|
LISTENERS' BOX
|
Responses to Recent Issues
Attuned
— Ray Stafford
— Victor Wolfram
— Frederic Jueneman
Zwiebach, for instance, is dubious about one of Horowitz's main
contentions: that the piano is a neutral and democratic instrument, particularly amenable to maverick composers and musicians. "Lots of instruments," Zwiebach writes, "are comfortable in a variety of contexts, like the trumpet, the fiddle — oops, the violin — and the clarinet." He goes on to say that "the real reason for the dominance of the piano is more disappointingly mechanical: The piano does polyphony with only one performer."
This "disappointingly mechanical" characteristic of the piano, however, is precisely what made the instrument a staple in middle-class and working-class homes, where amateur (and future professional) musicians would learn their craft by playing all manner of music — European classical greats as well as hymns and the latest pop tunes. There is a case to be made, I think, that the piano's very versatility as well as its commercial popularity made that instrument distinctively democratic
— able to mix high art and popular taste, able to transcend its European origins and the European canon in a way that a symphony orchestra could not do. Horowitz, in other words, is right on target.
A recent study by the American Symphony League also undermines another of Zwiebach's contentions. Zwiebach argues that Horowitz is something of a Johnny-come-lately as an innovator; concerts, it turns out, are more creative in their programming than Horowitz is willing to recognize. (Among his examples, Zwiebach cites the Santa Rosa Symphony doing a performance of Tan Dun's Crouching Tiger Concerto.) But a 2003-2004 survey of what major orchestras performed nationally demonstrated that new works remain the exception on concert programs nationwide — and when new or untraditional works are performed, the pieces in question are less than 15 minutes long and are unlikely to be heard more than once. What dominates the concert halls instead? The traditional European repertory.
Of course, nothing is wrong with regular doses of Beethoven and Mozart. But surely there's nothing wrong with also suggesting that the classical music scene needs some shaking up. You can include Horowitz as well as other voices in the classical world as among those intent on doing so.
— Gary Panetta
Michael Zwiebach Responds
Mr. Panetta is correct that the piano was a staple of home musicmaking in the 19th century, and that its repertory encompasses a wide variety of music. In mentioning Erik Satie — a maverick composer who played cabaret piano at Le chat noir when he wasn’t needling the members of the French Academy of Music — I was trying to make much the same point in my article.
Whether that makes the piano “neutral and democratic” is more problematic. It’s not as cheap or as portable as other solo instruments. It was, and still is, a symbol of upward mobility, of education and gentility. Any formal training in it was based in European classics and styles. Not surprisingly, outside of urban areas, many other instruments were more important in American music. The guitar, not the piano, is the instrument of blues musicians, and the violin/fiddle is associated with the folk music of Appalachia and the Southeastern plateau. Native Americans don’t use the piano much in their traditional music, and a number of marching band instruments — the trumpet and clarinet primarily — are associated with the great, early jazz soloists.
So what’s so special about the piano? It’s certainly not unique in crossing between classical music and other areas of American music. And any solo instrument is more adaptable to different venues than a symphony orchestra. The great value of this argument seems to be that it aligns the term “democratic” with the “American experience” in opposition to “European.” By reminding us that the piano served almost the same function in Europe as in America, Mr. Panetta shows that this distinction is arbitrary and useless.
No one would argue with Mr. Panetta’s second point. It hardly takes a study to confirm that orchestras could be more adventurous in their programming. In SFCV’s last issue, Janos Gereben made that point with regard to the San Francisco Symphony, and Lisa Hirsch rightly commented that Olly Wilson’s superb Symphony No. 3 (“Hold On”) has been unjustly ignored. We all want to see orchestras survey a wider patch of the musical landscape, and if this is all that Horowitz meant, then I second him wholeheartedly. No one thinks that he is a Johnny-come-lately to this field.
My quarrel is with Horowitz privileging the American classical canon, which is just another impediment in the way of exploring the diversity of concert music of this century and the last. Gershwin’s music doesn’t need more concert exposure. And we don’t need to use his music (or Copland’s or Bernstein’s or Rzewski’s) to assure ourselves that we have a musical identity separate from Europe. That sort of nationalist proseletyzing is old hat.
— Michael Zwiebach
Music From the Heart
You are right that it takes years to feel this in your heart, so that it just comes out.
The encore was Carlos Gardel's Mi Buenos Aires Querida, a love song to his Buenos Aires. So, you picked up exactly the spirit of the music. I hope we will be treated to such music again, and I applaud the Orchestra for its dedication in performing it. Well done!
— Ann Gazenbeek
|
