Elliott Carter’s Departure Into Modernism
The String Quartet is possibly one of classical music’s greatest achievement. It’s tradition begins with Joseph Haydn’s and moves through Ludwig van Beethoven, Felix Mendelssohn, Johannes Brahms, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Antonín Dvořák to name a few. In 1950, Elliott Carter spent a year in the Sonora Desert outside Tucson, Arizona and composed his String Quartet №1. Four large sections make up the entire work lasting around 45 minutes. Those sections being “Fantasia, Allegro scorrevole, Adagio and Variations”. Fantasia is composed of multiple themes in counterpoint and concludes with the four main themes being heard at once. Follows is fragmented motives of the Allegro scorrevole that give way to the Adagio. Two muted violins play the melody while being interrupted by the viola and cello. Variations contains a series of themes that are repeated faster as time moves on. Only two pauses occur in the piece, one in the middle of the Allegro scorrevole and the other before the start of the Variations.
Excerpt from “In Carter’s String Quartets, Difficulty Can Hold Delight” by David Hamilton, New York Times, October 6th, 1991
…Carter string quartets, their seriousness is equally legendary. Greatly admired by some listeners and critics, they have been described by others a excessively complex, even incomprehensible. Such disparity of perception usually indicates some sort of break with the past, and that is true here. Mr. Carter’s music not only offers novel features; it abandons some old and familiar characteristics of Western music- most crucially in the realm of rhythm. (first page, 6th paragraph)
In this work, Elliott Carter established a trademark style: “metric modulation.” Each instrument moves independently from one another created tension between instruments giving a new meaning to pulse. Tonally, rhythmically, and harmonically this work was step forward in Elliott Carter’s compositional career. Prior to this, Carter’s music heralded American classicism and Aaron Copland sounds. His Symphony №1 (1942) is a great example of this.
So, what changed in the eight years between these two compositions? The answer is the shift in Carter’s view of who his music is for.
Excerpt from Elliott Carter’s String Quartet №1 Program Notes:
Up to this time, I had quite consciously been trying to write for a certain audience — not that which frequented concerts of traditional music, nor that which had supported the avant-garde of the ‘20’s (which in the ‘40’s had come to seem elitist) but a new, more progressive and more popular audience. I had felt that it was my professional and social responsibility to write interesting, direct, easily understood music.
With this quartet, however I decided to focus on what had always been one of my own musical interests, that of ‘advanced’ music, and to follow out, with a minimal concern for their reception, my own musical thoughts along these lines.
Symphony №1 is “interesting, direct, easily understood music”. and String Quartet №1 is “advanced music.” It requires a higher technical skill level and understanding of modernism compared to his symphony. To write this, Carter needed to step away from what he perceives as acceptable music to the public and become true to his artistic expression.
But as the public, how do they accomplish this? They’re not the ones pour themselves into compositions or spend time thinking about these musical issues. To paint a picture of this issue, Hamilton in “In Carter’s String Quartets, Difficulty Can Hold Delight” advocates for the challenges the public face while absorbing Carter’s music.
In Mr. Carter’s counterpoint, the musical discourse arises in large part from the several simultaneous rates of time, each changing, vanishing and reappearing. When the ear and mind learn to focus on this process, to flow with several pulses at once, a whole world of musical expression emerges. Tension and conflict grow and fade; lines magically begin moving “faster” without apparently having changed tempo; the tone of the music undergoes sea changes, for example from wary collusion among the instruments to frim disagreement. All these are analogous to things that happen in more traditional music, and perceiving them brings a similar esthetic pleasure. (2nd page, end of 1st column)
Much as been said about the “complexity” of Mr. Carter’s music, and undoubtedly it demands concentrated attention, even repeated hearings, to yield up all its power and meaning. (2nd page, 4th column)
Mr. Carter’s music isn’t easy music; he doesn’t intend it to be. It is there for those who agree with him that difficult things are worth making, that not every valuable idea can be expressed simply. (final paragraph)
As part of the Classical music field, how do we has performers or composers advocate for music that needs to be listened to multiple times in order to be understood? How do we ask the public to give complex and different music a chance in the modern era? I’ve always chalked it down to “Well, it’s an experience, what more can it be?” But after more exposure in our current class, it’s evident this music can be so much more. I’m not advocating for Classical music to become mainstream but is there a way to bridge modern music (including everything we’ve been discussing in class) with the music we jam out to on a daily basis? Is there a way to introduce complex pieces without coming off a “elitist” as Classical music is commonly seen in today’s age?
Sources:
“In Carter’s String Quartets, Difficulty Can Hold Delight” by David Hamilton, New York Times (1923-Current file); Oct 6, 1991; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times pg. H31
