I can't believe this discussion (in this form) is taking place over
pen-l. The political significance of an artform is not reducible to who
produces it, enjoys it, pays for it, etc., although all of these may be
relevant. There is, of course, a long tradition on the left of
analyzing these things. Broadly speaking, one can propose a spectrum
ranging from the refuge-from-capitalist-mode school (Adorno) to the
popular-front school (eg much current rock criticism). Both endpoints
have a contribution to make, but both are deeply flawed.
To say anything interesting about the politics of classical music in
particular, it is necessary to get down to details. What about the role
of nationalism? How would we distinguish the politics of US nationalism
(such as Copland) from that of, say, the Hungarians (such as Bartok)?
(A number of books analyzing Bartok's rich but contradictory politics
have appeared recently.) What about the increasingly obvious politics
of sexual preference in classical music? (Is it by chance that all the
major advocates of melodicism in US classical music have been gay, while
a disproportionate percentage of the hardcore modernists are not?) What
about classical music that is overtly political? (Has anyone on this
list listened, for instance, to the music of Frederic Rzewski?) What is
the meaning of classical-jazz fusion/crossover for the politics of jazz?
(Anthony Braxton etc.) How do different types of classical musics
function as signifiers? Mozart in car ads, Copland (again), etc. As
ambient signifiers in voice mail, airports, .....
Sweeping statements about "the politics of classical music" are
unhelpful and at worst suggest a reductionist approach to cultural life.
I hope I'm not being too harsh...
Peter Dorman
