How I Learned to Love Steve Reich


Last week I was talking with a middle school principal in one of CAE’s programs. A network planning meeting was concluding and we got to talking about quality. At first, I thought he was asking about quality arts instruction, as in “how do you support and measure it?” It’s the sort of question you want principals to ask. Very quickly the conversation went to a deeper, more interesting, and entirely affirming place: “how can you tell quality in art?”

It’s the mother lode. It’s the conversation you point towards, hope for, well beyond the technicalities of a school principal administering an arts education program.

We got to talking about the age old issue of works that have passed the test of time, considered to be masterpieces, versus newer works often by living artists, that are rejected outright or overlooked by those who are guided by a magical catalog of masterpieces.

We talked for a while about the great length of time it took for Mahler’s works to enter the mainstream–to be accepted by audiences as masterpieces. These works, written at the turn of the 20th century, took a good 70 years or more to truly enter the classical canon.

We talked about Bach all but disappearing until Mendelssohn resurrected Bach (Mahler pun intended) among classical music enthusiasts of the 19th century.

We talked about the people who still question Jackson Pollock. We talked about Buster Keaton, and the many years his body of works languished, until James Agee’s 1949 Life Magazine piece put Buster’s genius back on track.

It all got me to thinking about how I learned to love Steve Reich.
SR.jpg
The vast majority of Western music has a similar architecture or design. It’s there in a Strauss opera, as well as a great song by Gershwin or even a phrase of Woody Guthrie. The music of Steve Reich does not make use of that architecture. Its influence comes from Africa. It has a steady pulse, and phrases that appear to be repeating themselves, over and over. Reich describes it as ‘pulsatile.” In fact, these repeating phrases contain small, almost imperceptible changes that alter the music subtly over time. I would argue that if you can hear these changes, than you really aren’t taking the music in.

Are you still with me?  Okay, here’s the deal: Reich’s music does not employ the narrative that is prototypical to most Western music. If you’re looking for the building of phrase, harmony, rhythm to an emotional peak, well, you won’t find it in Reich’s music. If you’re listening for that Western narrative, you are SOL. You will find something else which asks you to receive the music in a different way.

In the mid-eighties, one of my dearest friends, freelance trumpeter Terry Szor, gave me a cassette of Music for Eighteen Musicians. He told me that it “changed my life.” It’s the turn of a phrase I have heard spoken about Reich’s music so very, very often. So, I tried it on for size; I hated it.

I was listening for that Western narrative. In arts education, artists and teacher often work with the parallels between the architecture of sentences and paragraphs in literature (English Language Arts) and music. Naturally, settings of literary works to music, such as Schubert lieder, reinforce this relationship. That being said, if you were to compare Reich’s music, or Coltrane’s Interstellar Space  or Sun Ship to such literary works, you might not know where to start. I chose thse examples because Reich was influenced by the later, “experimental” works of John Coltrane, which are rarely mentioned against Coltrane’s more traditional works, such as the beloved Blue Train or My Favorite Things.

God, this is a long blog….I hope you’ll read it!

So, here I was listening with my Western ears, getting supremely bored (Coltrane pun intended), getting annoyed, and I quickly bailed, wondering what exactly was wrong with my friend Terry. Years later, after I finally learned to love Steve Reich, I played a recording of Drumming for another close friend, who got mad and instructed me in no uncertain terms to turn it off, immediately!

The first time I remember really finding my way with Reich’s music was at a dance performance. There was something about following the dance, the visual aspect, that allowed me to take the music in, in an entirely different way. I wasn’t listening for a certain progression, a certain phrase, a certain architecture–all the things I had been trained to listen for in music, but instead I felt the music, received it–allowed it to wash over me. Watching the dance made it possible. It was as if a switch was flipped.

This letting go of my intellectual ear, my thinking ear, perhaps better put, led me to a place where the music created a feeling that I could only describe as euphoric and trance-like, if, and only if I really gave in to it. Time and space sort of stopped, and I connected with the genius of Steve Reich. I learned to love Steve Reich.

It’s what makes this question of quality difficult to answer in the simple way that an educator might like. Not to mention the question of assessing knowledge. Can’t we create a rubric for this? The rubric of genius! How could it be that I moved along a continuum of experience and learning to evolve from someone who wanted Reich’s music to stop, to someone who experienced a physical euphoria while listening to the work, wishing the music would never stop?

And, this isn’t limited to Reich. To this day, I hear from the people who tell me that John Cage’s genius is for his “ideas,” not his music. Oh really?

I want to tie this back to education. Arts education, as well as education in general. The complexity of this matter, the kaleidoscope of quality, in so many ways speaks to the complexity of teaching and learning, and of course, how we evaluate, test, measure, and establish systems of accountability.

Is Andy Warhol genius or charlatan? Is Reich a genius or annoying? Can standardized testing ever be an effective measure for understanding a complex world of teaching, learning, and human development? Perhaps when that task force or administrator gives us our rubric of genius we will know for sure. And for those who think I am kidding, believe me, that rubric is being worked on somewhere, someplace.
rubric.gif


2 responses to “How I Learned to Love Steve Reich”

  1. So Mr. Kessler, what I think I hear you saying is to find inspiration in the areas between the known and the unknown?
    But the problem with standardized testing, judging the “quality” of works of art, and for that matter choosing a political candidate, is that the public seems to want black or white, yes or no answers. I think that one of the biggest challenges facing arts educators, and arts advocates in general, is that the power of the arts in its ability to speak to our knowns as well as our unknowns is something we’re not really able to codify (or encourage to an unwilling recipient!)
    Thanks for your blog.

  2. I think we can create a tool (maybe it’s a rubric) that helps us assess either a work of art or an artist within a context (socio-political, aesthetic, etc.) and using discipline based standards.
    Just as we can’t create a genius– but we can foster geniuses with fertile environments, and we can inhibit geniuses with extremely lacking environments– we can’t create and implicit appreciate of a work of genius, that must come on the individual’s own terms. I think Jackson Pollack was inspired, Vermeer was uber-talented, but I think Matisse was genius.