![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In 1888, after jokingly referring to himself as having a career as a "gymnopedist" the year before at the Chat Noir cabaret, Erik Satie composed "Trois Sarabands" known as Gymnopedie No. 1-3 for the piano. He wrote the first and third initially, the second came years later. I have no idea how well they were received in Paris at the time, but 10 years later, Satie was broke and unpopular so his friend Claude Debussy orchestrated numbers 1 and 3 (but not two) except he flipped them, so Debussy's No. 1 was Satie's No. 3. The orchestrated version is probably more recognizable, in part because there are more "Debussy for Lovers" and "Debussy for Dummies" CDs and collections out, and not so much with Satie here in the states.
Satie wanted to separate himself from the traditional music of the time. He's been quoted as saying "I was born very young in a very old time", making him similar to most other Modernist who felt they were chasing the coattails of all the important movements that had already left them behind, that nothing new could be done, that the limitations were too much and there was nothing new under the sun, as the say. His fellow Frenchman Gustav Flaubert who was even slightly before him, felt artists were having to make do with leftovers, that language was going sour and on it's way out, near death and rotting.
I was also told by a composer that Gymnopedies were created for the purpose of being background music which seems utterly ridiculous because they completely stop and absorb any conversation or thoughts when played. When I hear them I want to sob or dance but could do neither as they transfix me. I think one of the lessons is looking at music as a craft. It's all right there, on the page, the notes, what to play, how to play them. The sum might be greater than the parts, but the parts are all right there for the eyes to see.
I read somewhere else that Satie's Sarabands were about evoking the sounds and values and structure of Classical Greece, of balance and proportion and resolution in the music. It is clear, transparent even, but it doesn't not make it boring.
I am drawn to Satie lately, not in the way of accessing this huge catalog of artists in a cocktail conversation where I pretentiously say, "yes, right now I'm thinking of the works by _______" but more in a happenstance or universe-message giving way where I stumble upon something new but familiar and it's suddenly everywhere. I see the sheet music on a piano bench, then days later the song comes up on my ipod which I didn't know it was even there, then I come home and download the rest of the movements and learn about Debussy's role in it (which is how I stumbled upon Satie in the first place, when I went through a Debussy phase months ago) and in the midst of the listening to the music, I am reading a book that's essays on fiction and they bring up Modernists and the Satie quote and I look up at the ceiling and say to this century-old ghost: Ok! I get it! I will try to figure this out.
Satie wanted to separate himself from the traditional music of the time. He's been quoted as saying "I was born very young in a very old time", making him similar to most other Modernist who felt they were chasing the coattails of all the important movements that had already left them behind, that nothing new could be done, that the limitations were too much and there was nothing new under the sun, as the say. His fellow Frenchman Gustav Flaubert who was even slightly before him, felt artists were having to make do with leftovers, that language was going sour and on it's way out, near death and rotting.
I was also told by a composer that Gymnopedies were created for the purpose of being background music which seems utterly ridiculous because they completely stop and absorb any conversation or thoughts when played. When I hear them I want to sob or dance but could do neither as they transfix me. I think one of the lessons is looking at music as a craft. It's all right there, on the page, the notes, what to play, how to play them. The sum might be greater than the parts, but the parts are all right there for the eyes to see.
I read somewhere else that Satie's Sarabands were about evoking the sounds and values and structure of Classical Greece, of balance and proportion and resolution in the music. It is clear, transparent even, but it doesn't not make it boring.
I am drawn to Satie lately, not in the way of accessing this huge catalog of artists in a cocktail conversation where I pretentiously say, "yes, right now I'm thinking of the works by _______" but more in a happenstance or universe-message giving way where I stumble upon something new but familiar and it's suddenly everywhere. I see the sheet music on a piano bench, then days later the song comes up on my ipod which I didn't know it was even there, then I come home and download the rest of the movements and learn about Debussy's role in it (which is how I stumbled upon Satie in the first place, when I went through a Debussy phase months ago) and in the midst of the listening to the music, I am reading a book that's essays on fiction and they bring up Modernists and the Satie quote and I look up at the ceiling and say to this century-old ghost: Ok! I get it! I will try to figure this out.
