes besides his industry, his learning, or his wit.”
Sorry for the lengthy quote, but I just love it when truths cross continents and centuries!
posted by Lawrence Dillon
5:56 PM
|
