Gann 2/13

This week's reading from Gann provided the most provocative study, I found. I kept looking back on it throughout listening and other readings with questions and thoughts. In the first paragraph of the Gann, he spoke of how American Symphonies were primarily playing German works, but never defines German. I wonder if he includes Haydn and Mozart in his term or not. Really, they aren't, but one could argue they were, and their music was certainly popular enough to be performed by American Symphonies. Without specification, it leaves the reader wondering how skewed the numbers are. In any case, the European to American music ratio is appalling, especially during this era of nationalism. One would expect the American Symphonies to incorporate marches by Sousa, some national theme songs and a bit of American Symphonic literature to get some more time on the podium.

I found myself wanting to know more about Partch. what a character. It is no wonder he faded into  obscurity, with such a stark departure from convention. Still, it was entertaining to read about his instruments. However, it was positively maddening to read a description of harmony as a science. this space would have been far better used with pictures and diagrams of Partch's instruments, rather than explaining terminology anyone who has business reading this book should know.

Nancarrow is a very interesting figure as well. I found myself very curious about him and his life. So, despite being born an American, Nancarrow decided to spend most of his life in Mexico, due to his pronounced Communist leanings when he was young. Focused on the player piano, he found solace in the instrument in that it could perform works that humans would not be able to through the addition of mathematical computations.  However, one must wonder, if these works could not be played by human hands, how did he expect they would sound when written? The obvious answer is that he did not know, and it would certainly take a lot of work to put these into a machine only to have the tones played be those that did not agree with your ear. The term 'Experimental' music hits a little too close to home for this character. Writing music by trial and error is something I cannot get behind. Very little is easily available on Nancarrow, but I am still eager to know more. He just mystifies me.

Lou Harrison is a strange figure. His life has significance to his music through and through, although his blending of genres seems to be done with no specific means in mind. Reading about his combining Native American with Orchestral with Asian in his fourth symphony, combining the gamelan with jazz and the orchestra simply for the wonder of how it will sound.

Overall, these composers are writing without ends in mind, not with specific aesthetic motives. I worry that their ideas are a step in the wrong direction for music. Experimentation on its own is a good thing. However, if you are going to put out a product without first experimenting thoroughly to find out the best way to incorporate your ideas about sound, it just becomes contrived and loses its sense of artistic merit. How is one supposed to take an artist seriously, even a serious one, if that artist is not working with the end in mind?