All Comments by Author

Music Lover, your condescending dismissal of my opinion is completely out of line. I am a scholar of Messiaen’s music, having performed most of his organ works, having carefully researched all his music, his writings on same, and having translated two of his lectures for publication by Alphonse Leduc of Paris (also the publisher of the score of Canyons). I have published a number of articles of my own on these topics. I know Des Canyons aux Etoiles intimately, owning the first LP recording, having heard another full live performance and a radio broadcast of yet another, and owning the full conductor’s score of the work and having studied it and its program notes repeatedly. Messiaen called himself “a composer of joy.” Environmental degradation was the farthest thing from his mind when he wrote Canyons. Rather, he sought to celebrate the beauty of nature and the presence of God in his creation. Landau’s film was _by no means_ an “interpretation” of this music; it was simply superimposed onto it with no regard for the music’s content or intent. “Interpretation” is a much-abused term in the arts these days, too often used to justify treating a work as a tabula rasa with no possible meaning on its own, existing only to have “meaning” imposed onto it by the “interpreter.” It’s clear from the scanty references in the UMS program booklet to Messiaen’s own commentaries on this work that the Berlin orchestra management felt that Messiaen’s religious references would be hard to sell to their audiences — per capita regular church attendance is c. 10% in western Europe, vs. c. 50% in the USA. So they simply chose to hide Messiaen’s commentaries and preferred to present incongruities superimposed onto the music. As a music performer and composer myself, I can never support such foolishness. My own approach to interpretation demands that I seek to understand a composer’s intentions, to understand them in context, and to express them with the fullest possible meaning. This in no way excludes artistry or creativity from performance: rather, it provides an ideal framework for them, if one is to reveal the music in its full depth and beauty.

All comments by Timothy Tikker

People Are Talking: UMS presents The Hamburg Symphony Orchestra: From the Canyons to the Stars:

When ugly visual images are superimposed onto music, it changes the perception of the music completely: beautiful sounds become ugly. Objecting to this being done to Messiaen’s (or any other) music in no way means that one is choosing to ignore environmental crises. Ruining a hearing of Messiaen’s music does absolutely nothing to help the natural environment, or of our awareness of it needing help!

In response to:
"
There are those who welcome the “openness” of the work, and there are those who condemned the video as ugly and disgusting. Some people want to see the unblemished grandeur of the Rockies. Others see the aptness of Landau’s reminder that the natural beauties of America are in jeopardy. UGLY and DISGUSTING was intended even though it offends those who wish to ignore what is happening. Who owns this work — that is the question. Can the Hamburg Symphony recast it in a more contemporary form or are they spoiling it as they portray the spoiling of the Great West?
"
by Music Lover

Music Lover, your condescending dismissal of my opinion is completely out of line. I am a scholar of Messiaen’s music, having performed most of his organ works, having carefully researched all his music, his writings on same, and having translated two of his lectures for publication by Alphonse Leduc of Paris (also the publisher of the score of Canyons). I have published a number of articles of my own on these topics. I know Des Canyons aux Etoiles intimately, owning the first LP recording, having heard another full live performance and a radio broadcast of yet another, and owning the full conductor’s score of the work and having studied it and its program notes repeatedly. Messiaen called himself “a composer of joy.” Environmental degradation was the farthest thing from his mind when he wrote Canyons. Rather, he sought to celebrate the beauty of nature and the presence of God in his creation. Landau’s film was _by no means_ an “interpretation” of this music; it was simply superimposed onto it with no regard for the music’s content or intent. “Interpretation” is a much-abused term in the arts these days, too often used to justify treating a work as a tabula rasa with no possible meaning on its own, existing only to have “meaning” imposed onto it by the “interpreter.” It’s clear from the scanty references in the UMS program booklet to Messiaen’s own commentaries on this work that the Berlin orchestra management felt that Messiaen’s religious references would be hard to sell to their audiences — per capita regular church attendance is c. 10% in western Europe, vs. c. 50% in the USA. So they simply chose to hide Messiaen’s commentaries and preferred to present incongruities superimposed onto the music. As a music performer and composer myself, I can never support such foolishness. My own approach to interpretation demands that I seek to understand a composer’s intentions, to understand them in context, and to express them with the fullest possible meaning. This in no way excludes artistry or creativity from performance: rather, it provides an ideal framework for them, if one is to reveal the music in its full depth and beauty.

In response to:
"
Riding down in the elevator, I heard someone ask: “Did you enjoy it?” Her friend’s answer came back: “Me neither.” I intruded tactlessly: “What makes you think it SHOULD be enjoyable?”

When we look at great art, do we insist on enjoying it? Music is written for all sorts of reasons and purposes.

As I hear it, this piece is expressive of moods and feeling states evoked by the crumbling defenses of Nature against the inroads of Man. We hear awe at the wildness of Western landscapes and the stomping and grinding of man’s machines as they crush all. The music is challenging to the ear as befits this struggle. No wonder we saw people leaving during the performance.

Is the video irrelevant trash? Not to me in this case. Yes, art should not be exploited for political purposes. I found that in this work music and film were compatible. I found neither distracting from the other. Certainly this film was made at a time of great public concern with the fate of Nature — more active concern than at the time when the music was written. But reinterpretations are, for better or worse, very common today, both here and in Europe. I’d say the film arguably put the music in a plausible context. Which is why I should enlighten Timothy Tikker that a reinterpretation by a later film maker of a an earlier composer’s work — even if he finds it wrong-headed and even if the film maker is a Jew and the composer an anti-Semite — is not necessarily an act of revenge. (“Stupidity,” he writes, is the ONLY other possible explanation he can think of!) I’d be happy if he passed this news on to the “countless” others who allegedly share his appalling bigotry.

I do have questions: 1) Was this theme of man against nature Messiaen’s (probably not) or is it Landau’s (or just mine)? 2) Did Messiaen anticipate any multi-media presentation? I ask because I thought the visual material was very well done and evocative (even though a bit repetitive and obvious at times. Clichéd it is not. If you prefer a film with scenes of the great parks of the West, then please don’t think that this would be highly original. National Geographic has scooped you.) Which means that if Messiaen had the theme in mind, but not the visual reinforcement, then I wonder how effective the music would be by itself in expressing it.

And two suggestions: 1) Listeners would do well to attune their ears to Messiaen’s rhythms, sonorities, and harmonies before they witness this work, (e.g., by listening to the Turangalila Symphony) to feel somewhat familiar with these cadences. 2) I wonder whether UMS has ever considered organizing post-concert sessions with its Education department. I would have enjoyed — yes, enjoyed — getting clarification of some things and hearing how people felt and what they thought. I bet I’m not the only one. Now that weeknight concerts start at 7:30 (a splendid idea) an optional session of this sort would provide some closure of the experience for those people who want it. Naturally, not every concert needs this to the same degree. (Einstein would have benefited.) Such an institution will make concert going more satisfying for many in a way that pre-concert talks cannot.

As is true so often, UMS gave us a most valuable experience.
"
by Music Lover