Open Letter to Author(s): Helmut Lachenmann and Jeffrey Stadelman Source: Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 189-200 Published by: Perspectives of New Music Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/833650 Accessed: 01/06/2009 01:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pnm.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Perspectives of New Music is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspectives of New Music.

http://www.jstor.org OPEN LETTER TO HANS WERNER HENZE

HELMUTLACHENMANN

TRANSLATEDBY JEFFREYSTADELMAN

Dear Hans Werner Henze,

N YOUR BOOK, Die englische Katze: Ein Arbeitstagebuch 1978-1982 (The English Cat: A WorkingDiary, 1978-82), I find myself labelled as "representative of 'musica negativa"' (a term which, in a footnote, you immediately place in a suspect light); and, not least on account of my "bad manners" during a controversial exchange in a public discussion, see myself delivered up to the indignation of the reader without opportu- nity to defend myself directly.1 Because it was recorded by South German Radio, that exchange from last autumn in Stuttgart can be reconstructed: my bad manners consisted demonstrably of nothing other than my very cautiously and respectfully raising the question of how music (in this case your music), insofar as it 190 Perspectivesof New Music

merely helpsitself to traditional materials (instead of developing them fur- ther), can justify such unbroken rapport with what is already created; or, to be precise, how expressive content that is borrowed (or retrieved)2 from the tradition could today be made credible once again. It would be an insult to your intelligence to assume that you actually felt my statement as a personal attack. In the end the problem I raised concerns all composers. It need not divide but, rather, could connect us. Your reaction, at that time and again now, seems thus to be more that of someone startled out of pious self-deception, who strikes out at another as a precaution, in order to preserve his own cherished mask. Regarding your attempt to attack and disparage not only my person but also my aesthetic convictions, one could almost be content to con- clude that you had just wrongly pigeonholed me-that is, if such unself- conscious conceptual pigeonholing did not reveal at the same time a notably self-betraying instance of Freudian omission. (In the past as now has not the ill-repute of social awkwardness, constantly imputed by the bourgeois class, been in truth that class's unconscious recognition of its own awkwardness?)In any case I know of no musical work, not to speak of any "movement," corresponding to your polemical attack, where "the negative aspects of our time (i.e. corrupt musical life under capitalism, with all its accompanying symptoms, including the symptom of a pluralis- tic musical life"-to which I add the symptom of this defamatory state- ment as well-"who think differently and do things differently) are reflected as in a mirror image, where the ugly represents itself artisti- cally." Such a repulsive interpretation! Truly your own tendentious depic- tion must be placed at the very top of such "ars negativa" as a characteristicexample and work of slanderous art. Actually, "shattering of the material" is not practiced and celebrated where traditional musical material is allowed to reflect, as for instance in my music-but rather where it is unscrupulously exploited, as it is by you. And just because one cheerfully roots around in a tradition doesn't mean that one is rooted in it-not by a long shot. Finally, to your unfortunate attempt to caricature Adorno or perhaps his school (to which I do not belong, though from which I learn) in order to hit upon a "movement" "where, after Auschwitz, nothing more can be articulated or depicted because everything is so worn out and totally lousy, everything's been said, kaputt, kaputt! . . .": it seems that you yourself, Herr Henze, belong to those "authors . . . who will and must confine themselves to perpetuating and ritualizing these, their gloomy and angry attitudes"-in your case, an already embarrassing intellectual dereliction. It in fact only remains for me to join with you in your philosophical head-shaking at the confusion, so beloved in this land, of "truth and rudeness." Open Letter to Hans Werner Henze 191

In view of your association with "those who think differently and do things differently," the following passages, from a lecture I delivered in April of last year, prove to be absolutely prophetic:3

"What provoked my generation creatively"-namely, the critical exam- ination of traditional concepts of material-"is now felt once again by composers as an undignified deadening and suppression of their expres- sive needs. A younger generation"-in which you, Herr Henze, are a confirmed believer-"experiences that aesthetic of resistance as mere frustration. When they realize this, they suffer more from paralysis than from a breakdown of the ego. They refuse to stare at their own captivity as the rabbit stares at the serpent; and in, despite, and because of this cap- tivity and alienation, they dare to say 'I' for the first time precisely at this point, and push through to that direct emotion which is addressed immediately to their fellow men, in the belief that the true self has an ability to communicate which, despite each and every one of its masks, ultimately remains strong. "That is at least how I think I understand the spirit which guides those composers who are determined to resort to bourgeois emotion. And so I respect and accept them, and so they stand closer to me than many struc- tural mannerists, who by their misuse of a speechlessness transfigured into an ideology, so to speak flirt with alienation, as 'inevitable outsiders' indulging in a kind of negative arts and crafts.... "However, that outbreak of the muzzled subject into a new emotional immediacy will be untrue, and degenerate into self-deception, wherever the fat and comfortable composer, perhaps slightly scarred structurally and therefore the more likely to complain, sets up house once again in the old junk-room of available emotions. The temptation to do this is great, and the impression cannot simply be dismissed out of hand that after so much lamentable stagnation, the recent teeming abundance of powerfully emotional music exists thanks to the degenerate fruitfulness of maggots having a good time on the fat of the tonal cadaver. "Those who believe that expressive spontaneity, and innocent drawing from the venerable reservoir of affect, make that struggle of the fractured subject with itself superfluous, and spare it an engagement with the tradi- tional concepts of material, have disabled their own artistic voice. They are gladly allowed to sit in the lap of a society which encourages those who support its repressive game. They have nothing to say to it. Such basic convictions have betrayed themselves most recently by the level of their polemic against the old avant-garde. This polemic amounts to obstructing the view using straw men, which can then be thrashed to the satisfaction of Herr Peter Jona Korn.4 And what really makes me wonder 192 Perspectivesof New Music

is that, alongside the obligatory journalistic climate-poisoners, there are also respectable composers who-obviously with their own rationaliza- tions-believe, more or less bashfully, that they ought to participate in such whipping parties. "There are for example the popular mug shots of the typical Darmstadt composers who, closed off from emotional participation, with arrogant gaze toward the future which they have created, do not want to be understood by the present; hyper-romantics, apostles of progress, and morose intellectuals at once, thrashing the musical materials with alge- braic formulae. Incidentally, just this was said twenty-five years ago about the composer of Varianti and Diario polacco, Luigi Nono. Wolfgang Rihm's remark from 1980, about systems which give up on sensory per- ceptibility, was at the time adopted unscrupulously by Nono's enemies: "This system of ordering remains incomprehensible and is awarded, in addition to the pest of its authoritarianism, also the shame of tedium." Rihm, who is united with me by unbridled love for the creations of Nono, understands very well that not only the 'shame of tedium,' but no less the tedium of such shame, have had to be adjusted and revised from generation to generation. Tedium is unforgivable, certainly-but tedium for whom???. . . "Can there be a more presumptuous and, at the same time, ignorant program than the propagation of a 'human art' (in contrast to the up-to- now inhuman ... ), and than the claim to be composing 'finally, again, for the public'? For whom then were Nono's II canto sospeso,La terra e la compagna, Stockhausen's Gruppen and Kontakte, Boulez's Le Marteau sans maitre, Berio's Epifania and Cage's Concertfor and Orchestra composed? Reproaching a hermetically sealed music for insiders only repeats the favorite excuse of a public which runs for cover when faced with works like those just named. It runs because it is more affected by the emotive power experienced in these works than it is entertained by the emotions of the collected neo-symphonists. "And one naturallyought not miss out on the polemical game with the concept, 'rejection,' which would like to brand me as the ascetic, sulking preacher with moralizing finger raised in the desert of choked scratching noises-a straw man offering himself as perfect for punching because of the deliberate misinterpretation, as "rejection of the public," of what I have always described as simply a procedure of compositional technique: the clearing away of what is lying around in the open, in order to uncover the hidden and make it more clearly experienceable. My emergency defi- nition of beauty as "rejection of convention" becomes instead, in the dis- torting mirror of idiocy, "rejection of pleasure." Convention and pleasure as one: here the petits bourgeois are unmasked. Open Letter to Hans Werner Henze 193

"It is understandable that the provincial arts pages-but less so that composers-unsuspectingly make use of such straw men in their polem- ics, and so evade actual formulation of the question. This question reads the same now as before: how does one overcome speechlessness, a speechlessness which appears hardened and complicated through the false eloquence of the ruling aesthetic apparatus?I myself know of no other answer than that of making conscious the formulation of this ques- tion through composition. That seems to me the fundamental aspect of composing today."

You, Herr Henze, obviously do not have such problems. As you postu- late in your macabre discussion, it suffices for you to be "really 'happy'in composing." (Doubtless the German word, "gliicklich," was not foolish enough for you-and rightly so.) It is understandable that my question to you was frightening: self-examination rather than self-description was required in considering it. Presumably your appointment book could have been thrown into confusion. "Shattering of material" here, "bad manners" there, straw men ("nothing really new") cunningly positioned in the public landscape, handy for bashing: I respect your anxiety in the face of the inner insecu- rity which these maneuvers bespeak, but I recognize therein a typical reactionary behavior pattern, and I regret the lack of imagination you show by seeking to cash in on your insecurity, instead of admitting to it or even overcoming it creatively. These could actually provide credibility, as an artist and as a human being, because "it is not important whether one sticks one's head in the sand or sticks sand in one's head .... Hanns Eisler would have liked to write a book about 'stupidity in music.' I hold another more urgently needed: about playing stupid in music."5

I wish you-Gliick. Helmut Lachenmann Leonberg, 11 June 1983 194 Perspectivesof New Music

APPENDIX

The above letter, which was refused for publication by the newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine (behind which there's always "some bright per- son"), and which was then printed in a somewhat altered wording in the August/September 1983 edition of the Neue Musikzeitung, expresses Lachenmann's position on the following passage from Hans Werner Henze's book:

Wednesday evening, October 13 [1982]

"... In the evening an incident during the podium presentation in the Hochschule, which Clytus Gottwald moderated: Lachenmann, com- poser, representative of 'musica negativa,'* attacked me from the audi- ence (I did not know him at all, and he never introduced himself), and was, I found, rather insolent and hostile. (He wanted to establish some- thing; namely, that I, as everyone knows, and especially those reading this book who have not laid it aside by now, quote from the tradition; that I, as he expressed it, "retrieve" [abrufe] forms from the classics, and as a result am an aesthetic and ethical horror to the real and genuine repre- sentatives of modern music, among whom Lachenmann doubtless seems to count himself.) He took as the object of his accusations the Piano Pieces from Pollicino and the Margaret Waltzes(which had just been very competently played by the young Hamary), both of which absolutely teem with patterns from Classical and Romantic piano music. At the end of a strenuous day where I had had to be with strangers from morning to evening, and for hours proving myself before an eighty-man orchestra,

*"'musica negativa' is a (no longer really new) movement in which the negative of our time (i.e. corrupt musical life under capitalism, with all its accompanying symptoms, and including also those individuals of pluralis- tic existence who think differently and do things differently) is reflected as in a mirror image, where the ugly itself represents the artistic; where 'shattering of the material' is always to be practiced and celebrated; and where, after Auschwitz, nothing more can be articulated or depicted because everything is so worn out and totally lousy-everything's been said, kaputt, kaputt! And where as a result authors will and must confine themselves to perpetuating and ritualizing these, their gloomy and angry conditions." Open Letter to Hans Werner Henze 195

struggling for survival just as on all the previous days, Lachenmann's entrance (I would actually rather not mention that its staging seemed uncollegial and improper) was not exactly welcome, now that this evening I had to stand up once again to a hall bursting with strangers. I didn't always succeed-I couldn't always hide my anger at the bad man- ners. Bad manners are part of the most unpleasant, regrettable phenome- non in the world of the arts, and it is a shame that there are so many people who imagine that they are appropriate and considered good form when one wants to assert something, e.g. oneself and one's theories. The ends justify the means, it appears, and in Germany one lies when one is courteous. In no country of the world is the superstition so widespread as with us, that truth and rudeness are one and the same."

So that readers can make their own pictures of Lachenmann's "bad man- ners" and Henze's "intellectual laziness," there follow for the first time the controversy-provoking passages from the Stuttgart discussion, docu- mented in a transcription by Hans-Peter Jahn. Most recently, Peter Petersen has taken up this dispute again in his book, Hans WernerHenze, ein politischerMusiker. ZwolfVorlesungen [Hans Werner Henze, a political musician: twelve lectures] (Hamburg, 1988), dismissing it with a refer- ence to "Human, All Too Human"; that is, to "human weaknesses"-as if it does not concern, in whatever form, fundamental compositional positions. On the other hand, Petersen certainly does not adopt a one- sided stance for Henze. At the outset Lachenmann said some things about the music of Schonberg and Webern which unfortunately remain for the most part indecipherable, because the microphone was at first too far away. Con- cluding this part of his remarks, he continued on as follows: ". .. and indeed, when I reflect on it today, it was that, that this music-I can only describe it atmospherically-reflected on itself and caused me to reflect on my listening throughmy listening. And this reflection on one's listen- ing means, at root, reflecting on oneself, and therefore on one's whole situation. And it becomes for me almost a kind of artistic standard. And in hindsight I believe, looking back now at old music, that the music of Beethoven achieves this today, and could continue to achieve this if we were not so totally overfed.... And I have now-I must simply say it freely now-I have on the one hand a fascination for your music: I'm attracted to it; and then again I'm disturbed by it because I have the impression that you create a utopia in your works, that you simply set down an intact language, as if this kind of lyrical style had been our lan- guage from the beginning, with which we had always communicated our 196 Perspectivesof New Music

feelings. Thus what I miss, so to speak (speaking again in rather school- masterly tones), is the experience that this music reflects on itself, and this breach in experience doesn't simply communicate with naive cheer and naturalness, but at the same time with knowledgethat the categories through which it communicates are no longer wholly suitable; that, as a result of this in-credible mediascape, and puree of culture which is nearly choking us, these categories are no longer completely credible. And so then if something comes along-to be concrete for once-like a guitar- idyll [Lachenmann refers here to the guitar in Henze's Kammermusik 1958, which had been played earlier by an ensemble], I immediately become suspicious. I say, in order to say it once again bluntly and disre- spectfully, the composer exploits the idyll which this instrument brings with it, but he doesn't alter it, he doesn't alter-at root, he no longer contributes enough of himself. This guitar-idyll, or bel-canto style: they fundamentally support themselves, or nearly so. In other words the situa- tion is for me genuinely, simply, utopian. However it is not actually so pretty nor, to finally be even more concrete, are your piano pieces which are strangely, extremely, Tristanesque or post-Tristanesque in their total harmony. Naturally I ask myself, in what world do you actually live, with this regarding of children? Or for what world do you imagine this chil- dren's idyll? You have actually only spoken anecdotally or programmati- cally [Henze spoke earlier of the history of the pieces' origins, and the intention of these piano pieces], but this kind of hearing is at root what really concerns us, more so than the merely anecdotal. Don't you believe that it is a kind of utopia which you are simply putting into your music, without questioning how it can be made credible now?"

After this, Henze gave the following response:

"Yes, Herr Lachenmann, difficult to answer. But I can only say to you that it's not at all easy-I don't know whether you have ever tried to write a piece of happy[English word] music? The artist-I think we know this topic has already been discussed by Adorno in his books, and is espe- cially familiarto precisely your type of composer; it's probably been thor- oughly discussed by just such a thinker. I too have concerned myself with this. I believe the following, however: an artist, whether young or older, irrespective of where he is in his development, has not only the right but also the privilege to be happy [Gliicklichsein], to reach for utopian rela- tionships from time to time (at least if he succeeds in that, he should have luck [Gliick]), to reach for a bit of happiness[English] in the soul and in the head, and then on music-paper; it is permitted. It is permitted to por- tray utopias, to sketch out and prepare models of utopias; it is permitted; Open Letter to Hans Werner Henze 197

one has the allowance of the loving God if you will, or of whomever, even of Adorno too [laughter in the hall]. The artist has permission from time to time to retire from the awful things of the world which of course tor- ment all of us horribly; and from the torment which we must bring to permanent expression on the music-paper, allegedly according to a defi- nite, but unknown, moral law. One has permission to write happy music from time to time, if allowed to by one's personal situation and perhaps by one's personal courage as well, or personal menefreghismo.That is the only answer I can probably give at this moment before such a large assembly; after all, we don't know each other personally at all." [Much applause for Henze]

Lachenmann indicated his wish to speak once again, and Clytus Gottwald consented:

"I certainly did not mean, or lay down as a quasi-postulate, that in order to be credible a composer should always adopt a-let's see-self- righteous or depressive attitude. However, I would like-I can only for- mulate it personally, there's nothing else for it in this company: I can only say that, for example, in Canto sospeso,the piece with soprano and women's is understood in the musical sense as a thoroughly beau- tiful piece; it should be understood, and in the most serious sense, as a happy piece, because of its purity. Or if you want, once again to the com- poser Webern: it is cheerful [heitere] in a completely new way. To me, the concept 'happy'is too insubstantial; Gliick and happyare a bit something else-pure . . . [complicated turn of events which covers this spot] ... I am of the opinion that precisely now one should have at the ready the courage for a cheerfulness which, however, does not distract one from the contradictions . . . but rather as the growing conscious realization of their surmountability. And I even find a work such as the Sinfonie, Op. 21 of Webern, or a piece that the audiences of the time made out as terri- bly bad, the Varianti by my honored teacher Luigi Nono-to be a happy cheerful music, which could not make itself understood during a time when people were clinging to another type of beauty. One sensed it there as a provocation, and I would agree with you that this kind of "Lament for the Course of the World" [Den-Weltlauf-Beklagen] through tragedy is once again at root a kind of flight from reality, in order to aesthetize what one cannot cope with in another way. For me it would be entirely- but I simply must put this conversation straight. To me it's not about music being in a bad mood, but rather about the question of whether music is permitted to be so simple, as if it could be. This idiom was of course already known: in the Pollicino pieces there are accompanimental 198 Perspectivesof New Music

forms that are very typical expressions of the cheerful, that you simply retrieve, that you certainly did not invent but rather found and inserted. Mahler did this in a completely different way, Stravinsky did this in a completely different way-but my experience with these composers was always that it had been in their case a distinct break. The music knew that here was something that had already been used once, on which it once again wanted to cast light, in a new manner. And it just seems to me that, or with many of your works it always seems that this kind-that your music feels much the same, and that this breachis not made conscious, though it is nevertheless objectively there."

Henze commented on that as follows:

"I think that I can perhaps say two things to that, Herr Lachenmann. The first would perhaps be this: I believe that you are a bit strict in your treatment of the question of stylistic concepts. You quote from several examples-Luigi Nono, who is a friend of mine too-and I know this music very well; and I also know what is brought to expression there. However, this does not have to force me to employ the same technique, the same morality. I am another person and, for example, I also have stu- dents now, as perhaps you know, in Cologne. They never get to see even a note from me. We speak only of music there, and I devote myself to accustoming my young colleagues to the development of independent thought, musical thought; and at the same time I bring them to allow themselves to do what they want to do, for or against. This stands in con- trast to certain of the moral measures of compositional conduct you cited, consciously or unconsciously, just now. That's not how it works, Herr Lachenmann! Each artist has not only the right, but also the duty, to behave as independently of these criteria as he wants to. [Loud applause in the auditorium for Henze.] That's what matters to me! And my technique that you mentioned, which is not only to be found in these little piano pieces for the young, taken from a children's , but which you can also find in my symphonic work (this can be heard again on Fri- day evening): I use it-as I have already tried to show many many times in my writings; I attempt very consciously to retrieve these signs [Zeichen] and, thus, from within the signs, and with the help of the signs, enable myself to make what matters to me comprehensible, to convey it. Thus I use such signs, that can be retrieved (as you say), in order to address, or retrieve, certain things with the listener; to make the listeners attentive to certain things; to throw up a bridge to them to help provide in my music the right direction for hearing, listening and thinking. Yours is only one of the philosophies which object to the way I do this. It really Open Letter to Hans Werner Henze 199

does matter very much to me that I am followed as far as possible in my music and also in its performance; it matters to me. I would in fact like to be understood, I would even like to be loved, not necessarily by you [sympathetic laughter in the hall], but preferably also by you. That's what matters to me, and that's why it comes to such compromises, and such amorality and retrieval of musical signs. Okay!"

REFERENCES

Helmut Lachenmann, "Offener Brief an Hans Werner Henze" (dated Leonberg, 11/12 July 1983). Critical commentary on Henze 1983; planned as publication for the arts page of the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung. Refused, published under the title, "Ein Kampf um kompositorische Standpunkte: Helmut Lachenmann erwidert auf einen Angriff von Hans-Werner Henze" [A struggle for compositional points of view: Helmut Lachenmann replies to an attack by Hans- Werner Henze], in Neue Musikzeitung 32, no. 4 (August-September 1983), 8. Hans Werner Henze, entry dated "13. Oktober abends [1982]," in Die Englische Katze: Ein Arbeitstagebuch 1978-1982 (Frankfurt a. M: S. Fischer, 1983), 345-46. [Translator's Note: This translation was made in 1995 from the edited and reprinted version of Lachenmann's "Open Letter" found in Helmut Lachenmann, vol. 61/62 in the Musik-Konzepte series, edited by Heinz-Klaus Metzger and Rainer Riehn (Munich: Edition Text + Kritik, 1988), 12-18. Special thanks to David Alberman, who pro- vided scores of suggestions for improvement of this translation.] 200 Perspectivesof New Music

NOTES

1. Lachenmann's open letter, written in 1983 in response to an entry in Henze's Die englischeKatze, ought to be read in conjunction with the auxilliary materials presented in the appendix of this translation. Bibliographic data documenting the source texts for the various translated materials may be found there as well.The present text reproduces in translation, with altered layout, the full text of Helmut Lachenmann, "Offene Brief an Hans Werner Henze," from Helmut Lachenmann, vol. 61/62 of the Musik-Konzepte series, edited by Heinz-Klaus Metzger and Rainer Riehn (Munich: edition text + kritik, 1988), 12-18. My own few notes are clearly labelled as such. For most readers it will make sense to read the appendix first, then return to Lachenmann's letter. [JS] 2. The original German word here (in its infinitive form) is abrufen. Throughout the present document this word alludes to the field of data processing: Lachenmann's use of abrufen brings to mind the "retrieval" or "calling up" of information from computer memory. [JS] 3. Extracts from "Affekt und Aspekt," which appears in Neuland: Ansatze zur Musik der Gegenwart 3 (Bergisch-Gladbach: Neuland Musikverlag Herbert Henck, 1983). 4. "In 1975 Korn wrote the book Musikalische Umweltsverschmutzung [Pollution of the Musical Environment] (published by Breitkopf & Hartel) in which he violently attacked "Schonberg und die Folgen" (Schoenberg and the consequences)-that is, the serial development in the avant-garde after 1945. The composers Stockhausen, Cage and Kagel are mentioned most often in Korn's book." The preceding is drawn from a 2 February 1996 fax from Dr. Frank Reinisch of Breit- kopf & Hartel, Wiesbaden, who wrote the present translator in response to a request (from Lachenmann) for a brief summary of Korn's position. [JS] 5. Quoted from Lachenmann, "Affekt und Aspekt."