On 14 Jan 2007 at 21:01, dhbailey wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > %On 14 Jan 2007 at 6:34, dhbailey wrote: > > > >> The fact that there are a number of town bands in America which > >> date back into the mid 1800s indicates a fairly large body of > >> literature, a fairly large amount of which is still available. > >> That bands in general don't program it as much as music by > >> contemporary composers doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > > > > But it's not, strictly speaking, "classical" music. It was music > > written for bands for popular use, to provide repertory for the > > bands which were in many cases, the primary musical ensemble of many > > communities. They were written for *use*, not for Art with a capital > > A. This, of course, makes them ineligible for inclusion in the > > classical music canon, since they weren't written for posterity, and > > weren't written before 1800 (when composers only very occasionally > > wrote for posterity, e.g., Bach's B Minor Mass). > > Cool, let's set the standards so that only a pre-determined body of > music can fit it, and then we can justify our beliefs.
This is not my argument -- I'm trying to explain Andrew's response. > Much of the music of what is now considered "classical" music wasn't > written for posterity -- it was written to earn a buck (or a pfennig > or a ducat or whatever.) Did Brahms really write for posterity or for > the next concert? He was *extremely* conscious of the past and the future. He's probably the prototypical "classical" composer. > Dvorak's Slavonic Dances were written to please a > publisher who knew he had a market for them, yet they're listed right > next to his other works. Was Debussy writing for the recital hall and > the publishers of his day or for the "ages?" Berlioz wrote his music > so he could put on a concert, not in the hopes that people 200 years > after his death would be programming it, at least that's what I take > away from reading his Memoirs. I don't dispute any of this. But the point of view that rejects the entire band literature has to be doing it on some basis, and the view (wrong as it is) that "classical music" is music made for posterity is, in many respects, the idea that animates the rejection of repertories like the historical one for band. > Stravinsky worked for commissions for much of his music, not for just > for posterity (I haven't read enough of his writings to know if he > thouht of posterity in regards to his music or not), yet all of his > music is included in classical music lists without asterisks > mentioning that it doesn't count since it was written for use. All of > his ballets would have to be thrown out of the canon as would much of > his other music, all written on commission and all for immediate > performance and payment. > > When did utilitatarian become an exlusionary attribute for classical > music? It's not to me. It is for some people, even though they are inconsistent in accepting into the canon of "classical music" many pieces that were categorically written for utilitarian reasons. Of course, I have to apologize to Andrew for attributing all of this to him -- it's probably not at all what he meant, but he seemed to be exhibiting this kind of attitude in his insistence that there are only 2 pieces in the classical band repertory before 1900. Perhaps he can enlighten us on exactly why my interpretation of the points of view behind his position is wrong, which I'm sure it is! -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
