Hallelujah Junction is John Adams’ autobiography, and as autobiographies go, it’s a fairly good one. Adams uses a pleasant, bemused tone to describe the signposts that mark his development as an artist and his principle influences as he rejects serialism (no small rejection in the late ‘60s/early 70’s), explores and rejects the John Cage-influenced aleatoric ‘music’ (e.g., random sounds or sounds randomly generated that are labeled as music when given a definitive start and end point), and ultimately finds his composer’s voice in minimalism. Those curious about the origins of his various works (including symphonies, oratorios and choral works, violin and piano concerti, and operas like Nixon in China, The Death of Klinghoffer, and Doctor Atomic) will find that information here, as well as fascinating forays into Adams’ musical philosophy. This is worthwhile given Adams’ studied familiarity with the “classical” repertoire as a talented conductor as well as a composer, especially works by moderns and contemporaries (Gavin Bryars, Phillip Glass, Osvaldo Golijov, Lou Harrison, Charles Ives, Steve Reich, etc.), a list so extensive that one wonders at the incidental exclusions (chiefly Carl Orff, given how similar to Orff’s percussive works the “Flores” and other choruses from “A Flowering Tree” sound).
This book was also a nice way of revisiting my music school nostalgia, but back to the big ideas. What is the place of “classical music” as a genre or an art form within music generally nowadays? Junction hints at this question in many ways, among them inviting comparison of Adams’ ouerve to Zappa’s and how each are considered by the concert-going public, and separately by consideration of the serialism and aleatoric movements. As someone who doesn’t believe in making “high” versus “low” artistic distinctions, I found much that kept me gnashing my teeth (on food for thought?).
Adams has with contemporary ensembles conducted pieces by Frank Zappa (“Bogus Pomp” and other “Yellow Shark” works… wonder if he’s ever done “G-Spot Tornado”?) and ponders why Zappa’s works haven’t secured a greater foothold within classical programming. As Adams observes, Zappa's works are often difficult, challenging, and provocative to perform and listen to, but so are those of Ades, Berg, Ives, Schoenberg, Boulez, Varese (whose inspiration can be traced within Zappa), and many others in the contemporary idiom whom Adams admires and whose works he feels are programmed as or more frequently. Zappa’s name is better-known than some of these other composers and therefore a better concert draw, Zappa was extremely prolific (leaving plenty to choose from), and because he introduced a significant new compositional concept in “xenochrony” (the postmodern act of collaging together once disparate musical events to create one work with new meaning), Zappa's work is arguably both important and influential. In the larger scheme of things, Adams doesn’t believe Adams’ own work to be more popular than Zappa’s or Adams’ Nonesuch recordings to be better selling than Zappa’s Barking Pumpkin. Adams isn’t even as effective a self-promoter. Why, then, should Adams be programmed more frequently?
Adams argues that as a satirist, Zappa suffers from having thumbed his nose at the longhaired set. I buy that. What I don’t accept is the unstated premise that classical music (and by extension, classical concerts or theater pieces like ballet and opera) are in some way distinct as sophisticated musical experiences from those considered “popular,” that (as Zappa suspects in his own autobiography) Zappa should be tainted by popular brand as a lightweight instead of recognized (where recognition is merited) as an iconoclast. I feel strongly that all art falls somewhere into a range from good to bad, from playable to listenable, as personal taste defines. Fortunately, I still have the touring concert "Zappa Plays Zappa" to fall back on (along with occasional performances by fellow odd-meter specialists Bela Fleck and Sufjan Stevens).
Speaking of Zappa, Adams’ autobiography includes diatribes one might expect to find in The Real Frank Zappa Book. “[Seiji] Ozawa’s performances [with the San Francisco Symphony in the late 1970s]… amplified all the faults I attributed to the classical music industry. The concertgoing experience was largely about him, his podium exertions, and his impressive ability to conduct anything and everything from memory.” (p. 108)
Founder of the Scratch Orchestra, Cornelius “Cardew[,] had followed all of Cage’s directions to a tee and had done so for years, believing that this discipline would help to remove the ego and let the sounds just be sounds. But now Cardew was very publicly renouncing the error of his ways, violently condemning the aesthetics of chance and indeterminacy, proclaiming that the musical, emotional, and social results of all this avant-garde activity was, in a word, a ‘desert.’ This was a brutal admission, not only because so many of us had come to revere Cage as our guru but also because Cardew’s apostasy threatened to confirm what most conservative music critics had been saying all along: that the musical experiments of Cage and his school were little more than Dadaist doodling.” (p. 77)
Reading Adams leads me to the conclusion that the term “classical” no longer has meaning. Is it “through composed” music? No, because the genre admits of the performance events of John Cage, Luciano Berio, Meredith Monk, and others. (Is Laurie Anderson classical? Or Stomp? Or Bang on a Can? Or Savion Glover? And so what if they’re not?) Does “classical” mean “fully-transcribed” or even “acoustic”? Clearly not when the works of Adams, Edgard Varese, Karlheinz Stockhausen, and heck, all of ICAM are considered. (And what of Radiohead, Brian Eno, and William Orbit – whom I happen to prefer to Aphex Twin?) Thanks to music-processing software that allows composers to multitrack, edit, and finish pieces using everything from found sound samples, to acoustically-performed snippets, to handdrawn waves one no longer need be traditionally musically literate (e.g., able intelligently to read and write staff lines, notes, and attendant punctuation) to create and share with listeners works of any degree of sophistication.
At any rate, why is Adams, a man who grew up every bit as immersed in Rodgers and Hammerstein as Sibelius and who admits to being in the thrall of the respective talents of Leonard Bernstein and Jimi Hendrix choosing to pigeonhole himself as a classical composer? Adams comes of age as a composer-in-training at the same time that the psychedelic, electronic, and other “progressive” rock movements are exploding, yet never once steps foot into the pop world. Consider this seriously for a moment. Between 1967 and 1971 the Beatles have revolutionized the concept of studio production with Sergeant Pepper (featuring the epic “A Day in the Life”) and The White Album (especially the track of musique concrete, “Revolution 9”), Zappa and his band the Mothers of Invention have released “Freak Out!” “Lumpy Gravy,” and “We’re Only in it for the Money,” (each heavy with musique concrete, electronic experimentation, and symphonic layers of guitars equivalent to the “sheets of sound” being produced by jazz greats like John Coltrane), Miles Davis is leaving behind acoustic performance for extended, amplified “fusion” jams, and bands like Pink Floyd (who will produce the critically acclaimed LP symphony, Meddle and have introduced the critically-disdained LP symphony I prefer to it Atom Heart Mother); Emerson, Lake, and Palmer (who are recording and performing in concert lesser-known works by Ginastera and Prokofiev); and the Moody Blues, Led Zeppelin (and soon Rush), and other imitators are all in the process of carving out commercial niches for larger-scale works that combine acoustic and electronic instrumentation, and producing music of rhythmic, tonal, timbral, and in some cases greater melodic and harmonic sophistication to anything then going on in the classical concert hall. Music theater, driven by innovators like Stephen Sondheim and emerging “rock operas,”are exploring subject matter, themes, and compositional styles equivalent (if not superior) to the existing repertory. This is all happening at the same time Adams has physically removed himself from Harvard’s 12-tone proponents to live in San Francisco!
“So how did I make Cageian thought cohabit in my head with be-bop, Beethoven, John Lennon, and Stravinsky?” Adams asks. “The answer is: I didn’t. I remarked very soon after discovering him that Cage was apparently deaf or at least monumentally indifferent to all kinds of music, including most classical and virtually all jazz and popular music.” (p. 58) But why differentiate at all?
As Adams notes, “By the year 2000, the pressing issue for music consumers [is] no longer one of accessibility or availability, but rather one of discrimination. How [does] one find something new and of true value amid the blizzard of recordings currently available? Even more serious [is] the question ‘How can one make the public aware of your own creations amidst the din and chaos of what is already out there?’” (p. 196) Hopefully, Adams will answer this for us someday. I’m kinda hoping the answer will prove to be some sort of combination of Smithsonian Global Sound and Facebook. In the meantime, I’ll happily settle for the kind of performance heterogeneity offered by alternate trips to the Kennedy Center and the Birchmere. Please give me a shout when you're in the neighborhood and have scored good tickets.