|
|
Post by julesd68 on Jun 19, 2017 19:41:17 GMT
A quote from one of my favourite pianists, Vladimir Ashkenazy … < I don’t think we can make political points with music. We can contribute but we can’t make political points. We have very little power. >www.classicfm.com/artists/vladimir-ashkenazy/practise-tips-advice/I’m more than surprised to hear these comments from him! Doesn’t a fellow countryman Shostakovich come to mind? If composers like him had so little power then why were the authorities so keen to shackle him over the years … The Nazis knew full well the power of music - it was said of a young Von Karajan that he ‘can lead the new organisation of our cultural life in the spirit and direction which National Socialism demands’. It’s perhaps all too easy to forget these things in the modern age but you could even point to the recent concert in Manchester as a demonstration of the power that music can have, this time as an expression of freedom and a very political point indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 19, 2017 20:38:15 GMT
Shostakovich made fantastic political commentary with his music while keeping his head just under the parapet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jun 21, 2017 12:48:29 GMT
It depends on how you define politics. Perhaps music can enlighten or educate but only if you're receptive to those things in the first place. I don't believe it has the power to overthrow regimes. Shostakovich's music may have been revolutionary (in all senses of the word) but it actually changed nothing, merely highlighted what was wrong to those who could understand the complex musical message he was sending. Those people probably knew what was wrong already. Serfs, peasants, and the downtrodden in general didn't get to listen to Shostakovich and probably wouldn't have understood it anyway. It's only when music is accessible to those that it's attempting to champion that it has any real power.
I'm thinking more along the lines of Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Dylan, Tom Paxton, Billy Bragg, Phil Ochs, Neil Young...music protesting in a language that is understandable and accessible to everyone.
Which resonates more with the working man I wonder, a magnificent Shostakovich symphony that has to be explained to him, or just under 2 minutes of Pete Seeger?
|
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Jun 21, 2017 13:23:42 GMT
I understand what you're saying Paul but I don't think the Leningrad Symphony would have needed much explanation ...
The power of music in popular culture is well documented but I come back to my original point, that if classical music hasn't or doesn't wield much influence politically, why have so many regimes over the years sort to exert so much influence over it?
I just think that Ashkenazy downplays the potential force that classical music has had over the centuries. Even going back to Allegri's 'Miserere'. In a time when the church was politics, the music was considered so powerful and sacred by Pope Urban VIII that you could be excommunicated by writing it down or performing it ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jun 21, 2017 16:28:35 GMT
I suppose I mean that If somebody had played me Shostakovich's 8th for the first time and I knew nothing about it I might well hail it as a brilliant piece of music, but I doubt very much whether I'd say, "blimey, that's about the Nazis, and Stalin too. Bloody Hell, I bet the Politburo didn't like that." whereas with the Pete Seeger... One reason that music has been banned, and is still being banned today, is because oppressive regimes are bullies. Bullies are, at heart, cowards. They will attempt to ban anything that they don't understand or that scares them. Again that's a very simplistic argument but I think it strikes at the heart of the matter. Hitler banned Jewish composers like as Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer. because...yes, you guessed it...they were Jewish. The other side of that coin, of course, would be Israel's "unofficial" ban on music written by Wagner. Chairman Mao banned most Western music because he deemed it "decadent" but then he thought that about a lot of stuff. Arvo Pärt was offending Soviet officials well in to the late sixties simply because he wrote music that referenced Jesus Christ. The list of reasons and music is, if not endless, certainly too long and varied for a quick conversation. My own opinion is that "the church" should probably be treated separately. All sorts of stuff has been banned by the various religions for some not awfully coherent reasons. This is the bunch that banned the augmented fourth because it was deemed to be the Devil's chord and wouldn't allow any choral music that was wholly or partially scored for female voices to be sung in churches for donkey's years...and that's only the Christians.  |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 21, 2017 19:09:48 GMT
There's a world of difference between a wordless Shostakovich symphony that still manages to get its message across due to the power of its composition and a 3-minute Billy Bragg moan song. The Shossy manages to be both timeless and very much of its time. If you want words, try his 13th which is immensely emotionally powerful.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 21, 2017 19:57:43 GMT
One of the most powerful songs ever recorded is under 3mins Tells it how it is in no uncertain terms "Strange Fruit"
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 21, 2017 21:08:01 GMT
The Billie Holiday?
The Nina Simone is rather wonderful, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jun 21, 2017 21:25:42 GMT
There's a world of difference between a wordless Shostakovich symphony that still manages to get its message across due to the power of its composition and a 3-minute Billy Bragg moan song. The Shossy manages to be both timeless and very much of its time. If you want words, try his 13th which is immensely emotionally powerful. The thing is, nobody has to explain to me what Pete Seeger (or Billy Bragg for that matter) is singing about, and the message in "What Did You Learn In School Today" is also timeless. With no point of reference how am I supposed to work out the intricacies of the Shostakovich? It only means something when you know what it means, before that it's just great music. I don't "want words" I just don't see that one form has less validity than the other because it's played by a bloke with a banjo rather than a symphony orchestra. Save |
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Jun 21, 2017 21:33:36 GMT
The fascinating thing about the Shosta is that initially it was hailed as portraying victory over the Germans but then later it was interpreted as being a critique of the government ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jun 22, 2017 12:08:59 GMT
I understand what you're saying Paul but I don't think the Leningrad Symphony would have needed much explanation ... The fascinating thing about the Shosta is that initially it was hailed as portraying victory over the Germans but then later it was interpreted as being a critique of the government ... Errrrr? |
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Jun 22, 2017 12:17:50 GMT
Ha - what I meant was that to anyone listening to the Leningrad Symphony at the time in Russia would have understood the references to the war ... Of course how they would interpret them is open to interpretation. Interpret that how you like!  |
|
