cultural clashes_
thoughts on the Darmstädter Ferienkurse 2006_
During lectures, musical analysis was mostly two-fold: firstly explaining a mostly nondescript, ethereal conception; secondly showing its application in the work in a rather vague and superficial manner. Maybe there was too little time to go into great depth, or maybe everything was perfectly clear. Notably this void was ackowledged during a Lachenmann lecture: "We do too little analysis these days", he lamented. The "show-and-tell" that often accompanies modern presentation of experimental music obviously did not impress.
Lachenmann is a composer clearly aware of "musical intellectualism". It deepens musical syntax, confronts a listener's musical expectations, creates the element of "non-music" and, redefines musical substance, as Lachenmann expounded in an earlier paper1 on structuralism:
I personally do not believe one can do without structural thinking. However, structural thinking and its techniques must constantly be proved by confronting them with reality. They must be lost, found and defined anew.
Welcome to Darmstadt... for this is how you become "one of them". Lachenmann's point of departure was over 30 years ago, when he "shocked" the experimental scene with Pression for solo cello (1969/70) and his other musique concretè instrumentale compositions. His lectures still had that wisp of old-school à la 1970, but he seemed tired—probably from telling the same old story to snotty-nose composers for so long. Or maybe because he has better things to do, like renew his style (again). Or write new works. After all, he is 73.
If Lachenmann's lectures were overfilled, so were his (private) lessons and masterclasses. But André, Furrer and Hosokawa were also in their rooms, dealing with the unusually high composer-participant numbers and a lack of lesson-organisation on the Festival's part. That only left Hölzsky, Tsangaris, and Reudenbach free for most of the open listening forums. But Lachenmann sat in for a couple of days, as did Lang and Mack.
Here, participants presented works of extreme quality or banality, and interest and feedback from panel and audience alike was at its fiercest. There were two types of presentations: one of a circumnavigating and thickly-cut Oxford-style; the other slicing through the paraphernalia with cunningly reserved pomp.
Participants hailed from the USA, France, Japan, Germany and Austria (to name a few).
On the whole, the American imports proved "unpopular": the New Yorkers were criticised as too pulse-centered and the West Coasters were too much like their own Cage or Elliot Carter. The French had strains of IRCAM, and the Japanese were too "culturally and traditionally bound". Those participants aware of the current trends in Germany, Austria and surrounding countries probably found things easier, and their music suitably reflected the tell-tale reactions and intricacies associated with the Central-European style. However, without over-generalising, there were many quality performances, only a few very polished and accomplished composers, and even less with interesting antidotes on the direction of new music today. Maybe the current "lack of musical analysis" has come around to haunt the younger generation.
Personally I believe the "facade" of musical intellectualism characteristic of Darmstadt is, for some, still far too overwhelming.
As my West-Coast American colleague reminded me, it almost seemed that the new school had forgotten John Cage swooping down on Darmstadt in the 1950s and once more in 1990.