Standing Up for Subjectivity

I came into contact with Varese the same way millions others did-his connection with Frank Zappa. I bought Zappa's 'Yellow Shark' (My first classical CD) decided that everything on that CD was absolutley amazing (I still think it is) and decided to check out the roots of the music in Varese.

I got a recording of Boulez conducting, and right off LOVED the 'smaller' pieces. Ionisation, Octandre, Integrales, Offrandes..they were all spectacular. It took me longer to appreciate Arcana, just because I had to sit down and listen for 18 minutes.

I bought Deserts just a few months ago, and it reminded me of how cool Varese actually is, and why I like him so much compared to, say Schoenberg or Webern. You could ALWAYS tell that Varese was having it the way he wanted, even if it didn't fit with what other people were doing at the time. My friend's have written him off the same way they write Schoenberg off (Though they honestly write most music over 3 minutes off), but I don't think they are the same at all. I think Varese has a lot of captivating melodies. Am I insane or what?

(Yeah, I actually still like Zappa's classical music more than Varese.)

Wonderful, this looks like an interesting book to get.

Not having read it yet, I confess to having doubts about the term 'subjective' here. I mean, apart from "composing according to system" and subjective writing as in making decisions according to personal preference, perhaps there are more options? If you "let the sounds be themselves" - which may be the direction Varèse was going - it's no subjugation to system, but is it subjective?

Seems to me that "subjectivism" is kind of standing in for "independence" here. Kyle, when you write "Well, the 20th century certainly needed a champion of subjectivity from the progressive side", I think Ives or Cowell fall in there, and certainly Cage (yeah, I know, there's all of that "remove the composer from the composition" thing, but the starting point for each process and element is about as subjective as it gets).

And Samuel, I've got to think that "letting the sounds be themselves" was just about the last thing Varese was heading to; he definitely wants them to do his bidding.

Not sure about that, Steve - I recall that Varese compared his way of crafting forms to traditional masonry, where you just look for which stone fits where.

Letting the sounds be themselves can be a surprisingly broad attitude. Tom Johnson was over at a forum we organised last month in Amsterdam, and he was also quoting Feldman on this, saying that this was how he (Johnson) composed. But it's super-rational at the same time, isn't it? But there really is no contradiction: Johnson listens to what the processes he works with want, Varese looks for where the sounds he develops fit. Neither strike me as either "subjective" or "according to system".

Varese may have said it, but it's not what's there on the page. The best example of a "just look for which stone fits where" composer might be Feldman, don't you think? (though stone might be far too substantial a material to describe his walls...) Or, to head away from traditional instruments, maybe Henry Gwiazda.

tom johnson is a great touchstone. the extreme rationality of his music is precisely what makes it intensely personable.