U UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date: I, , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in It is entitled: Student Signature: This work and its defense approved by: Committee Chair: Approval of the electronic document: I have reviewed the Thesis/Dissertation in its final electronic format and certify that it is an accurate copy of the document reviewed and approved by the committee. Committee Chair signature: The Nature and Value of Accessibility in Western Art-Music, 1950–1970 A Thesis Submitted to the Division of Graduate Studies and Research of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Music in the Division of Composition, Musicology, and Theory of the College-Conservatory of Music 2009 by Rachel Hands B. M., University of Massachusetts, 2006 Committee Chair: Dr. Edward Nowacki ABSTRACT It often happens that a composer or performer of contemporary music, in preparing for a performance, asks the question: “Will my audience get it?” When the answer is “probably not,” a second question may arise: “Should I care?” This study takes up the latter question in detail. Put more specifically, the question at hand is: Should we take accessibility into consideration when we compose, perform, and criticize music? This, in turn, raises at least two other broad questions, both of which will be explored in this thesis. The first is “What is the nature of accessibility in music?” The second is “Should we consider accessibility a desirable quality of music?” To answer these questions, I use music cognition research and philosophical studies on musical understanding to characterize accessibility, and draw from that characterization to arrive at a way of determining its value. i (This page intentionally left blank.) ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank, first and foremost, Dr. Edward Nowacki for his guidance and support throughout my work on this thesis. His insights and challenges contributed a great deal to the formation of my ideas and to their expression. Additionally, I wish to express my gratitude to my readers, Dr. Jeongwon Joe and Professor Randy Gardner, for their valuable contributions to the writing process. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank Dr. Jenefer Robinson of the University of Cincinnati Department of Philosophy for her work with me on this topic and others in the philosophy of music. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………….i Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………..iii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………iv List of Musical Examples…………………………………………………………………………v Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………………………...…1 Chapter Two: The Nature of Accessibility………………………………………………………15 Chapter Three: The Value of Accessibility……………………………………………………...58 Chapter Four: A Habitus of Musicking………………………………………………………….75 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..85 Philosophy/Musicology Resources…………………………………………………...….85 Music Theory/Cognition Resources……………………………………………………..90 iv LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES Aaron Copland, Down a Country Lane, mm. 1–8……………………………………………….30 Pierre Boulez, Le Marteau sans Maître, mm. 1–11……………………………………………...31 Pierre Boulez, Structures 1b, mm. 1–10...……………………………………………………….38 Igor Stravinsky, In Memoriam Dylan Thomas, mm. 1–8………………………………………..39 v Chapter 1: Introduction The time is past when music was written for a handful of aesthetes. The masses want great music, the music of great events, great love, and lively dances. They understand far more than some composers think and they want to deepen their understanding. –Sergei Prokofiev, “Autobiography, Articles, Reminiscences” It often happens that a composer or performer of contemporary music (or, for that matter, of a good deal of music that is no longer contemporary), in preparing for a performance, asks the question: “Will my audience get it?” That is to say, “Will this piece be accessible to the lay listening public at the time of my performance?” When the answer is “probably not,” a second question may arise: “Should I care?”1 These and other such questions arise so frequently as to point to a pervasive problem in the music world—and, it might be argued, in the larger art world—that has yet to be addressed with focus and specificity in musicological, music- theoretical, or philosophical literature. They are not idle questions, especially the latter; for some, the way in which they are addressed can account for an abundance or scarcity of material support and public acceptance. For this reason, heated polemics have grown around the subject of accessibility in public discourse, though not usually in academic circles. To take one recent instance, James Levine came under fire for programming “inaccessible” works by Arnold Schoenberg, Elliott Carter, and Milton Babbitt during his first season as music director of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, in 2004–2005. The complaints, it should be noted, came from ticketholders and professional critics alike; in a 2005 article, Boston Globe critic Ed Siegel chides Levine for programming such works to the exclusion of music by 1 This is not intended as a reference to Milton Babbitt’s infamous essay, titled “Who Cares If You Listen?” by an editor, rather as the simplest way of putting the question of value outlined below. 1 “composers who have re-established a tie with contemporary audiences.”2 (Levine apparently took these criticisms to heart: he has since programmed music by several of the composers referred and alluded to in Siegel’s article, including John Adams, Osvaldo Golijov, and Arvo Pärt.)3 At the same time, Levine also had an ardent supporter in another Globe critic, Richard Dyer. Interestingly, Dyer’s reviews focus on the inclusion, rather than the exclusion, in Levine’s programming, noting that “What is new in Levine’s programming is an emphasis on the whole 20th century, not just the first third.”4 He also puts faith in Levine’s ability to “overcome some of [the] inertia” of concertgoers uninterested in difficult works.5 These debates were perhaps the most public discussions of the issue of musical accessibility in Boston for several years, though similar debates could be cited wherever music deemed “inaccessible” is programmed. In musicological literature, by contrast, there is little thorough discussion of the issue. Such discussion as exists is usually to be found in the writings and lectures of composers, who have a direct stake in the issue.6 In the writings of musicologists, there is sometimes mention that X’s or Y’s music is inaccessible, but there is rarely any indication of exactly why that work is considered as such; what indications exist generally appear in reception histories, and are 2 Ed Siegel, “Getting an Earful,” The Boston Globe, 6 March 2005, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ living/articles/2005/03/06/getting_an_earful/?page=1 (accessed 2 April 2008). 3 Boston Symphony Orchestra Online Archival Collection, http://bso.org/bso/mods/toc_01_gen_ images.jsp;jsessionid=H0M4L2TU45EUECTFQMGCFEQ?id=bcat5220061 (accessed 2 April 2008). 4 Richard Dyer, “Levine is Set to Lead BSO in a New Direction,” The Boston Globe, 16 January 2004, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/01/16/levine_is_set_to_lead_bso_in_new_direction/?p1 (accessed 12 April 2008). 5 Richard Dyer, “Levine’s Three Challenges with the BSO,” The Boston Globe, 17 October 2004, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/10/17/levines_three_challenges_with_the_bso/?page=3 (accessed 12 April 2008). 6 See, e.g., John Harbison, “Accessibility,” in Composers on Modern Musical Culture: An Anthology of Readings on Twentieth-Century Music (Schirmer Books, 1999), 201–5. 2 frequently limited to complaints of excessive dissonance or lack of melody.7 Perhaps the most direct treatment of the subject by a musicologist, Susan McClary’s 1989 article “Terminal Prestige: The Case of Avant-Garde Music Composition,” does not address what it actually means to be a difficult composer, or to compose difficult music.8 Likewise, within the philosophical literature on music, there is little in the way of direct discussion of musical accessibility in the sense I intend, either in ontological or evaluative studies of music. Instead, current philosophical literature on musical understanding consists almost exclusively of discussions of what music can mean or signify, frequently couched in extramusical terms.9 This thesis, then, takes up in detail the question that seems to spark these debates, “Should I care?”—or, more specifically, “Should we take accessibility into account when we compose, perform, and critically listen to music?”—and attempts to bring it within the scope of musicological and philosophical discussion. To make this discussion possible, it is necessary first to sketch out a working definition for a few main concepts. First, the word “accessibility” as it pertains to this study needs to be limited, as it is quite vague in common usage. Here, it refers to the degree to which a piece can be easily understood, usually by the lay listening public, 7 See, e.g., reviews of Arnold Schoenberg’s early atonal works in Walter Bailey, Programmatic Elements in the Works of Schoenberg (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1984). For a more extreme example, see also Henry Pleasants, The Agony of Modern Music (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955). 8 Susan McClary, “Terminal Prestige: The Case of Avant-Garde Music Composition,” Cultural Critique 12 (1989): 57–81. 9 A notable exception is the work