Gann Ch. 1 Response

Gann provides a brief history of American Music, quickly jumping from the colonial almost straight to Ives. This is a little awkward, and leaves holes in the story. Without a complete picture, it lacks perspective, making a comprehensive view of

The only issue I take with the text is the lack of attention it pays to the other compositional ideas going on in colonial America. For example, although the text focuses heavily on Charles Ives (and rightly so), no mention is made of the mainstream composers who were not only major influences in American composition, but were current influences. Men like Howard Hanson are completely neglected, and even Horatio Parker, Ives' teacher, barely makes an appearance.

Nevertheless, a study on Carl Ruggles was most interesting. A figure I did not recognize, I searched him out to find more about his life and works. Writing in such a methodical and perfection-oriented manner, Ruggles strikes me as an American Brahms, a composer so bent on perfection that he neglects several of his works in favor of destroying over premiering a mediocre work. This kind of steadfast detail and insurmountable stubbornness truly demonstrates the soul of an artist focused and immersed in his work.

Upon further study, I found a terribly interesting tidbit. In the year of his son's birth, Ruggles finished his work Toys. This was the first work Ruggles would compose in his own atonal style, and yet, how ironic that a focus on dissonance should occur during a period when consonance in his household should reign. Although there is no mention of it, I wonder if this detail points to trouble at home, if it was coincidental, or if simply it was the consonant home life that furthered Ruggles' compositional idiom.

I also learned a lot about Ives. Charles Ives, I knew from previous study, was an insurance salesman by trade, and that composition came second. However, I was not aware that he composed in almost complete isolation. I also learned that Ives, like many artists, was not appreciated in his time. His works incorporate quarter tones, aleatoric elements, and other techniques that are radical and revolutionary for his time. Gann attributes much of Ives' success and forefront of the musical idiom to his father. This, I believe, is a mistake. Calling his music that which his father never got around to writing is like attributing Death and Transfiguration to Franz Strauss. The simple fact is: even if his father experimented with the techniques that Ives used, Ives himself used them, put them into place, put himself out there with his music to be judged, and recorded attempts at something different. Charles, not George, took that leap.

His period of silence itself may be testimony to his greatness. More likely, I believe, Ives was pulled in so many directions musically, he had no more room to grow, no new boundary to push. With the plethora of techniques incorporated by Ives, it is a wonder he did not go mad pushing music as far as he did. I believe that the quote ‘nothing sounds right’ attributed to him by his wife (1927), is a testimony to his forward-thinking musicality. His period of silence is also a lack of experimentation. This is more true to form, I think, in that Ives’ inability to create a new musical experiment led to his lack of composition at all.