From: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Glass meets Clive Barker response
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:40:29 GMT
Organization: ARTSNET,  Atlanta (Norcross) Georgia

Joseph.J.Marcheso.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (Joseph J. Marcheso Jr.) writes:

> In article <1992Oct14.145821.9242@Princeton.EDU>
> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
> 
> > Oh, and as far as fairness goes, note that when Verdi was alive, 
> > he had hadly any "classical" repertoire of operas to compete with.
> > Occasionally a place would dust offf Figaro or Don G, or a Rossini
> > or an early Donnizetti; but he didn't have to compete with his own
> > fifteen-or-so great hits, not to mention Puccini, etc.
>  
> Physician heal thyself. Verdi's competitors were not only Rossini,
> Donzetti, Mozart and Bellini (forgot him?) but Paisiello, Mercadante,
> Meyerbeer and a whole host of others who were considered equally
> popular and performed often in that age. Also his main "rival" for
> attention Wagner was a far more formidible foe than any one Glass has
> now. 


You mis-read Roger's expression of "classical" in that what
was performed in Verdi's time was far less "music by the
great dead composers" than it is now.  Opera by living
composers (such as Verdi) were attended by a wider segment
of the Italian population than the segment of the American
population that goes to hear any opera by anyone, dead or
alive.  The difference is that opera, as a genre, was a
much more vital part of Verdi's culture; not to mention
the extra-musical boosts that Verdi enjoyed via the rousing
of Italian nationalism.  (Remember what V.E.R.D.I. stood for?
Imagine if Carlisle Floyd's name was used as a political acronym.)
  Speaking of Floyd, there's a composer/librettist of immense
skill who writes works in a more traditional musical idiom.
The stories he selects are also of great power, and have a
certain amount of provocative regional political and social
bent.  If given the publicity power and financing of a
Philip Glass (especially given the directions the "mainstream"
of musical thought is moving today) I would like to see what
kind of public figure he would become.
  But unlike Glass, Floyd is less attractive to Madison Avenue.
he doesn't press the right buttons of the commercialist mind.
Back to Glass...don't kid yourself.  Glass is immensely popular
among a good chunk of the musical market.  But his career
(and we're speaking business here) though still lucrative is
somewhat on a downslide; as is "minimalism" (and post-modernism
in general) in the sense it achieved in its heyday.  (I refer
you to the fact that architecture leads all the arts in trends
in the most general sense, and post-modernism is finding its most
prolific architectural expression in shopping malls and other
lowest common denominators of commercial construction.  Also, a few
years ago there was an article in Art in America which claimed to
herald the end of post-modernism.)
  Nevertheless, Glass is certainly a marketable commodity, though
he has suffered somewhat in attempting to get out of and beyond
the cul-de-sac of the style which made him famous.
  This is hardly untrue of other composers, though.  One need
only look at Stravinsky and Copland to see what a small slice
of their careers became widely popular with the general public.
(And they, along with Glass, are the only classical composers to have
obtained long-term recording contracts with Columbia/CBS Records.)
  One can look also at Handel, who though immensely popular in
his time and gaining greater fame now through re-examination of
the larger portion of his output, is essentially known by the
public-at-large for ONE work: Messiah ... and a traditionally
abused work at that!
  I expect Glass' popularity to tumble for a while, either
until he finds a "second period" of significant personal
musical expression, or until he is dead and history begins to
sort out what is significant in his total output.
(There are, after all, plenty of composers whose place in
history rests with one, two, or a small handful of works.)
  Personally, I feel that Glass, like Chopin, will not be
remembered for how he handles writing for orchestra.  Honestly,
he is at his best with his own specialized ensemble.  (And
there's nothing wrong with that.  Can you fault Chopin for
the primacy of his piano works, or Wagner for not writing enough
string quartets?)
  I do take Glass to task for what I perceive as a certain
"chic" pretentiousness.  I have known people who have worked
with him and not felt that way; I'm referring to a certain
kind of developed public image.  There are people who are
certainly worse cases of that for sure (names of the living not
to be mentioned), and as I've said before, advertising does not
a composer or conductor make.

--Mark Gresham

dscatl!mgresham@gatech.edu

=====
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical