Wednesday, July 04, 2018

a Slipped Disc semi-screed on Ethan Hein proposing hip hop be taught in music schools. Some thoughts about battles between advocates of linear-dynamic "time space" traditions and the spatial-rhythmic "space time" traditions in Western musicology

Well, hope you've had a happy 4th of July for those of you to whom it's applicable. 

http://slippedisc.com/2018/06/this-academic-wants-conservatoires-to-teach-hip-hop/

You may remember Ethan Hein.

He’s the Doctoral fellow in music education at NYU who regards classical music teaching as a symptom of white supremacism.

Now he has written another carefully considered paper:

Music education is in a ”crisis of irrelevancy” (Reimer 2009, 398). Enrollment in school music has declined precipitously for the past few decades. Budget cuts alone can not explain this decline (Kratus, 2007). School music teaches the competencies of European-descended classical music: performing acoustic instruments in ensembles, reading notation, and following a conductor. Youth culture, meanwhile, values recorded music descending from the vernacular traditions of the African diaspora, substantially produced using computers. Hip-hop is the most popular genre of music in the United States (Nielsen 2018), and by some measures, in the world (Hooton 2015). Yet it is vanishingly unusual for hip-hop to be addressed in an American music classroom. Even when educators want to do so, they rarely have the necessary experience or knowledge….

Why is it so important that music education embrace hip-hop when students are already i
mmersed in it outside of school? There are three main reasons. First, if music educators wish to foster students’ own musical creativity, then students must be free to create in the styles that are meaningful to them. Second, while many young people enjoy listening to hip-hop, few know how to produce it. Third, and most important, music is a site where social and political values are contested, symbolically or directly. The Eurocentrism of school music sends a clear message about whose cultural expression we value. While the white mainstream loves hip-hop, America showers the people who created it with contempt (Perry 2004, 27), and sometimes violence. By affording Afrodiasporic musics the respect they deserve, we will teach students to similarly value the creators of those musics….

Read on here.

John Borstlap, whose book The Classical Revolution I've been reading, had a reply/rebuttal to Heim's proposal.



John Borstlap says:
It is patronizing to think that African-Americans should cultivate hiphop and the like to make them part of Western civilization. The best way of compensating for / fighting against racial discrimination, which cannot be encouraged enough, is to make the best of the culture to which they belong (i.e. Western civilization!) available to them. To see in Western cultural products only political symbols of suppresion is missing the point entirely.

I must say, I fully understand the need to counter discrimination of all kinds, and for that reason have the most sympathy for any attempt to support anti-discrimination efforts, but the artistic and aesthetic level of hiphop (which is by no means restricted to African-Americans) one would not like to see it considered as a cultural signifyer, because it signifies the worst possible cultural type of expression. So, turning hiphop into a symbol of liberation, is effecting the opposite.

Please, do think it through…. and compare hiphop with the aspirational works of the Western classical tradition which offer so much more to the development of people feeling discriminiated against. Your motivation is laudable but misdirected.

As noted elsewhere this week, the argument that only someone from the proverbial right would be reluctant to endorse granting the Pulitzer to a hip hop album is a dubious argument.  John Halle's left convictions are sufficiently well-articulated at his blog I don't feel any need to belabor them, yet he's had reservations about having the Pulitzer granted to musical works that are not conveyed through the literate musical traditions of the West.  It's not about quality of the work but about, as he put it, the medium. 

While amateur participation in music in the United States may be very poor we had a well-known composer argue that the reason America would come to have an impoverished amateur culture of music-making was the recorded music industry.  John Philip Sousa argued to that effect a bit more than a century ago. His concern was the emerging music industry would be that, an industry, and that it would stratify the American populace into producers and consumers; local pedagogy would suffer and people would rely on machines to convey music for them and to them rather than create their own music; musical literacy would probably decline precipitously once people could buy the machines necessary to play music they liked that they might increasingly entrust to having made by designated professionals.

Yes, hip hop "could", in theory, be used as a way to promulgate a renewed amateur music-making culture.  But ... consider that the medium involved is reliant on machines and on a wide array of technologies.  While the disadvantages of the literate musical tradition are significant, the steep learning curve, for instance, and the years of time required to master the conceptual approaches, what you can do with the skills of the "classical" tradition is write out music on paper even if you don't have access to a musical instrument and are trapped, for instance, in a Soviet prison system.

Zaderatsky comes to mind, precisely because he wrote his 24 preludes and fugues for piano having no piano and having no music paper, relying instead on telegraph cards.  That's a remarkable feat of compositional work that might not be possible apart from being steeped in the literate musical disciplines and traditions.

Ironically one of the impasses in this kind of debate or discussion (if either) is that poplar music from the early 20th century up until now has arguably been based on a conception of music that explores "space" and rhythm.  This is, perhaps doubly ironically, something that Theodore Adorno articulated in his Philosophy of New Music in his damnation of the music of Stravinsky, which he regarded as fascistic and inhuman. Stravinsky's pounding mechanical rhythms subjugated the consciousness of the listening subject and made him or her a slave to the rhythm, so to speak, with music that annihilates subjectivity by subsuming it into a larger collective.  This was Adorno's damnation of Stravinsky's music and also of popular music.  While his condemnation of jazz has been presented as racist and elitist an chauvinist and it can be seen that way, the most generous reading of his scabrous polemic would be to say he was first and foremost against music that might be of some benefit or any benefit to capitalists and people in the music industry as industry.  His advocacy for atonality was an advocacy for music that would so completely resist reification and commoditization that no one in what he called the "culture industry" would be able to just foist it on the masses.  It was a dubious and naïve thing to hope for because, if anything, the kinds of people who actually listen to Elliot Carter are arguably as culture-industry as people can get. 

But the claim Adorno made that the best music of the Western literate tradition mapped out as working at a linear-dynamic level as well as a spatial-rhythmic level is worth considering.  His condemnation of Stravinsky was that Stravinsky forsook development or what some traditionalist call "musical argument" in favor of blocks and sheets of "raw" sound.  That is, not coincidentally, a complaint leveled by fans of classical music against popular styles, that the music is static and without development. 

Here it might be useful to cross reference Adorno's polemics in Philosophy of New Music to George Rochberg's proposal in The Aesthetics of Survival. Rochberg proposed that there is music written with attention to a time-space and music written on the basis of a space-time.  The former can be thought of as music that fits within the Western musical tradition of "classical" music. It can be thought of as a "journey" or a "narrative".  It has a beginning, a middle, and an end and often has ideas developed in a way that is perceptible over time and relies on accumulated associative memory for the full scope of the musical "argument" or "story".  This would map on to what Adorno called the "linear dynamic" tradition.

The space-time music, by contrast, could correspond to what Adorno called the "spatial-rhythmic" paradigm.  This music can be thought of as not a "narrative" with a linear progression. Instead we could think of it as a kind of three-dimensional space within the auditor who can hear music in time, but who is hearing the work as a kind of soundscape.  In popular music the way this could be described is what you hear in a rock song when there are electric guitars on the left and electric guitars on the right, the bass and drums are front and center but "in the back" in terms of volume and "location" while the vocals might be "up top", "front and center" and surrounding you as you listen to the music on head phones.  "space-time" music can be composed and presented in a way that replicates the physical mapping of how a performance could be perceived in a live setting even when the work may be mediated entirely by mechanical recording and replication.  Perhaps one of the touchstones of this "space time" approach could be a Beatles album mastered in stereo; or Pinkfloyd's Dark Side of the Moon or Innervisions by Stevie Wonder. But in the "classical" idioms and traditions this might be best exemplified by Xenakis or Varese in one stream of activity. In another it might be John Cage. 

One of the problems in Western musical pedagogy is that theory explicating and illuminating the linear-dynamic stream of thought is pretty well set in stone, even calcified, in the wake of 19th century ideals and canons.  That pre-19th century music features a wide swath of practices and customs that are amenable to contemporary popular music is something early music specialists have been highlighting over the years, such as Bruce Haynes in The End of Early Music.  Thanks to what feel like prefabricated narratives about colonialism and oppression academics can tend to default to assuming the literate musical traditions as codified in the 19th century are sacrosanct on the one hand or things we need to shake free of on the other.  With respect to some of the concerns of both sides on that issue I suggest that a path forward is ironically summed up by Iannis Xenakis' observation that all of these customs are man-made and therefore are modifiable.  I would suggest Xenakis tried to modify too many of the conventions too quickly in too many ways and that's why hardly anybody I've met in my life can enjoy his work.  :)  Nevertheless, the simplest formulation of his paradigm seems sound. 

So it's with all that in mind that ...

 
Music education is in a ”crisis of irrelevancy” (Reimer 2009, 398). Enrollment in school music has declined precipitously for the past few decades. Budget cuts alone can not explain this decline (Kratus, 2007). School music teaches the competencies of European-descended classical music: performing acoustic instruments in ensembles, reading notation, and following a conductor. Youth culture, meanwhile, values recorded music descending from the vernacular traditions of the African diaspora, substantially produced using computers. Hip-hop is the most popular genre of music in the United States (Nielsen 2018), and by some measures, in the world (Hooton 2015). Yet it is vanishingly unusual for hip-hop to be addressed in an American music classroom. Even when educators want to do so, they rarely have the necessary experience or knowledge. Meanwhile, musicians with a hip-hop background find their skills and knowledge to be of little value to institutional gatekeepers. Kendrick Lamar is a good enough musician to merit a Pulitzer Prize, but he would not be accepted into most undergraduate music education programs (Kruse 2018).
 
Having touched on the genuinely debatable nature as to why a hip hop album merits a Pulitzer Prize that in earlier decades went to musical works published with a score, and looked at the writing of a progressive/green/left composer for the reasoning regarding this, it can seem like a red herring to argue that Kendrick Lamar is a good enough musician to merit a Pulitzer Prize but would not be accepted into most undergraduate music education programs. 

You can say that Andres Segovia couldn't play pedal steel guitar to save his life if he had ever even wanted to, and you could say that Don Helms couldn't do a convincing job playing a Sor guitar sonata but the idea that Segovia and Helms somehow were bad musicians should be moot.  This kind of appeal that Lamar wouldn't be accepted into most undergraduate music education programs comes off as a red herring not because of Lamar's skill set within his field but because of a collapsing of criteria across both fields in order to make a polemical point.  Who says that Lamar would "need" to be accepted into most undergraduate music education programs?  Why music education?  He could ace a music technology class for all we know. 

Having stopped my formal education at what was "technically" a really big "minor" in music composition while pursuing a journalism degree I can't say I feel like I was left out by not being able to get to a master's degree, let alone a doctorate in music history or musicology or music theory.  I learned enough basic tools getting my music minor (again, a really big music minor!) that a few years back I was able to read through Elements of Sonata Theory and I love the book. I also read through William Caplin's Classical Forms. So I am not surprised that the skill sets in hip hop don't translate or transfer into competency in the literate music traditions known as "classical", or jazz, or even some kinds of popular music like Broadway ... if we want to say Broadway still counts as popular.  In the same way competency in those styles will not necessarily translate into competency in hip hop. 

Having explained my reluctance to embrace and endorse the labels of "Eurological" and "Afrological" already I don't want to belabor that point. It might just be enough to reiterate that since half my lineage is Native American I might balk at anyone saying that Western music has to be construed in "Euro" and "Afro" terms because that risks obliterating Asian and Asiatic influences and aboriginal musical traditions on the North American continent.  It's all too possible, given how humans tend to behave, to reject one master narrative of musical vitality with another that's no less restrictive in practical application. 

All that said, at least Hein doesn't default to a bromide I've heard from white bros with liberal tendencies to the effect that you can't or shouldn't teach jazz or any nominally Afrological musical performance or compositional practices.  This is the kind of stupidity that appeals to people who nominally seem to be true blue types but it doesn't hold up.  The fact that a jazz master like Duke Ellington did not have a ton of formal music education didn't mean he had no formal musical education.  In the Russian tradition there's some skepticism that anything beyond a training in the rudiments of music-making will create cookie cutter knock offs, something Richard Taruskin discussed in Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions.  So depending on your frame of mind and frame of reference the worst thing you can do is try to teach a musical style because wasn't that how we got the ossified 19th century canon?  Couldn't we just get an ossified academic-approved history of hip hop? 

And the crisis of relevancy is probably not just for musicology but for all the liberal arts.  Framing the larger issue of hip hop in musicology in higher education as being about a crisis in relevance for musicology may be okay, but the larger crisis of relevancy relative to student debt for liberal arts higher education seems like something we should not forget about.  It may be that what we "need" is not just a revitalization of amateur music-making but also of amateur-level theorizing.  Sure, yes, I am making this point as an amateur musician and blogger and composer.  Maybe we have academics who don't know how to articulate that after a century or two of an ars perfecta in the form of what could be called autonomous instrumental music we have academics who feel the need for a new kind of 21st century Florentine Camerata that can establish a new theoretical paradigm in which the song and not the symphony is the governing theoretical and practical approach. 

If that's the long-term goal I say that's a worthy goal.  Instrumental music considered "autonomous" has only been at the top of the heap in musical and cultural prestige for a relatively tiny moment of total human history.

Which is why I can partly appreciate this kind of plea even as I have some skepticism about it.

Why is it so important that music education embrace hip-hop when students are already immersed in it outside of school? There are three main reasons. First, if music educators wish to foster students’ own musical creativity, then students must be free to create in the styles that are meaningful to them. Second, while many young people enjoy listening to hip-hop, few know how to produce it. Third, and most important, music is a site where social and political values are contested, symbolically or directly. The Eurocentrism of school music sends a clear message about whose cultural expression we value. While the white mainstream loves hip-hop, America showers the people who created it with contempt (Perry 2004, 27), and sometimes violence. By affording Afrodiasporic musics the respect they deserve, we will teach students to similarly value the creators of those musics. 


I've said this before but educating students in the robust possibilities of an existing public domain seems more important than ever as international corporate juggernauts work on modifying intellectual property laws.  The wealth of gloriously public domain materials in classical music that hip hop could rely upon seems like something that could be used as a case that we could revive what in the Baroque era were described as first practice and second practice or the ancient style and the modern style in contemporary English vernacular.  I'm all in favor of developing a theoretical and pedagogical framework within which one type of Western canon is retained while another type of Western canon is taught.  We can have the "classical" traditions spanning the first and second Renaissance up through the 20th century on the one hand and the tradition of popular music, too.  Scholars tend to regard "popular music" almost by default as a shorthand for what Heim has described as Afrological.  But it's not necessarily so across the board. 

At the level of musicians making music I don't think the question of respect for Afrodiasporic music may even be an issue, however much it may feel that way or actually be that way in the academy. 
 
...
Of all the diverse forms that popular music takes, hip-hop poses the greatest challenge to the Western classical habitus. Hip-hop is rapped rather than sung; it is cyclical rather than linear; it is produced rather than performed; it uses samples and other forms of intertextuality rather than valuing the “original” expression of a lone composer; it is improvisational rather than score-driven; and it originates in marginalized minority communities of low socioeconomic status rather than among aristocratic or academic elites. In order to adapt to hip-hop musical practices, music educators must question many of their own musical norms and values. Williams (2011) observes that our large ensemble model of school music, which was imported to the United States from the European conservatory tradition in the early twentieth century, has barely changed in the past century. Music educators teach what they learned, and what they learned is likely to be the musical expression of old-world whiteness.
 ...

I've responded to this simplistic approach to "classical" music history in the past so I don't feel like recycling it yet again.  Music prior to the 19th century had cyclical forms, it was also composed via improvisation and sketchy schematic conventions. There was also intertextual recontextualization of existing materials (i.e. sampling, e.g. variations on la folia etc).  In a way the trouble with advocacy for musicology on hip hop tends to traffic in arguments and polemics trapped in 19th century and post-19th century canon and pedagogy at the expense of realizing that for various musicians steeped in Baroque rather than Romantic idioms explorations of the ways in which putatively Afrological and Eurological musics can be synthesized has been going on for generations, even to the point that experiments toward a fusion of these idioms has been going on across either side of the historic "Iron Curtain".  When intellectuals in Poland were calling for more openness to jazz in the post-Stalin era back in the 1950s that suggests that plenty of practical musicians and intellectuals wanted some kind of dialogue and interaction that may not have met with approval by academics and ideologues.   

It's not anti-intellectual as such to point out that academics have occasionally ben adversaries of practical fusions.  Leo Brouwer has made this point in the past, that academics are often the ones who are against fusion because their bread and butter is not producing or analyzing the fusions of styles that attract contemporary composers and musicians the world over.

But Hein's taxonomy of music doesn't have to be grounded in Afrological and Eurological paradigms as though these were or should be the new paradigms.  Even within the polemics of the ostensibly Eurological music traditions there was, at least from Adorno's polemics on out, an understanding that there's a linear-dynamic and a spatial-rhythmic set of paradigms, what Rochberg called the time-space and space-time paradigms of listening and composing.  Having this in mind and understanding how analysis can benefit from a time-space vs space-time way of conceiving of musical form could be useful as a way to explore the possibility of spatial-temporal correspondence in the syntactics of one paradigm in relationship to another.  At the risk of referencing my own theorizing to that end, it's possible to imagine that if we're playing with musics that run on a "time space" paradigm that ragtime and sonata forms are thoroughly compatible.  If we play more the "space time" route that could encompass a lot of popular music but also a lot of sonic art and soundscapes.  It's not that we need to never use Afrological and Eurological paradigms as some musicologists deploy the terms. I'm sure they're useful, it's more that they may benefit from modification.  George Walker's music fits so readily into the Western literate music tradition that whether or not it's explicable in whatever Afrological means might be open ended. 

There does seem to be a crisis not so much of the relevancy of traditional musicology steeped in the linear-dynamic time-space tradition as there's been a crisis of a lack of musicology and theory that informs the space-time spatial-rhythmic paradigm.  Adorno was in many ways set against there being such a range of paradigms because he conflated all those kinds of developments with fascism and capitalism and collapsed all that into some kind of master narrative that I think we'd be much better off without. 

Whatever a "space time:" range of theoretical and conceptual tools may have seem like it could or should be applicable to hip hop or to soundscapes a la Xenakis without necessarily having to be locked into an ethnic narrative or a race narrative on the order of Afrological or Eurological. 

And, again, as someone who's about half Native American I admit that part of why the persistence of such a taxonomy seems annoying to me.  It's been baffling to see people discuss music and musicology in such literally and figuratively black and white terms.  It can make me grateful I didn't bother to do more music study at a formal level.  It can be hard to shake the sense that even as well-meaning as so many people on all sides seem to be there's still the vitriol of academic turf wars undergirding all this stuff in a way that doesn't seem like it's altogether relevant to practical music making at either an amateur or even a professional level. 

7 comments:

Ethan Hein said...

Thanks for this long and thoughtful response. I wanted to clarify a couple of things. I don't know where the Slipped Disc people got the idea that I'm a musicologist, or that I'm writing about musicology. I'm a music educator (and an educator of educators), and I'm arguing about education. The central point of my argument is that music educators are being trained as if they were going to go join 19th century symphony orchestras, which is poor preparation for sending them into classrooms to engage young people. It's common for music educators to be perfectly ignorant about the processes behind creating hip-hop, both in its cultural and technical aspects. The "crisis of irrelevancy" is the one facing school music programs, which are almost always modeled on classical ensembles, and which the overwhelming majority of young people are opting out of participating in (when they're even available in the first place). Young people are likelier to want to engage in school music if it's a place where they can learn to be musically expressive in culturally authentic ways. Hip-hop is not the only form that's meaningful to young people, but it's the most popular form of music in the US and probably the world. Rock, jazz and classical all share a basis in live instrumental performance. Hip-hop and other producer-centric electronic pop forms pose a profound challenge to the performance paradigm. While it's true that earlier classical styles share certain stylistic conventions with contemporary pop (e.g. cyclical forms and quoting existing melodies), the conceptual and cultural distance between realizing figured bass and programming beats on a laptop is enormous, maybe unprecedentedly so. The distance between a Baroque fantasia on a hymn and a track based on sampled recordings is similarly enormous.

Susan McClary has argued (and I agree) that the similarities between the Varese soundscape and the Beethoven string quartet are more profound than the differences, because while they sound very unlike each other, the social structures that give rise to them are the same: a solitary composer writing a score, interpreted by a conductor with absolute authority over the performers, who in turn have absolute authority over the seated and silent audience. The social and participatory ethos of electronic dance music production is closer to West African group drumming traditions. A sample-based rap song may not have any identifiable "composer" at all. This idea poses much bigger challenges to traditional Western music pedagogy than any of the musical content.

Ethan Hein said...

I agree with you that the black/white split is too simple, and that it doesn't account for all of America's ethnic complexity. (My Jewish ancestors also lie outside of the basic duo.) But it's a useful simplification, because America's dominant ethnic group is white, and African-Americans are its most culturally influential minority. If you look at the George Lewis essay where he coins Afrological and Eurological, he's perfectly clear that both categories are softly bounded. No one would deny that there are black classical musicians and white rappers. But the existence of these complexities doesn't change the basic blackness of rap or the basic whiteness of classical music. I believe that if we can resolve the academy's lingering biases against black music, that will open up space for the musics of other marginalized groups as well.

Finally, you should understand how shallowly I'm entrenched as an academic. I had very little formal training in music until I was 35. Before going to grad school, I spent fifteen years playing rock and country guitar and producing electronic music. My experience of the music academy has been an outsider one. I agree completely that we can and should be talking about "Living for the City", but academics mostly aren't. As a music tech specialist, I have more freedom than most college professors, and I use that freedom to make sure my students are taking artists like Stevie Wonder seriously.

Wenatchee the Hatchet said...

Thank for the comments and the clarification.

I'm a hobbyist guitarist and composer so when I read Taruskin's OXford History in which he summarily dismissed the guitar as essentially never being part of the Western literate tradition I found that annoying because classical guitar literature does go back as far as the late 18th century. Even when Taruskin tries to correct for some misunderstandings he can manage to perpetuate some himself, though I don't know that I'd say he's malicious about it.

In a way he just proved a point Matanya Ophee made about how the entire conservatory system proceeds as if what we call classical guitar literature doesn't even exist.

I hadn't come across the George Lewis essay so apologies if I misunderstood how loosely bounded the terms are.

I'm kind of a Hindemith fan so one of his cranky polemics that has stuck with me is he complained that American music education was geared toward reproducing pedagogues rather than practical musicians. I'm sure he would have hated popular music as it developed from the year of his death onward in the United States but he might have been on to something about an insular trend in music education. My hunch, remembering my college days working with music technology instructors vs music theory instructors is that the tech vs history rift has probably not changed much in the last twenty years. The music tech profs seemed a lot more easy-going and open-minded about genre issues.

Just saw your Cage post. The irony that you and Borstlap differ on hip hop in the academy is that you might both actually agree that we could do with a whole lot less of Cage and sonic art in the academy ... but that might have to be another post.

Thanks for commenting and clarifying things.

Ethan Hein said...

The tech/theory split is slowly weakening, but this is because tech is growing to encompass more of the music side. It's the rare theory department that's (voluntarily) opening up to tech.

When I was coming up, I was always mystified by how arbitrary the boundaries of the canon seemed to be, with your example of the way it neglects guitar music as a case in point. It was only recently that I learned that the canon had a specific nationalist and ideological purpose, to prove the superiority of German music over other musics, thereby proving the superiority of German culture generally. Germany isn't historically known for its guitar music.

Taruskin seems to be making a good-faith effort to broaden his own canon-centric thinking, but he's a product of his education, like the rest of us.

It is pretty funny that Borstlap and I agree about Cage, though his solution is to go back to the good old days of Beethoven, and mine is to go forward to a post-canonical and post-composerly world.

Ethan Hein said...

Here's a link to the Lewis essay, I think you and your readers will find it interesting. https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/58902/original%20%20/Lewis+-+Improvised+Music+after+1950-+Afrological+and+Eurological+Perspectives+.pdf

Wenatchee the Hatchet said...

Thanks for the link.

I can very easily imagine a POLYcanonic world in which we don't have to be pinned down to a German idealist notion of what a composer means ... but I am not so sure we'll ever have a post-canonical world. There's classic rock and classic pop and classic soul and classic jazz. Taruskin's point over the years on this topic has been that the danger in academic music history and musicology is that the gap between the academic canon and the repertoire canon has gotten way, way too big. I think that's a good point but I am not sure that trying to get rid of the dominance of one canon in pedgagoy will help other styles of music. But if a case can be made for the viability and beauty of a polycanonic theory and practice can be made then I think that could go a long way to dethroning the very long 19th century. Leonard Meyer went so far as to say that the Romantic era of the 19th century was unusual in that WE'RE STILL LIVING WITH IT in musical terms.

he also pointed out something that stuck with me, that the Romantics tended to disguise their conventions and that compared to 18th century composers they were more rather than less conventional. They paid lip service to the ideal of breaking the rules but in their actual pedagogy they were consolidating and calcifying them. That helped explain for me why I don't get tired of Haydn but Schubert is ... eh .. . Or as Kyle Gann has put it, the 18th century was much weirder and more experimental than fans of 19th century music would have us believe it was.

Wenatchee the Hatchet said...

I'm not sure I've got a lot of readers these days but they'll get to see the link you posted. :)