Thursday, September 26, 2024

Socratic Gadfly underwhelmed by a Joseph Horowitz book on music history (Artists in Exile)


Gadfly isn't as down on Horowitz as Douglas Shadle but gave Artists in Exile a 2 of 5.  Having read Dvorak's Prophecy and kind of agreed with Shadle's take on it; and having been underwhelmed by The Propaganda of Freedom; I am not sure I'm going to go the distance with more of Horowitz' books. 

That said, I do actually appreciate Horowitz' work putting in a good word for the music of Arthur Farwell.  It can be almost rote for Native American writers and musicians to dismiss Farwell as the white guy who copied Indian music even though some of Farwell's advocates in the present are Native American musicians.  I prefer his Polytonal Studies to the more overtly Indianist works but I think Farwell's music is worth checking out. Check out his F minor against E minor study here. Then there's the E flat minor against A minor study.  Farwell, easy as it is to criticize him "now", at least went to the trouble of cultivating friendly, sustained relationships with the tribes whose musical traditions he adapted to piano composition.  Whether that means Arthur Farwell was the Bela Bartok of the United States might be a different matter but Horowitz has been trying to get Farwell and his music a more generous hearing and I get that. 

Socratic Gadfly might want to check out Kyle Gann's American Music in the 20th Century.  I admit I favor Kyle Gann and Douglas Shadle over Horowitz for writing about North American composers.  Shadle's Orchestrating The Nation was a good, brisk and openly polemical read.  If American journalists were busy consigning piece after piece written for orchestra as "not Beethoven" or "not "Wagner" on the one hand (not "serious") or as "not really American" on the other then the continual double bind in music journalism in the long 19th century doomed a lot of otherwise solid music composed by people in the United States to oblivion.  I am not so much going to fault Horowitz for wanting some of that overlooked music to get heard but that doesn't mean I haven't found other American authors who are simply better at making their cases than Horowitz has been.  
That American modern classical music has suffered due to failure to follow Dvorak’s urging to ground itself on Black music is has a fair amount of truth. 
I don't know if Socratic Gadfly has heard of it but Philip Ewell has a whole book dealing with Black music and music education and history in the United States that's worth reading.  I disagreed with Ewell on a few relatively minor points but really enjoyed the book overall.  That said I do think one of the impasses we're at in classical music is the simple problem that competing etiological narratives of how things go so bad is not the same as working together across various aisles to try to come up with some kind of shared path forward.  Even Richard Taruskin went from writing as if classical music was dying to a more nuanced proposal that classical music is simply changing.  If that's true then wanting the orchestral/symphonic idiom to retain all the high prestige that the mensural polyphonic votive mass had in the period from 1300 to 1550 CE is probably a mug's game.  

Whatever the future of classical music is actually going to be we can't know for sure but I'm leaning toward "cross over instead" as a guitarist than trying to breathe new life into the centuries old symphonic idiom.  This is an amazing era for contemporary guitar music.  With the things Nikita Koshkin, Atanas Ourkouzounov, Dusan Bogdanovic, Annette Kruisbrink, Stepan Rak and the late Angelo Gilardino I'm interested in the rich future classical guitar has, an instrument that Richard Tarusking bluntly pointed out has basically never been part of the history of the Western literate musical tradition.  That was the point that Matanya Ophee registered a complaint about over his life.  We guitarists have more to gain by taking any and every style of music written on and for our instrument seriously than by waiting to be taken seriously by the classical music mainstream.  If no guitar work has "made it" into the mainstream classical music canon in the last 2.5 to 5 centuries there won't be such a work.  But if classical music is in as terminal a condition as conservative punditry has it then, well, guitarist composers have nothing to gain from trying to be taken seriously by that dying scene anyway.  Which in a way gets at an overt blind spot in Horowitz' work, that his approach tends to be symphonic when music historians and managers have asked some blunt questions about whether or not the entire symphonic idiom hasn't always been on life support in the United States.  

Ethan Hein has a piece discussing Jeff Buckley's cover of "Lilac Wine" at MusicRadar

https://www.ethanhein.com/wp/2024/musicradar-column-on-lilac-wine-by-jeff-buckley/

https://www.musicradar.com/artists/he-sounds-like-an-alien-or-a-being-from-another-dimension-a-music-professor-breaks-down-the-theory-behind-jeff-buckleys-lilac-wine

 

…

As befits Jeff Buckley’s strangeness, Grace is a strange album. It’s nominally “alternative rock”, but Buckley doesn’t sing or write like a typical 90s alt-rocker, and he includes a couple of songs that are conspicuously not rock at all. One is Corpus Christi Carol, a 500-year-old traditional tune arranged by Benjamin Britten. The other is Lilac Wine. It’s only 75 years old, but it sounds even less like alt-rock than Corpus Christi Carol does.

…

I don’t know anyone who is neutral on Jeff Buckley; people either love him or hate him. Goldin-Perschbacher attributes that to the shocking intimacy he creates with the listener: “Buckley’s performance aesthetic could seem, to some, too private for public performance. The relationship between Buckley and his listeners was so intense that it felt metaphorically, if not literally, sexual, in terms of privacy, pleasure, and self-discovery.” 

…

 

It’s funny Ethan mentioned this because I have found that Buckley really is that polarizing. I was introduced to Buckley’s signature album decades ago and I have happily owned it.  My brother couldn’t resist making fun of the lyrics from “Mojo Pin” by saying “White horses run through the fields as we make love, shaking their sassy manes!”  Which is pretty funny!  The song still sounds great to me, though. 

 

There was a lot of rock in the 1990s I frankly hated.  I hated the bulk of the Seattle sound and grunge in particular.  I hated Nirvana’s music back then and I still hate it.  Never cared for Pearl Jam.  I had a kind of grudging respect for Soundgarden but “Black Hole Sun”, though I liked its chord changes, kinda reminded me of the glorious and elliptical final movement of Toru Takamitsu’s “All in Twilight”.   I don’t know why I made the connection but I made it. 

 

But Buckley’s album I enjoyed, and I remember meeting a musician in my Mars Hill years who just flatly said he didn’t like Jeff Buckley (who was named Jeff, if I recall).  The gender presentation topic is kind of interesting and I suppose for folks who wanted to go DIY indie post-punk authenticity everything about Jeff Buckley was so overtly presentational it would fail all the standardized tests of rock-based masculinity … if rock is all you’ve saturated yourself in.

 

But another potential angle to consider is camp.  Raymond Knapp made a couple of points in his book Making Light: Haydn, Musical Camp, and the Long Shadow of German Idealism that spring to mind.  The first and most basic point (about Haydn) was that German Idealism became more hegemonic in its influence on music criticism, history and reception and in German Idealism authenticity and profundity were touchstones.  Knapp contended that these ideals in German Idealism were and are so pervasive they saturate the criteria of authenticity in rock and jazz criticism.  By contrast, camp was rejected as a mixture of not being highbrow enough (musical theater) and not being manly enough. 

 

Knapp made a subsidiary point that, owing to the outsized influence of Sontag’s “Notes on Camp” Anglo-American literary criticism has all but ignored the reality of camp as a feature of straight cultural production.  Knapp was specific, Haydn is camp, very camp.  Haydn is always aware that you are in on his joke and he wants you to be in on the joke without necessarily being insincere.  Camp, Knapp contended, has not always been coded as gay but as expectations of gender performance and “seriousness” evolved in the long 19th century camp was not prized.  By Sontag’s era camp was all but annexed by or ceded to queer theory readings.  Knapp made a somewhat diffuse plea to remind readers of Making Light that straight people made and make camp plenty and that Haydn was one of the most successful purveyors of straight camp in classical music. 

 

Now the thing is, as a lifelong fan of Batman I get there are gay readings of Batman. They are an option within the reception history but obviously not the whole of the reception history of Batman.  More recently Netflix is planning to reboot Rumiko Takahashi’s spectacularly silly and affectionate rom-com send up or the martial arts genre, Ranma ½, and if all you ever read about Takahashi’s work was by, say, Noah Berlatsky, you’d think the only way to interpret her work is as one long tract in favor of LGTBQ advocacy.  Given Berlatsky’s activist commitments regarding the nature and aim of art criticism that’s what he’s into. 

 

That doesn’t change the fact that millions upon millions of the most conventionally straight guys across the entire planet have enjoyed Takahashi’s work without feeling obliged to read her work the way Berlatsky reads it.  One of Takahashi’s more easily overlooked works was a series aimed at male readers ages 18 to 30 --for my time and money Maison Ikkoku is a masterpiece of slice of life comedy manga.  If anything I’d venture to say the reception history of Takahashi’s work in Anglo-American contexts has been so curated by feminist and LGBTQ readings of her work you might be forgiven for wondering how her work got so popular in Asia that American LGBTQ readings were possible since the 1990s in the first place.  As with Batman in American comics so with Ranma Saotome in manga, the prevalence of a robust subcultural reception history is not the same thing as mainstream reception.  Rumiko Takahashi has been one of the unparalleled comedic geniuses in the history of manga and you will probably never have read much of anything about her in The Comics Journal, unless Gary Groth really repented of not liking manga and I haven’t heard of it.  Perhaps the kinds of guys who spell commix that way are the kinds of guys who wouldn’t want to listen to Jeff Buckley because he’s not really rock?

 

Which only roundaboutly gets me back to Buckley and the concept of camp.  I don’t think anyone would suggest Buckley came across as insincere but the problem for the rockist bros would be that there’s so much affectation in Buckley’s performances. Borrowing rubato from classical musical conventions would just be one of those affectations for the rockists that would be unacceptable. 

 

Ethan Hein gets at something that I like about Buckley’s work, his systemic-bordering-on-rpincipled disregard for genre purity.  Old syrupy show tune?  Go for it?  A Leonard Cohen cover?  Sure, do it!  Benjamin Britten?  Right on.  I also happen to love Benjamin Britten’s Nocturnal After John Dowland for solo guitar (check out Marcin Dylla’s performance at the provided link, which has a read-along score).

 

I think I get Hein’s point about Buckley’s gender presentation and that is an interesting thing to read about but coming at Buckley’s music as a classical guitarist who spent high school and college years singing choral music I think the thing that jumps out about Buckley that may be part of why people love him or hate him could be as simple as this, Buckley always wore all of his “that’s not rock” influences on his sleeve and lamp-shaded them conspicuously across Grace.  I have contended for years as a blogger that both pop and classical music have tended to be stuck in ruts over the last half century and those ruts are as bad as they are because the purists in all those lanes want to regain purity by “going back to basics” when that’s never been my own understanding of when, why ad how music can be so much fun.  I’m not saying music is fun when it’s “transgressive” because that’s a tedious and stupid rockist trope.  No, I am saying that fun rock and pop paid attention to (and showed real respect for) other genres.  I normally hate music about music but I love “Sir Duke” because Stevie Wonder was paying tribute not to “his” genre of music but “our” genre of music for those of us who love Ellington’s music and the masters of big band.  Buckley was a relatively rare case study, if I may, of someone in the 1990s who was overt in showing how much he was influenced by “not rock” music and for those of us who were sick of rock `n roll versions of “authenticity” Buckley’s music and its success was a signal that the future of music most likely belongs to people who make music that is fun to hear and perform; music that draws on everything rather than “the good stuff”; and which doesn’t pretend that the last century or so of “pop” and “classical” have never positively interacted with each other.

 

So, sure, put me in the “love” category for Jeff Buckley’s music and I hope I have managed to explain a little of why.  Thanks to Ethan Hein for his post.


POSTSCRIPT

9pm


There is an actual third category on Buckley.  A drummer I've been friends with for years regarded Buckley as immensely talented but as someone where it was potential rather than kinetic energy.  The potential for greatness was there but Buckley died too young and too soon to develop further and my drummer buddy's appraisal was that it seemed to him Buckley fans resonated with the potential but, for him, the actual songs and performances were the tip of a never-to-be-realized iceberg, given Buckley's death.  


My brother thought Buckley was immensely talented but he's never warmed up to what he calls the soul-bro balladeer idiom.  Buckley is better than, say, Shawn Mendes or Vance Joy or Jason Mraz or earlier variants like James Taylor and so on but Buckley was the apex of a performance idiom my brother just hasn't warmed up to.  But it's neither love nor hatred it's more, "He was about as good as that genre of male performer I never warmed up to can get, which was really good but not my thing."


That, in the main, Buckley polarizes can still probably be generally true.  But I might venture a guess that since the two "meh" people I know studied music formally there's that extra variable.  


Augustine's De Musica is up at archive.org

Having strongly disagreed with what I regard as Ted Gioia's bad faith and incompetent handling of the writings of Augustine I'd be remiss to not highlight that, thanks to achive.org, you can now read the public domain English translation of De Musica from the 1940s.

Augustine apologized early in Book VI for the tedious slog that was Books I through V.  Apology accepted!  Just because De Musica is regarded, rightly, as one of the most tedious and punishingly technical treatise on poetic rhythm and meter in the music of Latin poetry anyone bothered to write doesn't mean we should not attempt to read it for ourselves if we can manage that, whether hamstrung by translation or able to read the Latin.  What I have discovered in my decades of reading is you simply can't trust a guy like Ted Gioia to give you a competent or honest appraisal of Augustine's thought.  Better to consult Carol Harrison instead. 


Alan Jacobs on Mark Edmundson has me thinking professors who teach poetry should not actually be trusted to competently expound John Milton as an "archconservative"

https://blog.ayjay.org/what-milton-isnt/

September 25, 2024

what Milton isn’t

This is an excellent essay by Mark Edmundson, so of course I am going to write about the part I disagree with: 

 

I like to teach a class on Milton and Whitman. I do so from a political vantage, seeing Whitman as an archetypal progressive, a breaker of boundaries, an opener of new roads. Milton, by contrast, is an archconservative, someone who brilliantly dramatizes the allure of order, degree, and hierarchy. Few students have trouble entertaining Whitmanian values. What 20-year-old isn’t attracted to freedom? But with Milton, matters change. He believes that people can be happy only when they are installed in a hierarchy. We should revere what is above us and care for what is below. Milton’s views of hierarchy implicate religious, political, and family life. Reading these two poets side by side offers plenty of illuminating conflicts. 

 

The problem with this account is that, while Milton indeed believed in “order, degree, and hierarchy,” he thought it essential to ask which order, which model of degree, which system of hierarchy a society embodies. Because he thought his own society had radically misconceived such matters, Milton was not an “archconservative,” but rather was a political revolutionary who advocated for and then defended the violent overthrow of the monarchy, and then worked for a decade in the new anti-monarchical government. Moreover, his theology was very much his own; though he never repudiated the Church of England and is buried in one of its churches, he could not have been ordained in it, and probably not in any other church either. 

…

Alan Jacobs is clearly approaching this as a professor of the liberal arts and as a humanist.  Approaching this as a journalism student back in the 20th century I have an entirely different disagreement.

In what universe am I supposed to actually believe that the guy who formulated the libertarian theory of the press could be construed as an "archconservative"? 

I can't take anything Edmundson says seriously if in Edmunsonian parlance Milton is an archconservative, especially if presented as such to propose that Whitman was progressive.  

Jacobs concludes:
I am perhaps overstressing the point — in many respects Whitman was a new thing in the world. But what I am trying to suggest is that our categories of “conservative” and “progressive” do not map very neatly onto periods other than our own. 

If anything I suspect Jacobs is not overstressing the point at all. There are right-wing Christian variations of imposing a contemporary approach to polemic on to the past such as when bros in Idaho invoke Chesterton for insert-meme-lord-wagging here, and there's a progressive variation such as pretending that Teddy Adorno anticipated Trump.  I'd say it's the bane of 21st century scholarship but it is probably more the temptation of hacks in academia in every generation.  

Maybe I should admit I have never actually liked either Whitman or Milton while I'm at it. 

Tuesday, September 24, 2024

be wary of using those great quotes by way of Steven Wedgworth and Jim West

https://mereorthodoxy.com/beware-the-great-quote

 

…

One famous quote that has far outshined its source comes from the early 20th century journalist and critic HL Mencken. Mencken was a highly talented writer, able to impress the reader with his scholarship while also making them laugh, usually literally out loud. More than one of his sentences have taken on a life of their own.


The one that appears more and more as of late: “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” The line brings to mind a civilized man of modern times who has finally had enough with the social and moral decadence all around. It sounds the cry of the reactionary, the one who must put his ordinary rule of life on pause in order to vanquish the rabble.


Usually, Mencken’s line is used to justify a sort of rhetorical nastiness. Occasionally, though, one fears that the person quoting it has less literary intentions. But what did Mencken actually mean by the quote?


Has anyone in the past few decades bothered to go read the essay? Mencken’s pirate metaphor appears in an essay on modern poetry. He thinks most of what is being set forth as high-class artistic writing is pretentious and fake. The normal man who is tempted to slit throats is the one who knows what real poetry and true scholarship is. And he has one specific such person in mind, Ezra Pound.


Mencken writes:

Pound, it seems to me, is the most picturesque man in the whole movement—a professor turned fantee, Abelard in grand opera. His knowledge is abysmal; he has it readily on tap; moreover, he has a fine ear, and has written many an excellent verse. But now all the glow and gusto of the bard have been transformed into the rage of the pamphleteer: he drops the lute for the bayonet.

One sympathizes with him in his choler. The stupidity he combats is actually almost unbearable. Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.


Man, that really is a great line.


But do you notice something? Even though Mencken sympathizes with Pound, even though he feels the temptation to call for “No Quarter,” he is ultimately criticizing Pound. Mencken goes on to say, “But this business, alas, is fatal to the placid moods and fine other-worldliness of the poet. Pound gives a thrilling show, but—....”


In giving in to the call for war, Mencken believed that Pound also gave up the calling of the poet. It was Pound’s verse that suffered in the end. There was a great blast and show, but the final product, according to Mencken, was a failure.


The true meaning of “Every normal man must tempted… to hoist the black flag” is that the temptation is understandable but destructive. It’ a visceral reaction to a real problem but it is a passion which must be ruled over and redirected. If you give in and actually “begin slitting throats,” then you lose. To understand the great quote, and its true profundity, you have to read the whole argument.

 

…

https://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2024/08/16/quote-of-the-millenium/

 

“Emperors could only believe in Christ if they were not emperors—as if Christians could ever be emperors.” -Tertullian

That’s the quote that Brian Zahnd shared on the twitter.  Cool huh.  He shared it, though, without attribution.  So I went hunting.

….

What Tertullian actually says is this:

Yes, and the Cæsars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Cæsars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Cæsars.-*

The first part of the quote is nothing like the one above claims.  The second part is similar but not the same.

When people misquote, they misrepresent.  Don’t take people at their word.  Verify.

Now I know of someone who has been reading through a book Luther’s Theology of Music (a de Gruyter title) and there is a passage that cites an author who claimed Tertullian’s Apology XXX gave an example of improvised music in the early church.

Part of me thinks it would be fun if it were true. 

However, I looked up the alleged passage and it’s not in XXX, it’s in XXXIX and the passage is one where Tertullian mentioned that songs could be based on biblical texts or original creations, none of which indicates improvised music. It seems a second-hand use of Tertullian by one scholar was brought in by another scholar to suggest Tertullian was an early witness to the existence of improvised music in early Christian meetings. If I hadn’t gotten anything Tertullian wrote I’d have been duped by a scholar who used another scholar who CLAIMED Tertullian may have been a witness to improvised music in the early church.  All Tertullian really said was that Christians could and did sing songs based on biblical texts or original inventions in corporate singing.

There's no need to pretend Tertullian witnessed improvised music in the early Christian meetings.  Do you want to know if music gets improvised in church settings happens any given week?  Well, go to a service and ask, afterwards, if some of the music was improvised. Music historians have managed to do plenty of research into the frequency of improvised music in church gatherings without conscripting Tertullian into the cause regardless of whether or not he actually addressed that topic. 

More positively about Luther’s Theology of Music, I can at least say that the synopsis of Augustine’s De Musica is pretty accurate (without mentioning the part that De Musica is a punishingly tedious read which even Augustine himself admits and apologized for in Book VI!!).  At least the old English translation has found its way onto archive.org, finally. 

If scholars are seduced by “great quotes” then how much less effort will eager beaver culture warrior meme-lords exert to discern if that meme they already think pwns their real or imagined adversaries is a real quote and taken in context?   

Thursday, September 12, 2024

more on the back and forth between Alan Jacobs and Brad East, why I find it easier to take the former more seriously than the latter

https://blog.ayjay.org/one-more-enchanted-evening/

 

Alan Jacobs has had a back and forth with Brad East in the last week or so about enchantment vs. disenchantment.  I am hardly in a place to insist but I do think that for as much Jacques Ellul as Alan Jacobs has read I hope he read Matthew T Prior’s book Confronting Technology: The Theology of Jacques Ellul. For anyone who isn’t already committed to eventually getting through eighty books on exorcism, diabology, exousiology, spiritual warfare, the reception history of the Enoch literature and Genesis 6 references to The Watchers, Prior’s book distinguishes exousiology (a theology of powers and principalities a la Walter Wink) from demonology (I better not have to explain that topic here at Wenatchee The Hatchet of all places!) whether of the Merrill Unger variety or some other) in Christian thought. 

 

Alan Jacobs is interested in playing with an upgraded demonology a la Jacques Ellul’s The New Demons?  Alright.  A new variation on powers and principalities?  Okay!  Robert Ewusie Moses’ Practices of Power: Revisiting the Principalities and Powers in the Pauline Letters should be on Jacobs’ reading list (if he can carve out time for it).  I would suggest that the book builds upon what strikes me now as a skeletal idea in James Cone’s Black Theology and Black Power about Christ overcoming powers and principalities with a specific eye toward white supremacism as one of those powers.  Given the history of white Euro-American Christians regarding BIPOC folks as either having demons, being demons or being subjected to demons I trust Alan Jacobs has at least some inkling of the delicacy involved in rehabilitating demonology as an element of Christian discourse.  I don’t for a second reject the proposal since I’m a professing Christian and digging into the reception history of demonologies and how they developed in the Second Temple period as nascent Judaism grappled with serial imperial occupation was something I was hoping to do grad work in.  But I didn’t manage to do that.  Instead I just tried to keep up with a smattering of books written on those topics.  I haven’t pulled that off but there’s a big old reading list you can peruse if you like.

 

https://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2021/01/updated-version-of-reading-list-from.html

 

So if Alan Jacobs really wants to explore the way Christians and Jews have written about demonology in the last two and a half centuries … I got a recommended reading list.  I am openly sympathetic to the idea that Christians in the United States can and should regard racial supremacist dogmas as demonic but that’s not really what I intended to get at in this post.  No, I’m thinking more broadly about the years I’ve spent reading Alan Jacobs and Brad East and how, lately, I tend to lean more Jacobs than East.  Why?

 

I recall a rambling piece that was published at one point in Mere Orthodoxy which is currently available at East’s blog.  The title is so routine among theological metacultural punditry I don’t even need to quote it since it’s right there in the html but …

 

https://www.bradeast.org/blog/2019/07/against-pop-culture.html

Against pop culture

Jul 3, 2019

Christians love pop culture these days. But the subset of Christians who love pop culture the most is pastors, writers, and academics. Pop culture as a mode of "engagement"; pop culture as a means of "reaching" this or that group; pop culture as a way of "relating" to students: all these and more are celebrated and commended and practiced in churches, classrooms, and websites every day. "Finding the gospel in [pop culture artifact X]" is a ubiquitous and representative genre. Christians love pop culture, and Christians with an audience want fellow Christians to love pop culture.

Why is that? Why should Christians like, love, or "engage with" pop culture?

I don't think there are very many, or perhaps any, good answers to that question.

…

 

So … then there’s this year’s peroration from the same Brad East on how the Jedi in Star Wars are like Catholics and the wizards in Harry Potter are Protestants.

 

https://www.bradeast.org/blog/catholic-jedi-protestant-wizards

Catholic Jedi, Protestant Wizards

Aug 12, 2024

A recent visit to Orlando brought home to me how different the respective aesthetic visions of Star Wars and Harry Potter are. A thesis came to me: Jedi are Catholic and Wizards are Protestant.

 

What was that about there not being many or any good answers to the question about why Christians should like, love, or “engage” with pop culture? I wouldn’t say Alan Jacobs is exactly a poptimist but he’s not anti-poptimist in rhetoric or method.  East has soap-boxed against Christians being poptimists while then, a few years later, turning around and doing pretty much the kind of thing you’d think he wouldn’t think is a great idea.  Now I’ve made no secret here at Wenatchee The Hatchet I love animation and comics and anime and manga.  I’ve written tens of thousands of words about Batman: the animated series.  I’ve had over the years comparing thoughts with Ethan Hein about songs by Stevie Wonder and David Bowie and John Lee Hooker among other things.  I even recently wrote a piece called “Cross Over Instead” suggesting that if, in the last few centuries, mainstream classical music has never taken the guitar seriously maybe classical guitarists should take that as a hint that we will never be welcome in mainstream classical music and reach out to every kind of guitarist playing every kind of music so that, should classical music as “civilization” die the miserable death its would-be defenders claim it’s constantly in danger of, we guitarists will not suffer much loss for that. 

 

If I wanted to I could probably write 20,000 words about manga by Rumiko Takahashi.  I’m not sure if I will but I  sure could.  So I’m probably firmly in the poptimist category of criticism even if I have written extensively on how Beethoven shifted his developmental episodes into the transitions of the first movement of his final piano sonata; and on the first half of Nikita Koshkin’s formidable and rewarding 24 Preludes and Fugues for solo guitar; and more recently I’ve begun a slow-going and I hope thorough analysis of the solo guitar sonatas of Wenzel Thomas Matiegka. I haven’t touched that project since February 2024 and Grand Sonata II is a very big piece with a lot going on it, both in terms of how much Matiegka appropriates and transforms themes by Haydn and what he does across his three-movement work.  Which is to say that I can toggle back and forth between classical guitar and cartoons and manga fairly comfortably.  If Brad East is worried that kids these days are too glued to their screens I am just not sure I share that worry because in my experience, to be blunt, old people glued to their screens and imbibing paranoid conspiracy theories are not coming off as much better off than people scrolling through TikTok videos watching the antics of their favorite influencers. 

 

When Jacobs writes: 

… Can you bind the strong man? I can’t. Which makes it strange to me how small a part Jesus plays in the current discourse about enchantment, even among people who claim to be Christians.  …

I’d say that Emil Brunner’s quip about liberal Protestantism eliminating the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as mediator was the whole point of The Mediator.  Germanophile highbrow art asceticism or lowbrow trance-seeking mysticism, the old Pythagorean and Orphic impulses, may have been cultivated and assimilated in Christian patristics but we live in the days of Ted Gioia where this dualism has to be held up as irreconcilable and insoluble as if faith traditions haven’t spent millennia demonstrating and arguing otherwise.  When I read Philip Ewell and John McWhorter (both black atheists) differing on questions about classical music, I enjoyed reading both of them for the insights they have and grumbling at the insights they most assuredly do not have, which they might have picked up if they were willing to dust off some books by James Cone. 

 

Christians can contribute to aesthetic debates within contemporary culture as good-faith contributors whether or not Christendom exists.  Jacobs has read his Jacques Ellul so he knows there have been Christians in the last century who have taken this approach.  My soap box in the last ten years at Wenatchee The Hatchet has included a concern that if Christians want to be taken seriously it would behoove us to explore potential theoretical and practical solutions to issues and problems that people who are not the least bit Christian would actually want solved.  In my case, as a classical guitarist and hobbyist composer who loves Thelonious Monk and Haydn in comparable measures, the various highbrow/lowbrow and white/black dualisms entrenched in musicology and history are things that I believe need to be overcome.  I agree with Philip Ewell on that basic issue even if he would not agree with me about maybe much of anything else, least of all Christian dogmatics.

 

I hope I can say I’ve staked out a consistent and coherent position about taking “high” and “low” equally seriously.  I don’t want to say that insipid music is made by insipid people and it isn’t worth taking seriously because, well, too many Christian cultural pundits forget that Romans 12:16 is still in the New Testament no matter how much they inveigh against pop culture.  Do you know people who like Taylor Swift songs?  Be willing to hang out with them.  I find Katy Perry annoying myself but I don’t have to make an issue of that if I’m hanging out with someone who likes to listen to her.  I’m sure there are plenty of people who would be baffled as to why Oshii’s Urusei Yatsura 2: Beautiful Dream is one of my favorite movies, and who’d want to read my case for why, if there’s a Maison Ikkoku anime remake it should be 1) more faithful to the source material and 2) Saori Hayami would rock as Kyoko Otonashi.   And I could still turn around and write more about cross-referencing Aquinas’ discussion of intra-Trinitarian forms of relationship with John of Damascus’ discourse on perichoresis as a way to recalibrate conceptions of musical time as they’ve been presented by Adorno, Zuckerkandl, Rochberg, Scruton, Yust and others.

 

I get that for polemicists who want to polemic there need to be dualisms but all too often the dualisms seem too convenient and sometimes I even suspect they get wielded in bad faith. 


It was the back and forth of Alan Jacobs and Brad East that spurred me to write 

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

Ayano Kamei performs "Prikazki" (2020) by Atanas Ourkouzounov


Atanas Ourkouzounov has primarily written music on and for the guitar, whether solo or chamber music, so it's very fun to hear he has explored his musical language in a piece for piano. There's a read-along score with this video.  As I've enjoyed Ourkouzounov's music for about two decades now it's fun to share that he's composed a piece for piano, which I hope you enjoy. 

Internet Archive loses recent court case

Longtime readers of Wenatchee The Hatchet may already know I have made prodigious use of Internet Archive via The Wayback Machine.  During the period from 2012 through 2014 it was a useful resource for finding earlier forms of links from the former Mars Hill Church.  For months at a time I found that I would document something meticulously that Mark Driscoll said in sermons or published statements in Mars Hill sites and discover that a week later, sometimes as soon as a day or so later, the material had gone the way of Joker's pencil in The Dark Knight.  It's ... it's gone!

So there was a running tag of robots.txt to document when robots.txt was used by Mars Hill to block access to statements made by Driscoll and other Mars Hill staff by means of The Wayback Machine.  In a small way the website was a precious resource in Wenatchee The Hatchet's efforts to chronicle and preserve statements made by Mars Hill about itself at a time when PR and other leaders seemed to be purging incriminating or troublesome content for whatever reason.  My friend Steve Hays at Triablogue went so far as to comment that what turned out to be true was the best way to make Driscoll look bad was to just quote him accurate and in context and the man made himself look bad all on his own.  It began to seem, too, that this was pervasive enough that Team Driscoll at Mars Hill could functionally "tell" Matthew Paul Turner to listen to Driscoll's 2008 spiritual warfare series at one point but then purge the whole resource so you couldn't even listen to it as controversy flared up in 2014 over ResultSource and the plagiarism scandal of late 2013 continued, among other things.

The book lending program of 2020 is neither here nor there for that part of the history of this blog but it can be easy to underestimate the cultural significance of the resource(s) Internet Archive has made available if you only look at one ruling.  

Monday, September 09, 2024

Alan Jacobs has doubts about bids at re-enchantment, what exactly do people want the world to be (re)enchanted with?

https://blog.ayjay.org/some-enchanted-evening/

September 8, 2024

some enchanted evening

 

It seems that “enchantment” is having a moment right now — e.g. — and, well, okay, but I’d like to make two points: 

1.       Experiencing the world as enchanted has absolutely nothing to do with acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that at the end of history every knee will bow and every tongue confess this. That is to say, Christians who have boarded the Enchantment Train should realize that what it promises is often (if not always) something quite different than what the Christian faith — which is often disenchanting — promises, and demands. 

2.       A related point: As I wrote a decade ago, “The porous self is open to the divine as well as to the demonic, while the buffered self is closed to both alike. Those who must guard against capture by fairies are necessarily and by the same token receptive to mystical experiences. The ‘showings’ manifested to Julian of Norwich depend upon exceptional sensitivity, which is to say porosity — vulnerability to incursions of the supernatural. The portals of the self cannot be closed on one side only.” 

You want to live in an enchanted cosmos? Cool. But be careful what you wish for. You might get it. 

Is the cosmos enchanted? Is it disenchanted? Is it standing on one leg and singing “When Father Painted the Parlor”? (Tom Stoppard reference there.) It’s not something I’m inclined to think about much, because for me — YMMV, and it really and truly may vary, you may be aided enormously by such reflections — it’s just another way to avoid thinking about Jesus. I already have a thousand of those, I don’t need a thousand-and-one. 

…

So Jacobs is not on board with the re-enchantment train.  I can’t say that I am, either, and I’ve still got an roughly eighty book reading list surveying Christian thought on powers, principalities, unclean spirits, exorcism, and spiritual warfare.  One of the fun paradoxes of playing with an idea that racial supremacist canards about music could be informed by principalities and powers is that it’s not a remotely new idea.  Not only would I not take credit for the idea, I could say the idea is implicit in James Cone’s Black Theology and Black Power, although I think far better explications of what the powers and principalities can be thought of as being have been written not by Cone in his famous book but by Esther Acolatse, Robert Ewusie Moses, Daniel K Darko, and Albert Kabiro wa Gatumu.   

 

Alan Jacobs may not be as into literally academic study of evolving Christian and Jewish concepts of demonology as I am but I take his point that merely pining for re-enchanting the world doesn’t address the question of what that world is going to be enchanted with.

 

Since Jacobs alluded to David Bentley Hart’s latest I am reminded of Emil Brunner’s old book The Mediator where he contended (at some length) that the general impulse in liberal Protestantism as it emerged in German theology (and elsewhere) was ultimately a rejection of Christ as Mediator.  All other dogmatic and doctrinal concerns such as rejecting penal substitutionary atonement, expiation and propitiation understandings of the Cross as “barbaric” were subordinate to the actual final goal, which was to reject the exclusivity of Christ.  Reject “that”, Brunner contended, and you have rejected being a professing Christian altogether.  All the art mysticism Europe could churn out in the wake of Friedrich Schleiermacher or Rudolf Otto was not going to change that basic move.

 

Attempting to expand art mysticism and art asceticism to a more global swath could eliminate the Eurocentrist impulse, perhaps, but not the elitist impulse. Anglicans such as David Brown and Gavin Hopps can argue that John Coltrane’s A Love Supreme can be regarded as equally expressing a desire for universal human fellowship as Beethoven put into his Ninth Symphony.  But in Pauline terms that would amount to the altar to the unknown god, natural religion and natural theology only get so far.  In the case of both Coltrane and Beethoven it’s still the cognoscenti who are enlightened and not the ordinary people who might balk at Beethoven’s bloviating length or not follow Coltrane’s harmonic and melodic idiom.  That’s not a knock against either Coltrane or Beethoven, by the way, I’m just pointing out that enchantment projects in the liberal arts advocated by academics tend to have a strong gnostic/mystery cult aspect to them.  That’s the element Alan Jacobs didn’t discuss but it’s not a count against his basic point. He has written elsewhere about highbrows worrying about the activities of levelers, and leveling may be its own kind of disenchantment project.  

Tuesday, September 03, 2024

Vote Like Jesus is out

https://realfaith.com/vote/

In the time it would take me to bother reading Driscoll's newest book I could benefit more by re-reading John Neville Figgis' Churches in the Modern State for the actual fun of it. 

Because I've never said "I'm done" with the watchdog blogging thing (for want of a better term) I do still have posts now and then.  The very title Vote Like Jesus reveals an anachronism--writing as if Jesus would tell you who to vote for is somewhat like expecting to find the breakthrough in faster-than-light space travel in Babylonian exorcistic lore.  Sure somebody in this great big world full of humans probably really thinks that's likely but ... . 

So no plans to read this new book.  New Days, Old Demons was so incompetently bad it made Driscoll's screed on critical theory seem merely stupid. I could write you five-thousand words on why I think Theodor Adorno (a landmark figure in critical theory) was disastrously wrong about American popular song and dance music.  

But I can note that Driscoll has been cranking out links from the sausage factory since his Richard Nixon moment resigning from leading Mars Hill a decade ago.


Monday, September 02, 2024

Cross Over Instead: a thought on Matanya Ophee’s Repertoire Issues since his passing--crossing over instead as the only viable path guitarists have after centuries of being marginal in the classical music mainstream

https://www.digitalguitararchive.com/2022/03/repertoire-issues/

 

From 1986 to 2000 the guitarist and music publisher Matanya Ophee gave variations of a lecture he called “Repertoire Issues”.  His core claims in the lecture were:

 

1) the guitar has never been taken seriously within classical music for the entirety of its history

2) this lack of regard manifested in the absence of guitarists from chamber music festivals across the world in what is colloquially known as classical music

3) this should not dissuade guitarists from doing their best to be taken seriously by not only audiences but other musicians within concert music. 

 

It is with that in mind I want to quote extensively from Ophee’s concluding remarks about what he saw in the classical guitar scene, particularly on the relationship guitarists (and their music) had in connection to the classical music mainstream.  Distinct from the chamber music mainstream scenes of classical music many guitarists were playing music influenced by (interacting with) non-classical genres and styles of music.  This was a phenomenon that has emerged since the 1970s or so and has been called “crossover”.  Ophee’s comments were as follows:

 

Repertoire Issues

Published by Legacy of Matanya Ophee on March 7, 2022

…

No doubt, attitudes have changed in the last ten years [the lecture was given in 2000]. There are more performances of chamber music with guitar today. I dare say though, that this activity have not yet resulted in a change of perspective in the general public. I read a lot of lofty pronouncements regarding chamber music with guitar in many interviews with guitarists. This is, for the most part, empty lip-service. I do not know of any leading guitarist-performer today who is willing and able to settle on a career which is dedicated to chamber music. There are no active professional chamber music ensembles today, which consist of more than two spouses and which include the guitar.

In my country, there are some 800 festival each summer dedicated to chamber music. You can see there the names of Itzhak Perlman, Yo-Yo Ma, Mstislav Rostropovich, Pinchas Zukerman, Rudolf Serkin, Murray Perahia, and scores of other leading instrumentalists and singers. I have never seen there the names of Andres Segovia, Julian Bream, John Williams or Alexander Lagoya. This unfortunate verity should not deter the leading guitarists to appear there on a regular basis. The inevitable question is: what do our virtuosi have to offer musicians and an audience who have been nurtured for generations on a steady diet of the Beethoven string quartets, the Brahms Clarinet quintet, and the Mendelssohn Piano trios, not to mention chamber music by Mozart, Haydn, Schubert and Dvorak?

Before we attempt to answer that, we must shed any inferiority complex regarding our repertoire and realize that even though the great masters of chamber music have not written for the guitar, we still have a great deal of valuable contribution to make. In evaluating chamber music for guitar, we must avoid judging it by reference to the guitar part alone. What matters in chamber music is the artistic worth of the composition as a whole, NOT the relative merits of the guitar part. Few guitarists are able to read a chamber music score, and few publications of chamber music with guitar, particularly those which date from the time of Heinrich Albert, not to mention the more recent spate of so-called “facsimiles,” actually have one. A guitarist who wishes to embark on a career of music making in public, and would like to achieve anything like the job security offered by professions such as the architects, engineers, doctors, airline pilots or college teachers, would better learn the tricks of the trade. Not memorization, but sight-reading, score analysis, and the ability to breath together, sometimes with total strangers. Look for those works who would offer your future colleagues something new and exhilarating. Even if this means that you have to go oom-pah-pah for a while. That too, can be a valuable and profitable contribution to your own economic survival and to the future of the guitar as a viable musical discipline. If we want to actually function “on the first rank, such as the violin, piano and cello,” we must break away from the restrictive mold of the solo recital, the guitar master-class, the guitar competition and the guitar festival and to propel our way into the general society of music.

I cannot leave this discussion without some words about the programming used by many guitarists today when they play solo recitals. The old Tarrega/Segovia type of programming has been replaced, for better or for worse, with a new type of programming which employs mostly music based on the cross-over phenomenon, that is to say, new compositions based on the popular genres of jazz, rag-time, tango, and country-western music. Thus, besides the leyendas and the Villa-Lobos pieces, we also get the Koyunbabas, the Sunbursts, the Usher Walses and the Piazolla pieces. In principle, all these pieces are actually very good music. But the number of times you get to hear them in the course of a guitar festival, makes them into hackneyed, unimaginative lollipops which might bring a good reaction from a guitar audience, and might even give pleasure to general public audiences. Many main line musicians do the same. Thus you get a cellist like Yo-Yo Ma playing Piazolla. But we must observe that main line musicians do cross-over, in addition to their normal serious repertoire. Guitarists do it instead. [italics original, bold added]

I have observed that in the last few decades the guitarists who made it to the top of the profession quickly, were those who came on the scene with a totally new repertoire, entirely avoiding the standards, the old and the new. There is a lesson to be learned here, and it is this: the main question the guitarist should place before himself is not what to play. It, what NOT to play. Think about it.

…

It has been just a few years since Matanya Ophee died and I have considered his ideas formatively influential.  I have spent decades writing chamber sonatas for the guitar in which it is paired up with woodwinds, bowed strings, plucked strings, piano, and brass.  I aimed to write a cycle of chamber sonatas using the guitar the way Paul Hindemith wrote chamber sonatas around piano accompaniment.  It turned out while I was tackling this compositional project over the last two and a half decades, inspired by Ophee’s “Repertoire Issues” that the Austrian composer (and pianist) Ferdinand Rebay had created a big cycle of sonatas for guitar with woodwinds and strings decades before I was born. This was a happy discovery at multiple levels, first of all because I have found I generally actually enjoy Rebay’s sonatas, and because it is a sign that Rebay, forgotten as he was in the last half century since his passing, has created a substantial body of work that merits further performance and study. 

 

Yet Rebay’s legacy highlights all the more Matanya Ophee’s observation that the great composers, or first-rate composers never wrote chamber music that included the guitar.  Sure, this could be a place to voice exception.  Don’t the Four Songs of Stravinsky include a guitar part?  They do and they are a blast but the point can still remain.  There could be an objection that Toru Takemitsu’s Toward The Sea for alto flute and guitar is a significant work for that pairing much the same way Astor Piazzolla’s Histoire du Tango for flute and guitar is a significant work.  But you don’t hear those works at festivals, do you? Ophee’s point has remained without substantial counter-examples and counter-arguments.

 

Let’s say for the sake of discussion the six-stringed classical guitar that was refined in Spain is only about 250 years old. That means that the instrument has been around for centuries and no works written for the guitar by guitarist composers have made it into the mainstream canon of concert music, often known as classical music.  The most significant canonical works for the guitar were either written for the instrument by non-guitarists (whether Rodrigo or Britten or Martin or Castelnuovo-Tedesco or Ponce or whomever) or were transcriptions of non-guitar music made by guitarists (Johann Sebastian Bach and Isaac Albeniz). 

 

For there to be no canonical works in chamber music or solo guitar in the classical music mainstream after no less than 250 years should force those of us who are guitarists to ask what it would take for a guitar work to gain canonical status in chamber repertoire.  If we decide the five-course guitar that anticipated the modern guitar counts as the guitar, too, then the history of the guitar can go back five centuries and this makes the situation worse rather than better.  If the guitar is half a millennium old and in all that time not a single work for the instrument and its variants has been regarded as worthy enough to become a canonical work of music theorists and historians consider important enough that non-guitarists have to know them the way singers and guitarists in music survey courses have to know who Mozart and Beethoven were, well, what are the odds the guitar and guitarist composers will ever buck the centuries long trend?  Ophee advised that we do not have an inferiority complex about our instrument and its repertoire and I do, frankly, agree.  At the same time, a case could be made that Ophee’s observation about the bias against the guitar as the companion of any Spaniard opens up the question of ethnic and racial biases within musicology and it’s not for nothing this was the topic of a recent book about the history of music theory and music history.

 

Since I’m writing in 2024 and in the United States (citizen born and raised) I probably don’t need to even name the author and title.  But I liked the book, honestly, and I think guitarists should take Philip Ewell’s often polemical On Music Theory, and Making Music More Welcoming For Everyone very seriously.  It is possible for traditionalists and defenders of The Great Tradition version of classical music to just say that Ewell has a chip on his shoulder or that when he remarked on the functional erasure of Spanish and Spanish-language derived music from classical music theory and history that this is part of some sour grapes campaign.  For guitarists, however, the prospect of functionally expunging Spanish and Latin American music from any consideration pre-emptively wipes out even the slightest chance that many of the most beloved works of the guitar literature will ever be taken seriously.  How high and low do you have to look for a truly detailed analysis of the formal, rhythmic, melodic and harmonic materials of Five Preludes by Heitor Villa-Lobos that could compare to an analysis of Beethoven’s Hammerklavier? 

 

Even if Ewell is wrong about many things he doesn’t seem to be wrong about how marginal Spanish music (and its adjacents) have often been in music theory and music history.  Why discuss the harmonic language of Albeniz if he’s consigned to having accomplished pianistic feats of post-Lisztian virtuosity, as a Grove entry put it decades ago?  That Britten’s Nocturnal after John Dowland is a fine piece of music doesn’t mean that either Britten’s work for guitar or Dowland’s lute music has been discussed very much in mainstream classical music theory and history.  I can’t recall seeing a single extensive study of Takemitsu’s magnificent suite for solo guitar All in Twilight in the last thirty years.  Discussions of guitarists and their approaches to sonata form have largely revolved around Sor and Giuliani and, understandably, Ponce.  There is room for more work to be done and that work is being done but what seems unlikely to happen is for a guitarist to have composed a piece of music so significant to mainstream classical music theory and education as to merit that nebulous but sought-after status of canonization.  There’s no chamber work written by a guitarist composer that has canonical status unless we’re going to go out on a limb and remind people that Hector Berlioz played the guitar.  But how has the status of Berlioz’ music held up in the last century? 

 

So when Ophee said that mainstream classical musicians establish themselves in the standards like Yo-yo Ma on the cello and embrace cross-over in addition to the standards, and guitarists did cross-over instead, that seems to be true, but it also reveals a possible double-bind at the core of Ophee’s questions and concerns.  If the guitar has never made it into the classical canon over the course of centuries why would it now?  If in the wake of 250 to 500 years of guitars being around literally nothing has been written that fits into the chamber repertoire of music festivals is the problem with the guitar or with the chamber music festivals?  Is it possible that the aesthetics and norms of the long 19th century, often thought of as being the span between 1780 to about 1920, constitutes a set of standards the guitar could not possibly measure up to? 

 

After so many centuries maybe the wiser thing for guitarists to keep doing is to cross over instead. Don’t even bother with seeking mainstream acceptance within classical music in chamber festival settings.  It’s not that I didn’t hear guitarists at the Ice Breaker festivals in Seattle over the decades, I did hear chamber music featuring the guitar and I liked the pieces I heard, but the Ice Breaker festivals show that the guitar has some compelling music from the Baltic states but you have to search high and low for it.  There are niches within niches in classical music, which is itself a niche. 

 

There may be a case to be made that crossing over instead is a more rewarding path for classical guitarists. You and I who play the guitar may have more in common with Blind Willie Johnson, Luigi Legnani, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Tampa Red, Lonnie Johnson, Bukka White, Lightning Hopkins, Fernando Sor, Wenzel Matiegka, Napoleon Coste, Nikita Koshkin, Dusan Bogdanovic, Angelo Gilardino, Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Leo Brouwer, Elizabeth Cotton, Joni Mitchell, Ida Presti, Nadia Borislova, Annette Kruisbrink, Rosetta Tharpe, and Bonnie Rait than we will have with Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Mahler, Webern, Handel, Buxtehude, Bach, Schutz, Albeniz, Schubert, Liszt, Brahms, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Medtner and Scriabin.  We guitarists have more in common with each other that we all play the guitar than we may ever have with the canonized composers of classical music.  

 

John Williams the guitarist has to be differentiated from the John Williams who gave us soundtracks to the films Jaws, Star Wars and Superman.  A lot of people in the United States know who John “Star Wars” Williams is even if they can’t stand his music whereas far few people probably know John Williams as the guitarist who played Nikita Koshkin’s Usher Waltz, one of those works Matanya Ophee published and considered was in danger of being turned into a new lollipop in the guitar literature. 

 

Now I eagerly await the second half of Koshkin’s 24 Preludes and Fugues for solo guitar getting a commercially available recording! I have already written extensively about the first half of this formidable and outstanding cycle of contrapuntal works for solo guitar written by a guitarist.  To go by mainstream classical music theory and history it can seem as though after a few centuries pianists and organists regarded the usual suspects as having contributed all there ever was or is needed for fugues and consigned the genre to the school exam room and the dustbin of history.  Even if Koshkin’s work merits serious and continued study; even if his work is a substantial contribution to the tradition of preludes and fugues; I have not seen his cycle discussed very extensively in the realm of guitar scholarship, let alone in the “mainstream” of classical music.  Ewell is a Russianist by specialization so I can hope, at least, that maybe one day he could write about Nikita Koshkin’s cycle of preludes and fugues.  If Ewell did that I would so buy that book!

 

Which is why, in a way, I agree with Ewell but am ambivalent about aspects of his case.  As a guitarist with a fondness for the music of Wenzel Matiegka I know of literally no significant English-language writing on his roughly twenty solo guitar sonatas even if I count the helpful essays in the Stanley Yates edition.  The guitar has not only never been admitted into the musical mainstream it probably never will be.  This is why it may make sense for guitarists to not only keep crossing over instead but to make that path the new default moving into the future.  We have more to gain by taking seriously all the styles and forms and genres of music our guitarist peers have made and are making and will make than to hope after centuries that somehow one of us guitarists will write something that gains the status of Beethoven’s Hammerklavier sonata or his late B flat major string quartet.  Koshkin’s life and work may be instructive precisely here since scholars who have discussed his music and work have pointed out that he steeped himself in Stravinsky and Shostakovich but also listened to Led Zeppelin.  Crossing over instead is probably what we guitarists have been consigned to having no choice but to do within mainstream classical music history and theory.  If that’s the case, let’s just keep doing that. 

 

If the last few centuries have shown us how seriously non-guitarists in classical music have taken the guitar we have nothing to gain and everything to lose attempting to create musical works that don’t take seriously all the musics written on and for our instrument by our fellow guitarists in the quest to write something that could ever appear alongside Haydn string quartets and Beethoven piano sonatas.  By this I don’t mean to say “Don’t bother”, it’s more like Johann Gottfried Herder’s admonition to fellow Germans to trust in their own regional folk traditions for source materials rather than to continuously and continually make worse and worse knock-offs of the pinnacles of the arts in Greek and Roman antiquity.   


We may have a lot more to gain by taking all the music written on the guitar by and for guitarists seriously across all styles and genres since the birth of the modern guitar than we are likely to gain in the centuries that have elapsed without a single solo or chamber work for classical guitar making any notable appearance in any festival setting. It’s not that I wouldn’t love for chamber works including the guitar become staples in the classical music mainstream, it’s that Matanya Ophee died a few years ago and I read his lecture decades ago and here we are, and the guitar and guitarists are no less marginal to classical music’s mainstream than seemed to be the case back in the Reagan years.  Maybe crossing over instead is the only actual path forward we have not just due to anti-guitar prejudices but also because a whole lot of those canonized works from the long 19th century were running with Herderian ideas of being true to your people’s folk roots as the basis for making Art.  Guitarists may need to do more of that and not less before we collectively make something that “makes history”, and doing “more of that” may entail taking a whole lot more seriously the kinds of musics that have habitually been consigned to the influences that go into “cross-over”. 

 

If guitarists, even classical guitarists, take this approach, it will also be taking up one of the main points of Ewell’s book and his aims, making music theory more welcoming to everyone

 

If guitarists who love to listen to and play John Lee Hooker meet a classical guitarist who respects that tradition rather than insisting the only guitar music worth talking about are old recordings by Segovia and Yepes that would be better public relations for our instrument, particularly if we are guitarists who love both the classical guitar literature and blues.  There may be more guitarists like that among us even in the realm of classical guitar than there are guitarist composers who are ever going to have works that show up in the chamber music festival circuit.  Crossing over instead has been what we're stuck with but we don't have to act as if that's actually a bad thing.  If he Norman Lebrechts and Roger Scrutons  and Kimballs keep saying classical music is dying and with it whatever passes for "civilization", crossing over would be how a small part of "classical music" survives because its practitioners (classical guitarists) choose to take more than their own repertoire to be the be all and end all of good music.  It's also the more neighborly attitude to boot.