taruskin writes – bloggers respond

Richard Taruskin, quite possibly the most formidable writer on music living today (or at least the most likely to open a can of whup-ass) wrote a 12,000 word “review” in the New Republic of three books on the current state of classical music. I was given a copy of the article Monday, and I’m in between readings (reason #245 why I will never be a journalist) and might offer my own paltry comments at a later date.

The two main points Taruskin seems to make are (1) proponents of classical music often do it a grave disservice by reinforcing the ivory tower and elitist mystique that has long surrounded it (starting with the late Germanic composers/philosophers such as Hegel and Wagner), and (2) that ignoring the wants of our wider audiences ensure the failure of the genre – adaptation and accommodation are the keys. I could be egotistical and point out that I’ve written similar things, but in much more simplistic, scattered and less cogent ways…

However, reading the early responses on other music blogs has produced some interesting (and entertaining) reading. I’ll provide you some links and choice excerpts, but before I do, I’d like to point out something interesting. Many of the bloggers who write in response to the article make a point about how thuggish Taruskin is – but then go on to savage the journalist/musician Blair Tindall in much the same manner (though without any trace of why they do this) over Taruskin’s favorable comment about her take on the state of classical music in America:

Others have argued the case for the prosecution. Their books include Who Killed Classical Music? Maestros, Managers, and Corporate Politics by Norman Lebrecht, a sloppy but entertaining British muckraker; Classical Music in America: A History of Its Rise and Fall by Joseph Horowitz, the latest version of a book that Horowitz has written several times by now, beginning with Understanding Toscanini in 1987; and Mozart in the Jungle: Sex, Drugs, and Classical Music by Blair Tindall, a journalist and recovering oboist, which despite a pandering title actually contains the smartest and most constructive take on the situation.

I’ve been of two minds about Tindall’s book – simply because it’s of two minds itself. It is one part sexual tell-all, and one part investigative journalism about the state of classical music in America and how it came to be this way. I certainly have read no clearer explanation of how we got to where we are than hers. The fact that all of the sneering faces are attached to male bodies gives me pause – I wonder if she’d be getting this sort of reception if she were Blair Tindall, male journalist/musician? Personally, I don’t think she chose how her book would be marketed (though she certainly gave it the attention-grabbing title), and maybe it’s more of a reflection on how little distance we’ve come from our Puritanical forbears in how her book was and continues to be treated. Anyway, enough of that, on to the responses to Taruskin’s piece:

Marc Geelhoed writes on his blog Deceptively Simple:

My problem with Taruskin, who, yes, has forgotten more than I’ll ever know, at least about the gamba, is the weakness of those he bullies. He’s like the schoolyard tough with a penchant for the obvious who finds the skinny kid on the playground, then says, “You know what your problem is? You’re too skinny!” before beating him senseless.

and

The only way to persuade people to listen to classical music is to have them listen to classical music. It sounds tautological, but the music is the best argument for itself. No book about why people should care can fully communicate that, just as a book about visual art will fail without illustrations. Taruskin’s vast reading leads him to think that others are as willing to read up on the music as he is. (He does agree with the point that writing about music only paraphrases the experience of listening to it, though.) Classical music doesn’t need saving from its devotees, it just needs curious people, like Taruskin was once, who will take a chance on something they haven’t heard before, and who then discover something they cannot live without.

Matthew Guerrini writes on his blog Soho the Dog:

This review encapsulates everything that drives me nuts about Taruskin’s writing: at first I’m amused by by the insult comedy, then the rhythm starts to bog down, and finally I’m just exhausted—and, temporarily, reflexively sympathetic to whatever poor idea he continues to bludgeon out of apparent inertia. Taking up a trio of books that could be easily—and deservedly—dispatched on the back of a couple of napkins, Taruskin instead unleashes 12,000 words (12,000 words—let us never speak of this man as “pithy” again), so focused on his invective and his provocations that he ties his shoelaces together, stumbling over his own arguments, lurching past more interesting, subtler points. Even more frustrating, those points are eminently worth making—but they’re drowned out by the irresistable lure of the lapidary put-down.

and

… I don’t particularly care for the eat-your-vegetables rationalization of classical music in these books, either. Here’s why: on the header of his blog, the film scholar Jim Emerson quotes the philosopher Daniel Dennett: “There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” In my book, scattershot bullying counts as a bad argument; by the end of the article, I had to consciously remind myself that I actually agreed with a lot of his positions. Taruskin closes by quoting Tony Soprano—see, kids? Your professor is down with pop culture, too. (In the meantime, the kids have moved on to “The Office” and Arcade Fire songs.) “Do not expect nuance from a mob boss,” he warns. I won’t, Don Taruskin.

Greg Sandow writes:

There’s been a small explosion over Richard Taruskin’s long piece in the New Republic, about, yes, the future of classical music. Or, more precisely, about three books that try to make classical music’s case. Taruskin, as anyone who’s read him might expect, goes after these books with savage virtuosity, or maybe it’s virtuoso savagery. I loved every word, and agreed. This is a very long piece, but ought to be required reading.

and

If we need more people to hear classical music, we need to have classical performances that people want to go to — which doesn’t mean dumbing down, but means (my points here, not necessarily Taruskin’s) tearing down the walls of blankness and formality, playing with edge-of-the-seat excitement (or at least some audible and visible sign of interest), and greeting the audience as active and intelligent co-participants.

A.C. Douglas writes in his blog Sounds & Fury:

I can, however, say one thing about Taruskin’s notion that some of classical music’s greatest enemies are to be found among its devotees; specifically those who argue for the worth and value of classical music in terms moralistic, character-building, or utilitarian: he’s right. Such champions of classical music need to have their kneecaps broken (figuratively speaking, of course). Any argument for the worth or value of classical music along any of those lines is not only imbecile but destructively wrongheaded and entirely in error. There’s zero moral anything involved with one’s listening preference for classical music or the popular sort, nor will listening to classical music make of one a better person and citizen, and listening to popular music, a reprobate. And arguments along utilitarian lines miss the point altogether and cannot help but obscure the issue in an almost impenetrable cloud of irrelevance.

and

To argue that classical music is not culturally superior to other musics but is merely their cultural equal is tantamount to arguing that, for instance, the culture of, say, some obscure African tribe barely out of the Stone Age is the equal of our present Western culture; an argument that would be attempted in earnest only by the most rabidly loony multiculturalist. And to argue that classical music is not indispensable to that Western culture would be to deny the incalculable magnitude of the enduring influence some 600 years of classical music has had in the reciprocal shaping of that culture; a shaping influenced but transiently by all other genres of music.

For the author of The Oxford History of Western Music to be guilty of making such arguments — if that in fact is what Taruskin is doing here — is simply reprehensible, and I would have thought unthinkable.