Well, of course, we end up making a lot of these judgments based on how the composers in question presented themselves or were viewed by those around them. Thus, Wagner stands accused of fascism because he was clearly a German nationalist and anti-Semite and his relatives would later be enthusiastic supporters of Hitler himself.
OTOH, Schoenberg was Jewish and his music and its system was denounced by Hitler's culture hounds, who preferred "true German" music, especially Wagner, although Beethoven also had the appropriate loud and bombastic element, at least in some of his pieces, and was a big favorite. Although a good Germanic Austrian, Mozart was just a bit too prissy and would be the favorite of Jews playing in the camps. Pure beauty in the face of wrongful suffering and death and all that.
Of course Schoenberg's serialism would also be denounced by Zhdanov and Stalin's culture creeps as well. "Formalism," and we all know what a terrible thing that is. If I remember correctly, Lenin favored Beethoven himself.
Of course a current criticism of serialism is that it is elitist, that it just has an appeal to a small clique of musical snobs and academics. This may be unfair, but it is definitely out of fashion these days among current composers, unless one counts the almost-90 years old Elliott Carter.
Personally I like John Adams's _Nixon in China_. Why would it be considered to be fascist on any grounds? Barkley Rosser On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 21:01:23 PST alec ramsdell <a_ramsdell at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>
> >Alec, you asked: "But by your criteria, why isn't John Adams' music
> fascist,
> >because it's
> >not loud enough? What about serialism: couldn't one argue it's a
> structural
> >"iron boot"?"
> >
> >I don't know enough of Adams' music. Do you think it is fascist?
>
> No, but then I've never heard fascist music.
>
> >As for your question on serial music, Alec, I'm not sure if you are
> implying
> >your own answer.
>
> No, just a question, embedded in an ideology (hey, I could't help it!).
>
> For my part, the answer is an emphatic negative. No, serial
> >music (12-tone music) is not in any way an expression of the fascist
> craving
> >for "order" - especially, arbitrarily imposed order as the product of
> the
> >individual will and its need to dominate. There is nothing in the least
> bit
> >arbitrary about serial music.
>
> Schoenberg has been crucial for me, as has Cage. Schoenberg's _Theory
> of Harmony_ and _Style and Idea_ are invaluable. In many ways
> Schoenberg is the heir of Bach and Mozart, and brings a tradition to a
> close (though of course opening the way for serial music). I've worked
> on the Opus 33a, one of the "mature" 12-tone pieces, for quite some
> time, and it's very compelling. But it seems that none of the piano's I
> ever play is ever in tune, and you know 12-tone music demands precise
> tuning. In _Style and Idea_ Shoenberg discusses how the materiality of
> sound conflicts with the 12-tone system. Eventually for him music, at
> it's best, was something that one read on manuscrpit paper in silence
> (this is also in _Style and Idea_). Is this not so?
>
> Thankfully there's always Ives. And Satie: do you know about his
> "Velvet Gentleman" phase? 7 velvet suits, 7 days a week, for 7 years.
> Stravinsky praised him, considering him the "oddest" man he'd ever met.
>
> -Alec
>
> "Without the loudspeaker we would never have conquered Germany."
> -- Hitler (quoted in Jacques Attali's _Noise: the Political
> Economy of Music)
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu