is
concerned with the measurement of
time, the art lies in how to measure
it. And I did not say that this is a
new
concern of music but I do. say
that composers have not always been
conscious of it. Today Stravinsky and
a few others are. Dodecatonalists, I
assume from Mr. Leibowitz's letter, are
excepted.
b) Mr. Leibowitz objects to my state–
ment that "Stravinsky is concerned
with the function of the interval." He
finds that there is nothing original
about such a concern and suggests that,
"The only way to be concerned with
it is to write music." Yet, parentheti–
cally, he remarks that "Nobody has
given greater care to the function of
the interval than Schoenberg, the
twelve-tone technique being entirely
based on this consideration." Leaving
aside the question of whether the
twelve-tone technique is, or is not "en–
tirely based" on interval function, Mr.
Leibowitz, by such a statement, admits
by inference that there may have been
or are composers who do not give the
function of the interval sufficient care
and consideration.
I do not know whose leg Mr. Leibo–
witz is pulling. P.R. readers', or his
own? He knows as well as I do the
deplorable fact that a great deal of
music is being written today with no
serious attention to the function of the
interval. So much is being composed
(and, alas, performed) which shows no
understanding of the acoustical impli–
cations of interval relations, and a near–
ly complete disregard of rational and
artful interval structure of chords, of
the relation and resolution of chords,
and the interval leaps of a melodic out–
line. Composers' ears do not always
fulfill their obligation to listen well,
and with extreme care, to the function
of the intervals he invents. Their "inner
ears" have been much too often asses'
ears. What I mean to say in speaking
of Stravinsky's concern with interval
function is that Stravinsky has an in-
1150
finitely imaginative ear which ap–
proaches musical materials with great
care and respect. He is able to discover
most ingenious interval functions, and
hence solve modulatory and other
structural problems in a new way.
c) I said in my article that one fea–
ture of Stravinsky's art is to "juxtapose
in time,
several melodic lines." Mr.
Leibowitz asks where else except in
time is such a juxtaposition possible.
He apparently objects to my italics of
the words "in time." Yet they were
intentional and necessary. They re–
ferred to two things.
I) Melodies are too often juxta–
posed
on paper,-and
not in time, that
is, not in audible time reality. It all
looks well on paper, but sounds damn
rotten. The worst examples of this kind
of mechanical paper counterpoint
(which is to the ears what sand is to
the teeth) now comes from the mills of
the Schoenberg epigones of which Mr.
Leibowitz is one.
2)
If
music is a form of time per–
ception and time representation, one
melody may be so complete in itself
as to embody one particular represen–
tation of one particular time percep–
tion. To Juxtapose it to another mel–
ody (which may be quite another rep–
resentation of another time perception}
is to solve not only a complex problem
of pitch counterpoint, but also of time
counterpoint.
d) The remainder of Mr. Leibowitz's
remarks or questions can be dealt with
briefly.
1)
Rhythm.
Mr. Leibowitz does not
understand my use of this term. He
finds it equivocal and contradictory.
He should know that the vocabulary
of music criticism and music theory is
unfortunately not a precise or scientific
one. In many instances it borrows terms
which have other meanings
in
other
fields. Further, musical terms often car–
ry more than one meaning. For exam–
ple, the word rhythm may refer to the
basic element of music; the element of
