Slonimsky: The Lexicon of Musical Invective

[joelf]

Nicolas Slominsky was quite a guy! I once saw him read a score while balancing an orange on his nose on the old Tonight Show. His serious contributions, we all know, include the well-known (and well-worn) Thesaurus (of scales, melodic patterns, etc.---can't remember the correct title now).

But for me the most delicious of his tomes is his Lexicon of Musical Invective, wherein he pillories critics from Beethoven's time to the 20th century. Or, rather, he simply reprints and lets them pillory themselves. History has proven their 'insights' into these composers wrong in just about every case. The reactionary tendencies they exhibit again and again are deftly covered in his opening chapter: Non-acceptance of the unfamiliar. To me, this analysis and these tendencies extend well beyond music criticism to have far-reaching applications.

The critics, aside from being so off the mark, were often mean-spirited, racist, extra-musical, and generally rabid. With time and distance I find their writings hilarious even as I flinch at the aforementioned. It's almost like purposely winding up someone you know is gonna spew insane opinions and watching them go. I find it entertaining---since no one alive today could be hurt. And it's also a good time capsule.

I'm a little tired, but here are a few of my faves:

Debussy:
'I met Debussy at the Cafe' Riche....and was struck by the unique ugliness of the man. His face is flat, the top of the head is flat, his eyes are prominent...with his long hair, unkempt beard, uncouth clothing....he looked more like a Bohemian, a Croat, a Hun, than a Gaul....The head is brachycephalic, the hair black....If the Western world ever adopted Eastern tonalities, Claude Debussy would be the one composer who would manage its system, with its quarter-tones and split quarters. Again I see his curiously asymmetrical face, the pointed fawn ears, the projecting cheekbones---the man is a wraith from the East; his music was heard long ago in the hill temples of Borneo; was made a symphony to welcome the head-hunters with their ghastly spoils of war!'---James Gibbons Huneker, NY Sun, 7/19/03


Berg:
'Splitting the convulsively inflated larynx of the Muse, Berg utters tortured mistuned cackling, a pandemonium of chopped-up orchestral sounds, mishandled men's throats, bestial outcries, bellowing, rattling, and all other evil noises---Berg is the poisoner of the well of German music'---Germania, Berlin, 12/15/25

More to follow, but for now I'll close with the only rejoinder to a critic in the book, and it never fails to crack me up:

'I am sitting in the smallest room in my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me'---Max Reger, 2/06

[joelf]

Another fun entry, lovingly served----NOT:

Bartok:

'I suffered more than upon any occasion in my life apart from an incident connected with 'painless dentistry'. To begin with, there was Mr. Bartok's piano touch. But 'touch', with its implication of light-fingered ease, is a misnomer, unless it is qualified in some way as that of Ehel Smyth in discussing her dear old teacher Herzogenberger--'He had a touch like a paving stone'....What I am describing is, I believe, a deliberate part of his intentions, and he will probably feel no more aggrieved than would be the village blacksmith if I refused it to him in some description of his musical performance with his two-stone hammer upon his red-hot horseshoe. If Mr. Bartok's piano compositions should ever become popular in this country...manufacturers will refuse to hire out pianos for the recitals...insisting that these...be bought outright, and the remains destroyed on conclusion...It appears to me that the Bartok system of composition and performance is one of the most rigid-minded, rigid muscled ever invented; that in shunning sentiment Bartok has lost beauty, that in shunning rhetoric he has lost reason'.---Percy A. Scholes, the Observer, London, 5/13/1923

[christianm77]

I remember being a bit disappointed with the invective in that book tbh. Musicians are FAR bitchier than that.

A similar sort of book I enjoyed was Crow’s Jazz Anecdotes.

[joelf]

I remember being a bit disappointed with the invective in that book tbh. Musicians are FAR bitchier than that..

Yes, they are (excuse me, we are). But at least we know what we're talking about.

Some of the time---LOL.

The book didn't disappoint me. It's a source of great amusement, a barometer on those times, a great study of the human herd and their dread of change, or having a public minority opinion that could get them spurned by that herd. The only thing not funny is the repeated racism of these white, privileged writers. Foo on that...

[Marinero]

Hi, Joel,
The critics are rarely correct. They always follow fashion and rarely pick the greats. Among the maligned artists who were not appreciated by the critics were Van Gogh, Gauguin, Vermeer, Lautrec, Wagner, Beethoven, Mozart, Kafka, Poe, Melville, etc., etc., Most lived a life of meager subsistence, if not poverty. Those who dabble in "The Arts" are a lonely bunch and must believe in themselves and what they are doing with their Art. One must follow his/her instincts and be satisfied with their creativity and accept that they may be never critically acclaimed or receive any real material success during their lifetime. I've always wondered how many "greats" we've missed in the Arts who ,because of their intelligence, simply could not accept living poorly throughout their life. My theory is that those who remain in the Arts do so because they can't imagine living any other way. It takes great courage and selflessness to do so. Good playing . . . Marinero

[joelf]

Hi, Joel,
The critics are rarely correct. They always follow fashion and rarely pick the greats. Among the maligned artists who were not appreciated by the critics were Van Gogh, Gauguin, Vermeer, Lautrec, Wagner, Beethoven, Mozart, Kafka, Poe, Melville, etc., etc., Most lived a life of meager subsistence, if not poverty. Those who dabble in "The Arts" are a lonely bunch and must believe in themselves and what they are doing with their Art. One must follow his/her instincts and be satisfied with their creativity and accept that they may be never critically acclaimed or receive any real material success during their lifetime. I've always wondered how many "greats" we've missed in the Arts who ,because of their intelligence, simply could not accept living poorly throughout their life. My theory is that those who remain in the Arts do so because they can't imagine living any other way. It takes great courage and selflessness to do so. Good playing . . . Marinero

Van Gogh, as we know, never sold even one painting, and was supported by his more affluent brother. Bartok fared a bit better, but more eagerly awaited his paycheck from teaching (at Columbia U., I think?) than remuneration from any commissions or performances.

I don't pity anyone. Life is decisions, and no one puts a gun to anyone's head and demand they be an artist. These are mostly highly intelligent men and women who know what they're getting into and what the odds of financial success/recognition are. And if they don't it's their own fault, not the world's. Bitterness is a useless waste of everyone's time. The reward ought to be the process, and, especially if one is a (lucky) performer, the salutary effect the work can have on others...

[neatomic]

i would argue that being an artist is not a decision...but a natural path of life

if one could pick otherwise, most would..especially as they get older and more vulnerable

bartok was huge influence on charlie parker..he had wanted to study w bartok (tho bartok died before) and varese (tho bird died before)...

so even if you don't care for their compositions (i love them!) they are important just for the fact they influenced one of the greatest jazzmen ever


van gogh would send all his paintings to his brother theo...and theo had little luck selling them..tho he supported vincent throughout..but when he died soon after vincent...it was his wife..who facing severe fiscal hardships...started really pushing the sale of vincents work..it was she that turned the world onto vincent!!..well done madame


cheers

[joelf]

At the risk of hijacking my own thread into becoming a metaphysical/sociological thingie: paths of lives are still choices. Passion is wonderful, and what keeps us going, but anything becoming obsessive ought to be watched and kept in check when veering towards going off the rails.

I don't mean geniuses with mental illness like Bud Powell (or Van Gogh). Powell achieved what he did despite the afflictions and obsessions. His life was not a path, but a pathology coupled with almost demonic genius. But the pathology won in the end, aided and abetted by the cruel meddling of barbaric 'treatments' by mental health 'professionals'. He declined and finally died. Very sad.

But re the tortured artist bit, though romantic, sexy, and tempting to buy into: these people do not comprise the larger percentage of those accomplished in the arts. I'm putting 'successful' aside: too many variables, and not really germane to even this thread detour.

Happily, there are and have been many, many gifted people who were aware of choices, chose wisely in their lives and careers---and still made great, lasting, and influential art. They may have had all kinds of destructive habits, personality and mental defects or disorders, etc., etc. But some kind of way the obsessions didn't own or control them or their work. And they stayed the course, young or old. Vulnerability, like every other quality that puts us at potential risk, it gets acclimated to as we age and become more comfortable in our skins. And artists do enter other fields for a myriad of reasons other than survival. But they never stop their creative work. That's a decision.

OK, back to the fun-filled Slonimsky pages. I'm worn out and need to laugh...

[Litterick]

Every composer who was dismissed by a critic in Slonimsky’s book was praised by other critics. They otherwise would have been forgotten. Some composers only achieve fame after death, others are forgotten but remembered later. It is usually critics who do the work of establishing or reviving reputations. Most composers, like writers and artists, did not starve in garrets; they made a living, or they had families to support them.

[cosmic gumbo]

Nic always dreamed of owning a real horse.

[joelf]

Nic always dreamed of owning a real horse.

Wow! Thanks for this. Slonimsky and Zappa: 2 amazing, larger than life personalities. And I've never heard Slonimsky speak other than once, on the old Tonight Show. You can hear and feel his pulsating energy, spirit, love of life, and thirst for knowledge. He and Zappa deserved each other, in the best sense of that expression...

[joelf]

Just found this:

Nicolas Slonimsky |

[citizenk74]

I recall an anecdote concerning a Famous Conductor and an Important Opera he was doing. Opening night, just after the Diva's Big Aria, one of the horses on the stage relived itself in a weighty manner. Seizing the moment, the non-nonplussed Conductor said : "Ladies and Gentlemen, I apologize for the regrettable breach of decorum; but Gad! What a critic!

[neatomic]

zappa was a huge fan of varese!! (as ns mentions ^)... he appeared on steve allen show as a very young man..doing varese inspired schtick on a bicylcle tire.. he was a trying to be contemporary classical composer in the r&r arena...

listen to the super rare original lumpy gravy..the capitol sessions...or uncle meat

capitol lumpy gravy sessions..quite a ride

cheers

ps- sorry but upon better listening, above utube capitol sessions is not the original capitol session that i know...may be one of franks later remix/redo's..but ...point is (kinda) still there...

[citizenk74]

zappa was a huge fan of varese!! (as ns mentions ^)... he appeared on steve allen show as a very young man..doing varese inspired schtick on a bicylcle tire.. he was a trying to be contemporary classical composer in the r&r arena...

listen to the super rare original lumpy gravy..the capitol sessions...or uncle meat


funny, old slonimsky, in his senior days, was kinder to zappa then he was bartok, debussy & berg..the elder love to have youthful street cred! hah

capitol lumpy gravy sessions..quite a ride

cheers

I had that LP, as well as We're Only in it for the Money , Uncle Meat, and all the early stuff. Genius!

[joelf]

'What kind of a girl do you think we are? We wouldn't----unless you're a star
We girls won't let just anyone spew on our vital parts
Ya gotta be a star with a hit single on the charts'...

[joelf]

[Patlotch]

bartok was huge influence on charlie parker..he had wanted to study w bartok (tho bartok died before) and varese (tho bird died before)...

my answer has been lost, I summarize:
this is not accurate, you can check it out in Parker's interview by Paul Desmond and McLullan

[McLellan plays a record by Bartok.]McLELLAN: Hmm, I don't know quite what to ask you about that selection. Are you familiar with it?
PARKER: Yes, it's one of Bartok's works, I forget the name, but Bartok is my favorite, you know.
McLELLAN: Well, that was one of the things I picked up yesterday in the brief chance we had to get together. That in particular was just a very small fragment from the, from one of my favorite works, the "Concerto for..." no, no, it's not a concerto, it's "Music for Stringed Instruments, Percussion and Celeste."
PARKER: Yes.
McLELLAN: Well, the reason I chose that particular little portion of it was because of its violent rhythmic ideas that he brings out in that. And so, if you'd like to say a few words about your favorite composer, why, go right ahead.
PARKER: Well, I mean, as far as his history is concerned, I mean, I've read that he was Hungarian born. He died an American exile in a General Hospital in New York, in 1945. At that time, I was just becoming introduced to modern classics, contemporary and otherwise, you know, and to my misfortune, he was deceased before I had the pleasure to meet the man. As far as I'm concerned, he is beyond a doubt one of the most finished and accomplished musicians that ever lived.
McLELLAN: Oh, now you made a very interesting point then when you said that you heard him in 1945...
PARKER: Yeah.
McLELLAN: Because this brings up a question that I'd like to ask you, and if some of these questions sound as though I wrote them out ahead of time, I did. At a certain point in our musical history, prior to 1945 as a matter of fact, you and a group of others evidently became dissatisfied with the stereotyped form into which music had settled, so you altered the rhythm, the melody and the harmony, rather violently, as a matter of fact. Now, how much of this change that you were responsible for do you feel was spontaneous experimentation with your own ideas, and how much was the adaptation of the ideas of your classical predecessors, for example as in Bartok?
PARKER: Oh, well, it was 100% spontaneous, 100%. Nor a bit of the idiom of the music which travels today known as progressive music was adapted or even inspired by the older composers or predecessors.
[...]
PARKER: Well, I'm not too familiar with the Beiderbecke school of music, but the things which are happening now known as progressive music, or by the trade name bebop, not a bit of it was inspired, or adapted, from the music of our predecessors Bach, Brahms, Beethoven, Chopin, Ravel, Debussy, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, etc.
[...]
DESMOND: No, I know many people are watching you at the moment, with the greatest of interest, to see what you're going to come up with next, in the next few years -- myself among the front row of them. And what have you got in mind? What are you going to be doing?

PARKER: Well, seriously speaking, I mean, I'm going to try to go to Europe to study. I had the pleasure to meet one Edgar Varese in New York City. He's a classical composer from Europe... he's a Frenchman, very nice fellow, and he wants to teach me. In fact, he wants to write for me, because he thinks I'm more for, more or less on a serious basis, you know -- and if he takes me on, I mean, when he finishes with me, I might have a chance to go to the Academie Musicale in Paris itself, and study, you know. My prime interest still is learning to play music, you know.

McLELLAN: Would you study playing or composition, or everything?

PARKER: I would study both -- never want to lose my horn.

the fact is that comparable sound scales were used by Debussy & Messiaen (whole tone scales...), Bartok (lydian b7)... before the bebop, they came from sources of popular music sometimes "exotic"

the fact is that blue notes introduce into Western harmony the same degrees found in these scales of 20th century music (and probably Scrabine before), but at Parker, they come from the blues, Kansas City, via Lester Young. The harmonic analysis clearly shows this. In the interview, Parker says instead that he would like to study this European Art music, go to Paris... We don't know what he would have done with it, since he died before, but I don't think we hear it in his recordings

the two approaches are foreign to each other, produced as a historical necessity by musicians who have not only musical inspirations, but a certain idea of the music "of their people" to simplify it

[joelf]

Schoenberg:

'The concert was...assigned to...M. Arnold Schoenberg. This is the most incoherent and most vulgar of Charivaris (?---parenths mine). Let one imagine a 'musical' representation of a ball in an insane asylum, or an attack of delirium tremens in a chicken coop!....the rest of the audience manifested their contempt for this evil cacophony---or rather more stupid than evil---by laughing, hissing and booing....Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire is mere trash. Judged as music, it is hideous. It is not the sort of thing that an American audience can enjoy---Evening Telegram, NY, 2/5/1923...

[neatomic]

[QUOTE=Patlotch;1007102]my answer has been lost, I summarize:
this is not accurate, you can check it out in Parker's interview by Paul Desmond and McLullan

/QUOTE]

hah my friend...well you are really splitting hairs here!!...i am very familiar with the ^ interview..in print form and the original audio version...(i was an avid listener of phil schaaps wkcr morning show- bird flight!! hah...columbia university nyc radio station that plays jazz and much contemporary classical since the 1940's)

audio version of interview-(bird is so wonderful!!)

but fact is while early bird and creation of bop may have had no contemporary classical influences, his later work certainly did...why it was so heartbreaking when the charlie parker with strings recordings were overseen by mitch miller..and were sickly sweet trite string and vocal arrangements surrounding birds glorious playing..not at all what he was trying to accomplish!!..sad

as he says ^ bartok was "a favorite"...had bartiok lived, i have no doubt that bird would have expressed the same interest in studying with him as he did for edgard varese!

in any event..bird was far beyond just a sax player..genius of genius

and just the fact that he was talking about bartok and varese in those days proves he was no ordinary jazzer!!


cheers

[joelf]

must say

i am totally enjoying reading the slominsky comments...(keep goin fass)..but he's a total jackweed


he's so highly abusive towards some of the greatest, most celebrated modern(ish) composers of all time..and who is he???

so sad..that he chose to talk that negatively about any human artist...never mind time proven maestros!!

a fool! revealed by time

cheers

If you think he made those comments, you missed the entire point---both his and mine for posting: he listed critics' comments (I attributed every single one after the comment) to show what jackweeds and how wrong they were. Thought I made this crystal clear.

Unless I misunderstand you?

[neatomic]

If you think he made those comments, you missed the entire point---both his and mine for posting: he listed critics' comments (I attributed every single one after the comment) to show what jackweeds and how wrong they were. Thought I made this crystal clear.

Unless I misunderstand you?

oh man!! hah..duh...i'm happy tho

would have hated to suddenly dislike him!! haha

cheers

[unknownguitarplayer]

I forgot how great these are. Thanks for the original thread, Joel, and Patloch for resurrecting it!

[joelf]

oh man!! hah..duh...i'm happy tho

would have hated to suddenly dislike him!! haha

cheers

S'alright---we're all knuckleheads. Hey, don't push---I was at the head of the line first!

[joelf]

my answer has been lost, I summarize:
this is not accurate, you can check it out in Parker's interview by Paul Desmond and McLullan

the fact is that comparable sound scales were used by Debussy & Messiaen (whole tone scales...), Bartok (lydian b7)... before the bebop, they came from sources of popular music sometimes "exotic"

They were also used in jazz pre-bebop: the '30s, especially, were rife with compositions like Don Redman's Chant of the Weed (I played George Kelly's chart on that with his group years ago at the West End in NY); Queer Notions (I forget the composer). Duke may have been experimenting with them, too---they were sort of in the air.

It's hard as hell IMO to improvise on chords that move up or down in WTs. You're sort of stuck with them with few melodic choices. It takes a resourceful improviser to do something fresh and interesting---and 'un-licklike' in that context...