 |
| Elliott Carter and Oliver Knussen |
Formal analysis is not the only source of objective claims about music which are accountable to independently verifiable evidence. A notable composition is likely to have a history, including its genesis from initial sketches to the final revision of the score, the evolution of its reception, the ways it may have been exploited for political propaganda or plagiarized in popular music, and more. Then there are specific technical challenges the work may pose for performing musicians (including conductors).
These, along with editorial matters pertaining to early musical notation and performance practice, constitute the domain of objective discourse on music. The rest is impressionistic drivel which, despite the seeming objectivity of wording, is only about whatever it is that pops into the writer's head when he/she listens to (or reflects on) such-and-such piece of music. When confronted with this kind of writing - whether in the form of metaphysical mumbling (Wagner), Marxist yapping (Adorno), feminist babbling (Susan McClary), or diarrhetic torrents of metaphors, free associations, and misused scientific concepts (insert here the name of any so-called new musicologist) - the only appropriate response I can think of is the one given by the title of this post.
