Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

If you’ve been reading my stuff on NewMusicBox for a while, you already know that there are a few performers and ensembles that I think can do no wrong. The Pacifica Quartet, whose interpretation of Beethoven’s Op. 130 I raved about some time ago, is one such group. So you can imagine my reaction when I heard that they’d be here in London playing all five of Elliott Carter’s string quartets. Although I had to skip out on quartets four and five due to a weird allergic reaction to Wigmore Hall, I did catch the first three. I also saw their excellent “opening act” Viviane Hagner, who presented Carter’s Lauds for solo violin. Hagner gave a really terrific, graceful performance; the Pacifica, who can always be relied upon to shred not only the piece but also your heart, delivered in the manner I knew they would. My only regret is that I had to leave early. Now get ready for a controversial statement.

The first Carter quartet is a lengthy piece dating from 1951 that shows the composer at a transitional stage: He’s still scraping away the rhetorical predilections that characterized his neoclassical music, from time to time falling back on the proportionality of his beloved classical antiquity to find a textural and gestural mise-en-scene for his newfound harmonic vocabulary. There are a lot of reasons why someone reading NewMusicBox, someone who is presumably well-versed in contemporary music and has the requisite analytical and aesthetic apparatus, might not like the piece: Too much unnecessary symmetry, too much faux-Hellenic frescoing over the solos and duos, the instruments’ repertoires of playing techniques taken too much for granted. Fair enough. But if you can sit through the Pacifica Quartet’s rendition of the first Carter string quartet and dislike the piece because it is uncreative, or inexpressive, or emotionally constipated, you are stupid.

The following night, I witnessed another real gem, this time a piano recital delivered by British pianist and scholar Ian Pace. Pace is one of those performers whose records rocked my world when I was just starting to study contemporary music; the UMBC library was well-stocked with his industry-standard recordings of pieces that had a profound influence on my development. This was the first time I’d seen him play in the flesh. He had prepared a collection of pieces from the ’50s German avant-garde to accompany a lecture on the “period of collective amnesia” that followed the Second World War. Appropriately, Stockhausen’s Klavierstück X was on the program. Like the Carter quartet I mentioned above, there are things about the piece that may not have worked: You have to take a bit of a leap of faith pretty early on, for instance. But if Ian Pace’s reading of Klavierstück X strikes you as sterile, flat, or fusty, you’re stupid.

“Stupid” may be too narrow a word. At any rate, there is something about creativity, expression, or emotion, or conversely sterility, flatness, or fustiness, that you don’t get. As a concert-goer who is, more than every so often, insensitive to these dimensions of the human condition—in other words, stupid—this is a malady that I am eminently qualified to diagnose. I have listened to music in a stupid way with some regularity for my whole life. And as my capacity to understand that stupidity and the petty, half-baked ideological reasons why I might suffer from it has grown, I’m increasingly (although, as I said, not yet completely) able to tell when the piece is the problem and when I am the problem. This is a valuable revelation: If I’m the problem, I can work on that. I can hit the books, try to get a grip on what was happening in the composer’s world that drove him or her to make such a thing, maybe look at a score, maybe search for superior performances. As long as I want to like it, I can usually find a way to get there. And what’s even better is that I invariably discover that a few stupid pieces—pieces that were the problem—aren’t that stupid after all, which is a nice collateral bonus. But this distinction is hard to find in the absence of great performances like Pace’s and the Pacifica Quartet’s. I think that’s the fundamental reason I get so effusive about such awesome musicians: They make us smart. And for some of us, that’s a tall order.

NewMusicBox provides a space for those engaged with new music to communicate their experiences and ideas in their own words. Articles and commentary posted here reflect the viewpoints of their individual authors; their appearance on NewMusicBox does not imply endorsement by New Music USA.

6 thoughts on “Stupid Is As Stupid Does

  1. eaj

    But if you can sit through the Pacifica Quartet’s rendition of the first Carter string quartet and dislike the piece because it is uncreative, or inexpressive, or emotionally constipated, you are stupid.

    Colin, I think I’m in love with you.

  2. pgblu

    Umm…err… back off, eaj! He’s mine…. or something.

    But seriously, hear hear for great performers who bring great music to life!! What is this leap of faith you have to do at the beginning of Klavierstück X? I must have missed it and am curious what you mean.

  3. colin holter

    What is this leap of faith you have to do at the beginning of Klavierstück X?

    A few minutes (or what seemed, in the absence of a score, to have been a few minutes) into the piece, these lengthy pauses–some silences, some pedaled decays–infiltrate the texture. It seemed to happen too soon to be “musical,” and if it had happened too much sooner, the beginning might not have been long enough to seem distinct from the “islands” between those long pauses. Just my impression on first hearing in many years.

  4. danvisconti

    I don’t think it’s in any way useless to try and examine our experience of taste in this way—by attempting to establish a distinction between reasonable and unreasonable criticisms.

    And Colin, I enjoyed both your use and examination of the word “stupid”. It’s a word that we lob around so often unofficially that I appreciate it appearing in Music Criticism as you did both openly and thoughtfully; you seem fully aware of the complexity of the term when you write:

    I invariably discover that a few stupid pieces—pieces that were the problem—aren’t that stupid after all.

    But I think that from this realization must follow at least some admission that our premises might be flawed. You’re right to target “stupid” reasons for disliking something rather than cordoning off certain pieces as arbitrarily unassailable. And I do find the examples you cite make sense—to me, at least. I just wonder what happens when someone inevitably challenges those particular groups of adjectives with their own; it seems like then you’re just back to square one. What do you do, invoke natural law?

    I bring this up only because I’ve often pursued this line of thought myself and found it to make some kind of apparent sense, but I’ve yet to come up with a good explanation for why foisting my own assumptions of “acceptable dissent” on another listener is any less tyrannical than the considerable aural stupidity it would replace.

    Thanks for the interesting article and enjoy London!

  5. colin holter

    Thanks for your thoughts, Dan.

    I don’t think invoking natural law is an option. Issuing a fiat to the effect that certain descriptors are valid and others invalid would seem to defeat the whole purpose of critical listening from the get-go, and settling for a “thumbnail consensus” of one’s friends and colleagues has the potential to get real parochial real fast, even if it’s in a big city like London, New York, or Rome!

    You’ve identified a chimeric problem that I can’t presume to solve in a generalizable way. I guess my (admittedly half-assed) answer would be that formulating these evaluative reactions to pieces and embarking on vision quests of the sort I described are processes that are useful because they can cultivate deeper understanding of a wider variety of music, and maybe only for that reason. If you and I agree that a particular viewpoint on Stockhausen or whatever is patently wrong, we can probably both walk away from that conversation without learning anything; if we butt heads, on the other hand, we’ll have been fighting over bedrock “adjectives,” as you said, that it would take a much deeper examination of our views on culture and the humanities to fully excavate. Not an awesome response, I know, but thanks again for raising the point.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Conversation and respectful debate is vital to the NewMusicBox community. However, please remember to keep comments constructive and on-topic. Avoid personal attacks and defamatory language. We reserve the right to remove any comment that the community reports as abusive or that the staff determines is inappropriate.