Jan Miyake on the distinction between monothematicism and thematic saturation in finales by Haydn

Regular readers probably recall that one of Wenatchee The Hatchet’s favorite composers is Franz Joseph Haydn.  Well, Jan Miyake has a fun little piece onmonothematicism and thematic reuse in Haydn’s fourth movements. 

Prank and variations with James Lindsay, a belated thought or two on the American Reformer prank

May be the thing about one trick ponies is this, however many times you’ve seen a one trick pony do the same trick over and over for the pony it’s new every time he does it and it means something new in this magical moment.

 

Can you imply a tonic that never shows up in the song? Yes. Ethan Hein discusses Fleetwood Mac's "Dreams" and examines harmonic/melodic divorce with reference to Matthew Hough

Ethan Hein has written about "Dreams" by Fleetwood Mac, one of Stevie Nicks' most famous songs.  There's a discussion of harmonic/melodic divorce in the song (see here for a working definition of the concept more generally) and of the question "what key is this song in?"

Nikolai Roslavets: Piano Sonata No. 1

Because why not feature a piano sonata by another Nikolai who sounds nothing at all like Kapustin? :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHmM_sMq7I

Nikolai Kapustin Piano Sonata No. 6

Someone put together a score-video of Kapustin's piano sonata (and a few others).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r27U1Z5eQyY

The channel also features a boat load of Ferneyhough so don't get the impression the channel is about jazz fusion. 

Of the Kapustin sonatas I've heard (about half of them?) this is the one I found most effective in terms of its first-movement form.  This is the piano sonata (again, of the ones I've heard) where Kapustin did well in clearly delineating his first and second themes.  I'm considering revisiting a few of the sonatas and maybe discussing them but at the moment I have not felt up to deep dives into musical scores and longtime readers know that Grand Sonata II was supposed to have happened by now.  IRL stuff happens and sometimes energy and focus end up elsewhere (like composing)

So, anyway, here you go.  

"That is why you fail" some thoughts on the failure of Rawlsian contractarian liberalism to have produced a cohesive vision for the arts during and after the Cold War, by way of thinkpieces about the state of the arts in the new Trump administration

It may be necessarily characteristic of this new administration that it has begun with artists (and writers on the arts) contemplating the essential role the arts can/may/should/must play during these times.  Jonathan Blumhofer had a somewhat long piece at ArtsFuse this February in which he concluded:

https://artsfuse.org/305462/arts-commentary-art-music-and-the-new-age-of-anxiety/

...

Knowing this, let us contend with the future bravely. However late the hour and however long the road ahead, the cause of standing for justice, knowledge, and freedom isn’t yet doomed. Along the way, let the arts comfort, inspire, instruct, and help lead. That’s what they’re here for.

 

At ArtsJournal Michael Rushton had a response:

https://www.artsjournal.com/worth/2025/02/art-in-turbulent-times/

...

 

Arts organizations do not need to “respond” to the election of Trump in their programming, any more than they would have needed to respond to the election of Harris. Museums and orchestras have unique roles in our cities in their abilities to provide the public with great art – lots of people can organize political protests about Trump, can hold meetings, can try to persuade people to vote the other way the next time. But only your orchestra has the ability to perform Mahler’s Fourth; nobody else can.

 

“Let the arts comfort, inspire, instruct, and help lead. That’s what they’re here for.” But they’re not. And, as we have seen only recently, those exact same words can be said by the most despicable political actors.

 

The arts won’t save you from the political situation you hate.

 

This rejoinder has a point worth considering but, first, we have to deal with a question.  If the arts are not around to comfort, inspire, instruct and help lead then what are they for?  What are the arts good for if they don’t do these things? Blumhofer concedes that the arts have some civic religious, cultic purpose even if it’s by way of #Resistance during the second Trump administration.  Rushton’s point that the arts have served despotic regimes is worth considering but it begs the question of why, whether and how arts in the service of despotic regimes would be worse (however we even define that) than arts made in free societies.  You can conceive of “free” in scare quotes even if I hadn’t just provided them in this sentence.

 

Yet Rushton’s response is still salient simply for its timing.  Would artists and arts communities be writing the same way about how artists and the arts can speak truth to power if Harris had won?  No, they probably wouldn’t be.