Tag: music and politics

2003: Difficult Memories

As long as there are new perspectives to be unearthed, the business of NewMusicBox will never be finished. Keep the conversation going by making a gift to celebrate NewMusicBox @15.

In terms of world affairs, 2003 was probably one of the most turbulent years. So did that play out in the music?  It depends on how you want to think about it. Music is inscrutable in its abstraction, especially when it does not have words to go along with it. Program notes can be helpful in this regard, though many composers believe that reading them interferes with the listening experience. Then there are the titles, which—unless you’re calling your piece something like Sonata No. 4 or, even more to the point, Untitled—betray some kind of narrative inclination.

In a conversation we had for NewMusicBox almost exactly eleven years ago, David Del Tredici admitted to me that the original title for his first composition for symphonic winds, which he had only just completed, was Christians and Infidels, but he was advised to tone it down and so he changed it to In Wartime. Both titles, though, mirror the events of that year—the Iraq War which began that March, the suicide bombings on three continents, etc.  But does his music? Well, he acknowledged that embedded in it are quotes from the national anthem of Persia and a motif from Tristan und Isolde, if that helps any. Carla Bley’s surreal reimagining of our national anthem (actually created and recorded in late 2002 but it appears on her 2003 CD Looking for America) also seemed to sum up the mood of that time, so much so that I trekked up to her home in Willow, New York, right after the album was released to talk about it with her. But again, music is wonderfully elusive; despite its seriousness and occasional portentousness, Bley’s big band arrangement is ultimately lots of fun.

I wish I would have asked Alvin Singleton about his 2003 piano and percussion composition Greed Machine when I finally spoke with him in depth about his music five years later, but to my ears, even without the suggestive title, it too seems an apt, if subtle, sonic metaphor for the dangerous uncertainty of those times and their probable cause. There’s nothing subtle about Neil Rolnick’s 2003 The Real Thief of Baghdad, but of course since live electronics combine with spoken narration in that piece, the words are what ultimately tell the story.

Robert Hilferty

Sadly, Robert Hilferty (1959-2009), who never completed his incredible documentary film about Milton Babbitt, only ever wrote one article for NewMusicBox, but it was a doozy!

But I’m at a loss finding a zeitgeist-related thread in many of my other favorite purely instrumental compositions from that year, such as John Adams’s microtonal electric violin concerto The Dharma at Big Sur, David Dzubay’s early music-infused St. Vitus’ Dance for brass quintet, Jennifer Higdon’s lush Piano Trio, Paul Konye’s wonderfully idiomatic African Miniature Songs Without Words for solo piano,  or Steve Mackey’s psychedelic Dreamhouse. Though a work like Elliott Carter’s Piano Concerto, completed in 1965, betrays no program in its title, much has been written on how the work—composed as the Berlin Wall was being erected—epitomizes the struggles between individuals and societies; the work even incorporates a small concertante group in addition to the soloist and requires an unusual seating arrangement. Might his second work for piano and orchestra, Dialogues, which he completed in July 2003 (five months before his 95th birthday), also be emblematic of the world’s crises at that point? It doesn’t seem nearly as tempestuous as that earlier work, so perhaps not.
These Are the Vistas, the second studio album by the let’s-take-it-beyond-jazz trio The Bad Plus, is all instrumental, but in addition to compositions by each of the group’s members—pianist Ethan Iverson, bassist Reid Anderson, and drummer David King—they also play extremely inventive interpretations of two iconic pop songs from previous decades: Blondie’s 1978 “Heart of Glass” and Nirvana’s 1991 “Smells Like Teen Spirit.” Could this somehow be a message about how our own memories in the present irrevocably alter the past? Memories certainly seemed more malleable that year, perhaps from the déjà vu of a second American military engagement in the Persian Gulf. The elusiveness of memory is actually the theme of Robert Ashley’s Celestial Excursions, in which a group of elderly people struggle to recall their past as well as old sayings and songs they heard on the radio in their youth. It is also central to the plot of another favorite opera of mine from that year, Austrian composer Olga Neuwirth’s adaptation of American filmmaker David Lynch’s Lost Highway, which is every bit as creepy as the movie in its depiction of a sudden inexplicable corporeal transformation. Are there hidden messages in the mumblings that pass for song lyrics on Animal Collective’s eerie Campfire Songs, which was released that March? It’s hard to tell. There certainly was nothing “subliminable” (to use a phrase coined by our then-president) about the cover of an album issued the previous month, King Crimson’s final (at least up to now) studio recording The Power to Believe (which featured music collaboratively created by a quartet of musicians who, with the exception of the originally British group’s founder Robert Fripp, were all Americans).
My own strongest memory of 2003 was how awful the news reports were almost on a daily basis, but it was certainly much easier to ignore what was going on around you by plugging headphones into an iPod, which had hit the market two years earlier but was now easier to load up than ever before thanks to iTunes. (The iTunes store opened to U.S. residents on April 28, 2003.) For better or worse, this platform established what has now become the industry standard for legal downloading. Many musicians would bemoan that it also reduced all music to “songs” that were all equally worth only 99 cents, while 61% of people surveyed by Billboard in August of that year claimed that 99 cents was too expensive. I remember refusing to be part of this cultural phenomenon (I remain an apostate), preferring to hear my music via physical formats like CDs and—gasp—LPs. In 2003, a lot of people thought I was hopelessly anachronistic, never imagining the resurgence of vinyl in the past year.
But most of the folks I admire steadfastly keep to their own clocks, though probably few as demonstrably as La Monte Young and Marian Zazeela, who for years maintained a 28-hour day. We finally had an opportunity to talk with them for NewMusicBox. (He had recently completed the composition Just Charles and Cello.) Paralleling the duration of his seminal The Well-Tuned Piano, our conversation lasted more than five-and-a-half hours and we published all of it.

Randy Nordschow

Randy Nordschow

A final personal note here… I’d be remiss in these remembrances if I didn’t give a shout-out here to composer Randy Nordschow to whom I will forever be grateful for videotaping that marathon chat. It lasted until 3:15 a.m. on an extremely hot August evening (the night before the massive northeast blackout!) and for optimal sound, we had to turn off the air conditioning. Randy was a vital member of NewMusicBox’s editorial team for more than five years starting in January 2003 when Molly Sheridan journeyed off to Nepal and Amanda MacBlane (a.k.a. Mandy) took over her duties—resulting in the rest of the NMBx team morphing from the alliterative Molly and Mandy to the rhyming Mandy and Randy. Later that year, Mandy moved to France but luckily Molly came back, this time for good. At the time, though we kept going without a hitch, it was a somewhat unsettling game of musical chairs—at least to me. Now it’s a delightful memory, a positive analog to those constantly shifting and often unsettling times.

Separating Art from Politics

Republic of Wine

Is Mo Yan a subversive writer or an apologist? His novel The Republic of Wine offers few clues. But if he was a composer he would not be under such scrutiny.

A few weeks ago while having lunch with my mother at the retirement home she lives in, an elderly Taiwanese woman reading from a Kindle struck up a conversation with me about the Chinese novelist Mo Yan who had recently been awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize for Literature. “Have you read him? His books are unbelievable!” she exclaimed. “I’m amazed that the Chinese government is so happy that he won. Some of the stuff he wrote is even more provocative than what Liu Xiaobo has said.” (Mo is the vice-chairman of the state-sponsored China Writers’ Association whereas Liu, the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, remains under house arrest in China.)

Over the past couple of weeks I’ve thought a lot about what this woman had to say, especially since it was 180 degrees away from the chorus of acrimony surrounding the Nobel committee’s choice of Mo Yan, a choice they claim somehow vindicates the People’s Republic of China. Many were hoping Mo would speak out definitively about Liu’s incarceration; he did not. In fact, during a press conference ahead of the Nobel ceremony, Mo Yan further angered his detractors by defending Mao and comparing censorship to security checks at airports claiming that both are sometimes necessary. Herta Müller, recipient of the 2009 Literature prize, described the Nobel committee’s choice of Mo as “a slap in the face for all those working for democracy and human rights.” Salman Rushdie, who has yet to receive the Nobel and undoubtedly covets it, got more personal, denouncing Mo as a “patsy for the regime.” Perhaps the most elaborate repudiation of Mo thus far has come from University of California professor Perry Link whom, it should be pointed out, has been blacklisted from entering China since 1996 as a result of his having translated The Tiananmen Papers, a compilation of purportedly classified Chinese government papers which document the response to the student protests in 1989. In an extensive The New York Review of Books essay, polemically titled “Does This Writer Deserve the Prize?,” Link directly castigates Mo’s own writings:

Mo Yan and other inside-the-system writers blame local bullies and leave the top out of the picture. It is, however, a standard tactic of the people at the top in China to attribute the ordeals of the populace to misbehavior by lower officials and to put out the message that “here at the top we hear you, and sympathize; don’t worry that there is anything wrong with our system as a whole.” … Mo Yan’s solution (and he is not alone here) has been to invoke a kind of daft hilarity when treating “sensitive” events. … From the regime’s point of view, this mode of writing is useful not just because it diverts a square look at history but because of its function as a safety valve. These are sensitive topics, and they are potentially explosive, even today. For the regime, to treat them as jokes might be better than banning them outright.

My response to reading all of this has been to go out and buy some of Mo’s books and start reading them. I’m now about a third of the way through his 1992 novel The Republic of Wine (alas, in the English translation of Howard Goldblatt, my one year of Mandarin back in the mid-1980s not being sufficient preparation for reading the original). All I can say is I’m totally smitten with the book—which, on the surface is a detective story about cannibalism in a remote Chinese province but is actually a multi-layered exegesis on whether it is ever possible to discern what is going on with absolute certainty. So am I being duped by pro-People’s Republic of China propaganda as Mo’s detractors might claim or did I discover the carefully crafted criticisms of the regime that my mother’s Taiwanese neighbor claims are there?

I’m not completely sure, and I’m not sure I need to be. Although, it turns out that The Republic of Wine has been banned in China. But this is literature, which is art, and it should operate on a level that’s somewhat higher than the political binaries that have reduced us all to being either for or against something these days. One of the things I love about music, particularly music that contains no lyrics, is that its ultimate meaning will always be ambiguous. Despite the various aesthetic factionalisms that sometimes seem to tear apart the new music community, binaries really have no place in conversations about instrumental music since it really can’t be for or against anything. As a result, composers—for the most part—are never quite put on the same hot seat as writers, filmmakers, and visual artists sometimes are. However, the change in Western perceptions about the music of Dmitri Shostakovich offers an instructive parallel to the reception of Mo Yan. When Shostakovich was perceived to be a Soviet sympathizer, his music was deemed second-rate. But after the publication of Solomon Volkov’s now disputed accounts of Shostakovich harboring secret antipathy for Stalin and his followers, Shostakovich has been hailed as a tormented musical genius whose music contains cryptic cries for freedom. But the notes that Shostakovich wrote are exactly the same whether he was pro or anti-Communist.

Many of the artists who work in art forms whose legacies are all about having specific meanings are the ones who went out on a limb trying to subvert those meanings (e.g. playwrights like Richard Foreman, filmmakers like Jean-Luc Godard or David Lynch, painters like Gerhard Richter, novelists like Gertrude Stein, Richard Brautigan, and yes, Mo Yan). Perhaps this is because, by eschewing precise interpretations, they are aspiring to the narrative opacity and sometimes downright inscrutability of music.

Of course there are those who believe that all art, indeed all human interaction, is ultimately political. And for these folks, what “side” you are on determines whether the art you create is valid or not. To those folks, I’d recommend reading Indian novelist Pankaj Mishra’s rebuttal to Rushdie and other detractors of Mo Yan in which Mishra claims that artists everywhere, including Western democracies, are in some way complicit with the failings of their societies, and to single out artists in a particular society for not being dissident enough is ultimately hypocritical.

Art—whether it be literature, film, theatre, dance, painting, sculpture, or wonderfully elusive music—probably cannot directly change the world for good or ill. But it can help us understand each other better and perhaps, most importantly, offer a window into perspectives that are different from our own and in so doing make us more open minded to all perspectives. And if it really works, binaries have no place there.