Interpretation and Aporias: Perspectives from a Classical in the 21st Century

Michael Kieran Harvey A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of ()

October 2017

This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship

I hereby certify that the work embodied in the thesis is my own work, conducted under normal supervision. The thesis contains no material which has been accepted, or is being examined, for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to the final version of my thesis being made available worldwide when deposited in the University’s Digital Repository, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 and any approved embargo.

2 ABSTRACT This thesis examines the relationship between the 21st century /pianist’s interpretation and composition of virtuoso piano repertoire and the tradition within the Australian context. It argues that the interpretation of concert music is a hermeneutic process. This hermeneutic process is applicable to performances that can involve adherence to the original work, radical deviation from the original work or the proposing of a new alternative to the original work. The interpretative process can also be seen in the scores examined in this thesis, and in the author’s folio. The classical concert music tradition identifies with the canon of works most of which is based on repertoire from 1750 to the 1940s. This traditional repertoire is based on virtuosity and interpretation. However, interpretation has been codified by certain restrictions, where any deviation from the commonly held view about the performance of classical music can be considered unacceptable by the musical establishment. This creates a problem for the composer/pianist in the 21st century who engages with the classical concert music tradition. While the classical tradition was developed by composer/pianists such as Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Busoni and Bartók, composer/pianists in the late 20th century and early 21st century are required to recreate the works from these masters but not contribute their own creative works to the classical performance tradition. The thesis examines writings by composer/pianists, theorists, philosophers and critics in order to contextualise the classical concert tradition within a sociology and -of-music framework. It discusses the problem the classical concert tradition creates for the 21st century composer/pianist within the context of an aporia (an unsolvable problem). Self-appropriation is a consequence of interpretation and is a solution to the aporia. The author proposes a hermeneutic methodology based on a set of strategies involving self-appropriation, semiology, rhetorical devices such as metaphor and analogy, musical forms and piano repertoire. This methodology is applied by way of proof of concept with case studies on Liszt, Bartók and Stockhausen, showing how these (and others) have addressed the problem created by the classical concert music tradition, and the irony

3 created when these composers, in challenging the concert tradition, become the concert tradition. Having discussed the case studies, the author presents his own compositions as a further proof of concept, in which the original compositions are hermeneutic essays about the piano repertoire and the 21st century context. The thesis concludes with the positioning of the 21st century composer/pianist as a logical extension of the classical music concert tradition. This logical extension is part of a long-standing tradition of the composer/pianist as hermeneutist.

Thank yous: My supervisor Richard Vella for his infinite patience, galvanizing compositional ideas and erudite mentorship. My wife Arabella, for her committed performance abilities, superb editing skills, calm encouragement and loving support. My parents Francis and Anne for the gifts of stoicism and skepticism. My children Isabella and Raphael for their love and encouragement, and tolerance of their preoccupied father. My brother Dominic and Graeme Lee for emotional and financial support when most needed. Dr Arjun von Caemmerer for his extraordinary poetry, enthusiasm for , unquestioning support and excited discussions during our long walks in the wilderness. Gordon Rumson for his long-distance correspondence, encyclopedic musical knowledge and compositional skill, and for his Canadian hospitality. Martin and Sue Wright for their advice and loyal support both professional and personal. Saxby Pridmore for his inspirational poetry and challenging conversations. Alan Walker, John McCaughey, Don Kay, Simon Reade, Scott McIntyre, Eve Duncan, Brendan Colbert, Andrián Pertout, Larry Sitsky, Eugene Ughetti, Martin Bresnick and Lisa Moore, Professor Jeff Malpas, Tom Samek and Dr James Hullick for their stimulating ideas, discussions and friendship. Danius Kesminas, Neil Kelly, Rohan Drape, Richard Piper and Anthony Pateras for the thrill of the death-defying ride known as Slave Pianos. Brian Ritchie for his faith in my musical creations and his ongoing encouragement. Bob Brown for his friendship and example.

4 Table of Contents ABSTRACT ...... 3 PREFACE ...... 6 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 11 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 35 CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY – MAZEPPA FROM LISZT’S TRANSCENDENTAL ÉTUDES ...... 59 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY PART 1 – THE HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE ...... 70 CHAPTER 5: METHODOLOGY PART 2 – SELF-APPROPRIATION ...... 95 CHAPTER 6: METHODOLOGY PART 3 – MY HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE AND STRATEGIES FOR COMPOSITION ...... 112 CHAPTER 7: PROOF OF CONCEPT - PATAÑJALI ...... 134 CHAPTER 8: PROOF OF CONCEPT - THE GREEN BRAIN ...... 163 CHAPTER 9: PROOF OF CONCEPT - OTHER WORKS ...... 190 CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSION ...... 227 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 231

5 PREFACE Backstory to this PhD: a personal reflection As a professional concert pianist I have actively sought a career that takes into account the many constraints on the traditional itinerant musician model. This model necessitates creating more original output within a much more localized area, as touring limited repertoire within this area becomes less feasible. A review of a concert I gave in Hobart in November 2015 brought into stark relief the problem the 21st century classical composer/performer faces in Australia, and I suspect from my recent travels in just about every other major centre in the world. The problem involves presenting new work in an arena I think is still evolving, yet being confronted with prevailing conditions in this arena that suggest the total opposite: that this is a museum for the display of museum artefacts by museum curators, as inferred by the importance given to the traditional repertoire. Interpretation is reduced to the role of repeating established repertoire in an increasingly refined manner. Two out of three of the following reviews by the same reviewer were of Australian (Figure 1). The repertoire was strenuously European, tonal and ancient, with a Beethoven Mass, transcriptions of Burgmüller salon pieces, a Sibelius and a Brahms , the latter featuring an imported soloist and conductor. My recital featured all Australian works of the last few years, including premieres by three local Tasmanian composers:

6

Fig. 1: Classical music review page 14, Hobart Mercury newspaper, 25/11/2015. More than 100 years and thousands of kilometres separated the composition of the music of the first two from the music in the recital I gave. I can think of no better summation of the aporia facing Australian-produced classical music than this: if our heavily taxpayer-subsidised orchestras will not program Australian compositions, nor employ Australian conductors or soloists, what relevance do these organisations actually represent culturally? It is my Australian context that I am specifically referring to. If conductors and soloists will not perform contemporary orchestral works, what does this imply about the role of these monolithic and hideously expensive ensembles in our ? Interpretation of the Australian context and the times we are living in through composition is designated of secondary importance to the established classical “canon”. This I see as the ultimate problem for me: that such anachronistic ensembles are funded so heavily by our governments, and that the individuals and small ensembles promoting our own culture and how it interacts with contemporary musical ideas face continual cutbacks to their already minuscule funding. This review reflects through its language the power relationship between the “canon” and new music, and between the cultural imperialism of the international classical music hegemony and the cultural cringe that still exists in Australia, promoted mainly through critics such as this one, who are not even aware that this cringe is what

7 they are reinforcing. There is no questioning of the repertoire presented, nor its relevance to 21st century Australian audiences, simply meek tacit acceptance of another performance of a standard piano concerto played in a standard interpretation by an imported soloist and conductor at great expense to the Australian taxpayer, whether or not corporate sponsorship is subsidising individual concerts or series. Even the size of the headlines, and the page position of the reviews reflects the values of both the paper and its readership: the most “important” concert is reviewed (including large colour shot of pianist, not shown due to space constraints on my scanner) in the eye-catching centre of the page using the largest headline, with the reviews of the “locals” positioned at the top and bottom extremities of the page. A further but related problem is that the 21st century virtuoso performer is most often celebrated when performing old repertoire in acceptable interpretations, but not their own creations, mainly due to the specialization between composition and performance that occurred in the early 20th century. In the area of performance, as conservatory teachers predominantly taught only what they knew, the trend was towards more and more limited repertoire, generally of an already established canon, for ease of teaching and curriculum requirements. It is easier to judge something familiar. The plethora of competitions further accentuate conservatism of interpretation, and breed audiences that think the same, therefore creating the deeply reactionary classical music “market”. The archetypal response to music that is unfamiliar from the typical audience member of this “market” is: “How can we tell if what is being played is correct?” This is a conditioned response, as young children have no problem at all with unfamiliar music, “correct” or otherwise. This commonplace and ubiquitous question sums up the closed-mindedness of most classical audiences and critics, and is in stark contrast to more popular genres that pursue the novel and unfamiliar, even if these genres may lack theoretical sophistication. The sub-text of the question is that every classical performance is some sort of competition and exam rather than an arena of new possibilities. This directly affects the creativity inherent in interpretation in a stultifying way. Composition is for me one way of dealing with the restrictions inherent within classical music interpretation. As a way of explaining my musical language as interpretation, a comparison with the visual image is probably the closest analogy. The abstract expressionist painter Clyfford Still defended his lack of desire to interpret his surroundings illustratively,

8 preferring a more abstract means of expression, which is similar to my own philosophical approach. Still’s preference for the abstract rather than the figurative could be metaphorically comparable in music with a preference for non-tonal over tonal languages:

I am not interested in illustrating my time. A man’s “time” limits him, it does not truly liberate him. Our age – it is one of science, of mechanism, of power and death. I see no point in adding to its mechanism of power and death. I see no point in adding to its mammoth arrogance the compliment of a graphic homage.1

One could draw parallels between palliating the eye with graphic homages, to palliating the ears with soothing strains – I agree here with Stills that producing art that celebrates the current state of our civilization through direct reference is simply adding to the massive arrogance of “our age”. For myself, the only response is aporia, a psychological equivalence of the void. I wonder about the best course of action to take, and refer to Liszt as the archetypal composer/pianist. This is not because I think I am comparable to Liszt (and perhaps as an inveterate and lusty traveller Liszt is not the best example!), but rather to look for clues for a resolution of my own situation in the way he withdrew from concertizing to devote himself to his teaching and musical projects in first Weimar, and then and Hungary. I have felt a similar desire to get to the core of my own relationship with music, rather than being continuously at the mercy of presenters and the “market” generally, and have decided to be based in Australia, moreover in a city slightly isolated from the mainland musical scene in Australia: Hobart. New repertoire is absolutely central to the 21st century composer/performer, as it has been to composer/performers of the past, because it communicates and interprets the zeitgeist. Without this function, music becomes a sterile museum piece, reduced to simply parasitizing the ideas of the past. New pathways are developed by keeping an open mind, collaborating and investigating new possibilities at every turn. This is the example set by the tradition of the virtuoso performer. Though some significant composers such as Debussy, Nino

Rota, Ravel and Chopin have had university training, it is highly unlikely that radical

1 Clyfford Still, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art catalogue, 1976, p.124.

9 composer/virtuosos such as Gottschalk, Godowsky, Gershwin, Liszt, Zappa or Beethoven could have emerged from a conservatory, as their individual musical personalities were forged from an autodidactic necessity. In the spirit of this autodidactic approach, I have been interested in combining contrasting genres not only in the kind of work and collaborations I undertake, but also within areas associated with the established “canon” of classical music such as the solo recital format and ensemble concerts. The elusive of music means that depending on the intent and commitment of the performer it matters little to the outcome whether a piece is fully notated with a jungle of instructions, or freely improvised from some kind of graphic representation, or spontaneously improvised. New repertoire, again, is essential, and in many cases will need to be written by the virtuoso performer, who must adapt to their own situation. In my case, this situation is manifest as a composer/performer working in a very limited market such as Australia, but with the advantage of a still somewhat freer operating environment than Europe and the rest of the world.

10