For the Tempus-Fugitives Page 6
Like mutant viruses, and interfere
By their malignant chemistry with all
The self-protective ploys that let us steer
To calmer regions. For the next close call
Might just be that which crosses the frontier
Between what’s close and what’s apt to forestall
Our last defensive strategies since we’re
Now far too conscious, after the long haul
Of human versus virus, that “all clear”
Means “got this latest bugger to play ball
For weeks, or maybe months, but best not cheer
Too loudly since the due-dates tend to fall
More quickly as the viral forces gear
Themselves up more intently for the brawl
With hi-tech medicine.” So, whether near-
At-hand enough for tidings to appal
Us daily or much farther off, the sheer
Long-run dead cert still holds the mind in thrall.
“I have mislaid the torment and the fear”
Wrote Empson, though the most devoted trawl
Through life and work won’t much help to explain
That cryptic line. My best bet: what he meant,
Or part of it, is how the lethal strain
We know will one day fox or circumvent
The utmost of our efforts to contain
Its wild proliferation wasn’t sent
As any kind of torment, fear, or bane,
Such as the shrewd Church Fathers might invent
(Here Empson once again) as “this last pain”
In waiting for the damned. No god-squad bent
On retribution, just a complex chain
Of DNA and RNA intent
To seize its opportunity and gain
A foothold in the host-cell, having spent
Its time so far in the inert domain
Of quasi-life where genotypes segment
Without remainder. If, then, we abstain
From letting such reflections too much dent
Our sanity it’s not because our brain
Can’t cope with notions that would else torment
Our every waking thought but more, as might
Be Empson’s point, because it’s off-the-scale
Compared with other fears that tend to blight
Our sense of human selfhood or assail
Our fragile self-composure. Best sit tight,
The message says, and anyway not quail
At the mere thought of what may overwrite
The very codes whose genotypic braille,
We once supposed, would stay in place despite
Some one-off freak mutations and not fail
To keep the real mind-bogglers out of sight,
Like how to keep rehearsing that old tale
Of human species-being and our fight
Against the gene-invaders. For its frail
And faltering story-line’s prone to invite
Unwanted thoughts of how the genome trail
Leads back to where there’s no such black-and-white
Plot-structure and our mythoi won’t avail
To screen out images that reunite
Their chromosomes in nature’s rummage-sale.
SCISSORHAND (MATISSE)
Drawing with scissors: to cut to the quick in colour reminds me of the direct cutting of sculptors
—Henri Matisse
Though produced by a very old man who was mortally ill, they seem to come from the springtime of the world.
—John Russell
It takes courage…to leave all props behind, to cast oneself, like Matisse, upon pure space.
—Fleur Adcock
The shapes came quick to hand, the colours too.
They came like birds to Papageno’s call.
A buffo role, but it would have to do.
The problem was, he had a job to haul
Himself around and get a decent view
Of what he’d done. That’s why he used the wall
To paste his cut-outs up, then took a cue
From street-kids who seized every chance to scrawl
Their riotous graffiti where they knew
The stuff had greatest impact, shopping-mall
Or boulevard preferred. His thought was: screw
The critic-gatekeepers who kept their hall
Of fame secure against that urchin crew,
Plus high-art renegades like him who’d all
Make rainbows of the line those critics drew
Between the problem-works they’d soon install
As ‘late-style masterpieces’ and the queue
Of reject candidates they deemed to fall
Beyond the utmost time-allowance due
To culture-shock purveyors who might gall
Good taste but not for long. So if his blue
Nude cut-outs, four of them, can now enthral
The art-world and entrance the critics through
A wonder-working power to do in small
And bright what drove grands maîtres to pursue
Their deep and dark, let’s once again recall
How the Salon de Paris and a slew
Of killjoy commentators cast a pall
Across each mind’s-eye-revelling shape and hue
He scissored out. Now that he’s walking tall
In critical opinion and the few
Dissenters mostly stow it or play ball
There’s little thought of how these dazzlers grew
From a pent creativity in thrall,
Like Ariel, to all things out-of-true
Since caught up in the death-defying brawl
Of mind with joint and muscle. So askew
They were that now he’d lurch or cling or crawl
His way to show how paper-cut and glue
Might outdo all that age had done to maul
His body while he made the world anew.
AN EPISTLE TO MR. PHILIP GLASS
In that way Vinteuil’s phrase, like some theme, say, in Tristan, which represents to us also a certain acquisition of sentiment, has espoused our mortal state . . . . We shall perish, but we have for our hostages these divine captives who shall follow and share our fate. And death in their company is something less bitter, less inglorious, perhaps even less certain.
—Marcel Proust, Swann’s Way, trans.
Lydia Davis
This was the future, even if hardly anyone wanted to hear it. But, they were told, they shouldn’t worry about that. Acceptance would not come right away, but the history of music was going down this road and you either got on the train or you didn’t, ... And if you didn’t get on the train, you would be left behind.
—Philip Glass
The consciousness of the mass of listeners is adequate to fetishized music. It listens according to formula, and indeed debasement itself would not be possible if resistance ensued, if the listeners still had the capacity to make demands beyond the limits of what was supplied . . . . The counterpart to the fetishism of music is the regression of listening.
—Theodor Adorno, “On the Fetish
Character in Music”
“What do you want of me?,” asked Fontanelle
In (so it seems) a passing fit of pique
When some sonata opted not to tell
The kind of tale that listeners vainly seek
Once instruments take charge. This first induced
Mere puzzlement, then led to the mystique
Of memory’s vagrant counterpoint that Proust
Heard in his fictive sonate de Vintueil,
And now crows as its chicks come home to roost.
Let’s ask: what might they want of us today,
Those minimalist attractors of the rapt
Attention that piece only got by way
Of having so evocatively tapped
A rich vein of mémoire involontaire
Rather than having qualities
more apt
To gain it classic status. Just compare
The Saint-Saëns or the Fauré works that might,
So scholars say, have done a hefty share
In sending Marcel off on his far flight
Of recollection with (let’s say) the sort
Of work that’s now best suited to delight
Those types with a retention-time so short
That anything beyond a four-bar riff
On rudimentary themes will quickly thwart
Their easy-listening grasp. For only if
That theme turns up repeatedly on cue
And minimally varied will their tiff
With all things more demanding not undo
Each Leitmotif and linkage put in place
By those composers willing to eschew
Such audience-appeal as comes by grace
Of stretching ears and minds no further than
Allows distracted listeners to keep pace
With music matched to the attention-span
Of ADHD toddlers. So let’s pose
The question Vinteuil posed to Proust: what can
This music ask of us, or what disclose
Of its designs on us as hearers fit
To listen, if the rule is: don’t compose
The sorts of piece that might require a bit
Of long-range structural listening or the kinds
That don’t too soon or readily submit
To the ear’s Lustprinzip. This bids our minds
Resist the very thought that music should,
At times, break faith with any tryst that binds
Composers to ensure their works make good
The aural non-aggression pact implied
By any music where it’s understood,
On their as well as on the audience side,
That here’s no passage liable to tax
The listener’s grasp. For else it flouts the tried
And tested maxim that whatever lacks
Strong audience-appeal straight off is sure
To be the sort of piece that either smacks
Of an elitist culture once secure
In its high citadel or stands revealed
As having nothing but the false allure
Of what’s found to return the highest yield
In culture-capital. So if there’s one
Big question asked of listeners and concealed
Within the notes so effortlessly spun
By minimalists (let’s instance Philip Glass)
It’s whether they’re prepared to wish undone
The scheme of judgment that would have us class
(Say) Haydn higher than the sundry heirs
Of old baroque, or think it merely crass
To give Spohr or Clementi equal shares
With Beethoven of credit for what’s come
Of music since that time. However there’s
This question too: what if the vector sum
Of those developments and all that tends
To offer moral optimists a crumb
Of comfort in bad times or buck the trends
That breed despair is scrambled and reversed
By music that so pointedly depends
On listening-habits of the kind rehearsed
In early childhood and thereafter trained
To want no more than jingles interspersed
With periods when, as somebody maintained
Of Beckett’s Godot, “nothing happens, twice.”
The point’s not that they must be addle-brained,
Those listeners, just that pieces which suffice
To keep them musically content are such
As ask of them, by way of entrance-price,
That they should cultivate the common touch
And kid themselves that what they’re hearing rates
High on all counts. Then it may seem there’s much
To say for epic length that modulates
Predictably each hundred bars or so
And thus, by sheer inanity, negates
Whatever music might yet have to show
Of such inventiveness as could transform
Its own expressive powers and let us know
Ourselves more fully. Granted, though the norm
Of dissonance has lately been pushed back
To roughly where it was before the storm
Of progress blew from paradise to track
Its path from First to Second Viennese
Schools, this gives no good reason to attack
New-found simplicity as some disease
Brought on by failure of creative nerve
Or lazy-listener-led desire to please
With pre-digested formulas that serve
Its anaesthetic purpose. Yet it’s not,
That dissident summation, such a swerve
From the joined-up coordinates that plot
How rapidly “new music” has switched course
From what once, at first hearing, took a lot
Of intellectual-auditory resource
From keen-eared types before they’d have a chance
Of grasping it to this full-scale divorce
Between the kinds of thing that might advance
Our sensory as well as mental powers
Of uptake and the kinds that so entrance
The hearer as to hold them rapt for hours
Through various well-tried forms of infantile
Regression. That’s why these late-blooming flowers
Of post-Romantic decadence beguile
Them into something like the Wagner mode
Of semi-wakefulness, though in a style
Devoid of everything that Wagner owed
To Beethoven and that ensured he kept
Harmonic tension high as tempos slowed.
This meant that those sufficiently adept
At spotting leitmotifs and how they played
A structural-thematic role weren’t swept
Resistlessly along and thereby made
Complicit in the same kinds of on-stage
Stupidity and violence that betrayed
Wagnerian heroines to the insensate rage
Of echt-Wagnerian heroes. Different when
It comes to minimalists who’d disengage
From an old dialectic that again
Found voice in early modernism (think
Vienna, 1920s) since they’ll then
Neither risk pushing listeners to the brink
Of breakdown by emotions too intense
To bear, nor—worse still—seeing how they shrink
From structural complexities too dense
To grasp while jogging, or when half-asleep,
Or shuffled on the iPod. Where suspense
Of chord or cadence once sufficed to keep
Attentive audiences on the qui vive
By tensed anticipation of a leap
To some new key, such things now tend to leave
Unmoved those whose diminished powers of long-
Range listening stretch so far as to perceive
Nothing beyond the time-span of a song
On that same iPod even though the piece,
Like most of yours, may still be going strong
(Or just still going) when its batteries cease
To operate. So if Proust’s odd request
Of Vinteuil seems a novelist’s caprice
Or curious thought-experiment to test
What his roman à fleuve presumes to ask
Of dedicated readers, when addressed
To you the question’s more: is it the task
Of music to become so structure-free
And effortless that anyone can bask
Forever in the sun since shifts of key
Bring no dark clouds. What it maybe desires
Of practised listeners is that they agree
To be as mindless as the piece requires
I
f they’re not suddenly to find they’ve been
Deprived of something better by suppliers
Of such down-market goods. If there’s more spleen
About this verse-epistle than perhaps
You’d normally expect to supervene
In musical debate, excuse my lapse
Of manners but don’t hasten to excuse
The insult to intelligence that wraps
An hour’s worth of the stuff one might well choose
As background music for a dinner-date
Around a minute’s worth they just might use,
Those true past masters, when a shifting state
Of harmony or mood requires they fill
That time with passagework, then modulate
And so—what far exceeds the gift or skill
Of their note-spinning progeny—redeem
Its triteness by then having it fulfil
The promise of some half-remembered theme
That, first time round, quite likely struck the ear
As nothing special but now comes to seem
The key to everything. Proust’s souvenir
Of fleeting temps perdu et retrouvé,
His tea-soaked petite madeleine, is here
Precisely to the point although it may
Appear off-target since the gentle tweak
Of memory’s heartstrings brought by the Vinteuil
Sonata had to do with its unique
And (unlike the dunked almond-cake Marcel