Influence of Cowell on Early 20th Century American Music

[s_bussotti]

Discuss

[retrouvailles]

Why must you create such a topic? You know most people on this forum lack either the knowledge or interest in this music to comment, don't you?

I might comment once I have completely woken up.

[dnephi]

I would rather discuss Ives' prescience of modern treatments of keyboard instruments, quotation, and formal development.

Cowell is, IMHO, less innovative.

[ahinton]

I sincerely hope that this thread doesn't go the way of the "Sorabji plays his own music" thread as bemoaned by the initiator of this thread...

Best,

Alistair

[pies]

Simon Cowell?

[retrouvailles]

Simon Cowell?

Henry Cowell, you noob.

[Etude]

Simon Cowell?

I considered doing that, but thought best not to...   

[ahinton]

Somehow I just knew that someone here would mention Simon Cowell; in doing so, that person does seem to have set the thread on that very course that I'd hoped would not befall it...

Ah, well...

Best,

Alistair

[Etude]

Haha, twas nearly me.   I really don't see how telling people they suck at singing can influence early 20th Century American music all that much...

[s_bussotti]

I would rather discuss Ives' prescience of modern treatments of keyboard instruments, quotation, and formal development.

Cowell is, IMHO, less innovative.

I'm not in the position to give this topic justice (only have a few minutes before I have to be somewhere) but I was sort of waiting for someone to mention Ives, as I feel Cowell's influence is most readily heard in Ives, albeit in a much more contrapunctal format.  Will get back on this later.  Perhaps Alistair can take it up in my absense?

[dnephi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Ives predates Cowell by a good many years.  Part of what's so astonishing about Ives, in my opinion, is WHEN he does these things.  He was far ahead of anyone in his time.

[s_bussotti]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Ives predates Cowell by a good many years.  Part of what's so astonishing about Ives, in my opinion, is WHEN he does these things.  He was far ahead of anyone in his time.

*corrects you*  You are wrong.

[Essyne]

*corrects you*  You are wrong.

. . . . and you corrected him . . . .

Feel better now?

[dnephi]

And how come Ives is 20 years older than Cowell?

Daniel

[arensky]

Cowell's theories and his explorations of "world music" and new (for then) musical resources were a greater influence on his contemporaries than his music, sadly. I've performed some of his pieces and while a certain part of the audience was enthusiastic most of the people were just sort of mildly shocked, and amused  ::. It's good music and deserves a better place in the repertoire than it has.

[s_bussotti]

And how come Ives is 20 years older than Cowell?

Daniel

Check the dates on "Nine Ings" and "The Banshee".  Then check dates on "Concord Sonata" and "Symphony No. 4"

[ahinton]

Cowell knew Ives well. He also moved around in experimentalist circles and mixed with the likes of Ruggles and the ex-patriates Varèse and Ornstein. His influence has largely been on other Americans, particularly those with leanings towards non-European musics such as Dane Rudhyar, Colin McPhee, John Cage, Lou Harrison, Harry Partch and Conlon Nancarrow; I think it fair to say that Ives, for all his own experiments, was rather more steeped in European music than most of these. Of these, only Ives, Varèse and Cage made significant impact outside US until relatively recently - and even Ives was far from fully appreciated in his own day, even in his own country.

Best,

Alistair

[dnephi]

Check the dates on "Nine Ings" and "The Banshee". Then check dates on "Concord Sonata" and "Symphony No. 4"

Concord Sonata: Some material in the piece dates back as far as 1904, but Ives began substantial work on the piece around 1911 and had largely completed it by 1915. It was first published in 1920 with a second, revised, edition appearing in 1947. It is this version which is usually performed today.

Let's say 1915.

Symphony #4: (1912–18)

Cowell Banshee: 1925
Nine Ings: 1922.

I'm sorry- not quite getting it.

Daniel

[s_bussotti]

Concord Sonata: Some material in the piece dates back as far as 1904, but Ives began substantial work on the piece around 1911 and had largely completed it by 1915. It was first published in 1920 with a second, revised, edition appearing in 1947. It is this version which is usually performed today.

Let's say 1915.

Symphony #4: (1912–18)

Cowell Banshee: 1925
Nine Ings: 1922.

I'm sorry- not quite getting it.

Daniel

I don't know where in the world you got those dates; are those perhaps publishing dates?  Because he had performed both of those works himself prior to 1910.  Anyway, no offense, but if you think there's an argument as to whom is the predecessor of whom, you really ought to find another thread.

[daro]

I don't know where in the world you got those dates; are those perhaps publishing dates?  Because he had performed both of those works himself prior to 1910. 

Excuse me, performed where exactly? Cowell was 13 years old in 1910, and while he had precocious musical gifts, I'd like to see where in the world you got the idea that he had already written and performed stuff like the Banshee.

In 1906, Ives came out with Central Park in the Dark, which firmly established him on the path of radical experimentation; I seriously doubt the then 9 year old Cowell was any kind of influence on this process. In fact, I would like to see any evidence you have that Ives had even heard of Cowell any time during the next 10 years or so after that. The two men lived and worked in entirely different parts of the country and moved in entirely different circles. Furthermore, it's not as if their music was being given heavy rotation on the radio.

It does seem that Cowell hadn't been familiar with Ives' work until the mid-1920's when a mutual friend gave him a copy of the Concord Sonata, after which he became an enthusiastic Ivesian and the two composers became friends. However, not long after that point, Ives' compositional career was pretty much over, and being in his 50's and shaky health, he was not in a position to be influenced by his junior.

I think it's more likely that there was no direct influence either way. Like Newton and Liebnitz with the calculus, both men were highly sensitive to the zeitgeist, and produced accordingly.

yd