I expect, from the tenor (sorry) of his arguments, that Fogelsong would reply to your points something like this:
First, that he's allowing mythic treatments of quotidian material - see his comments on Britten. I expect he would let in Adams under that allowance. Exploring the mythic in the material is the pure essence of the libretti of Adams' operas, and to my mind separates them distinctly from those of Berg and Gershwin, or the Menotti works I was referring to.
Second, that by success he means the kind of commercial and popular success that came to earlier operas, not critical esteem. Birtwistle's operas may be mythic, but the general opera-going public has never taken to them, so they're not a counter-example.
Returning to my own account, I'm going to have to wait till the next time I come across non-superannuated musicians talking about serialism as if it's still the only way to fly, to cite it for you. I have before, but I can't recall the instances.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-10-06 02:20 pm (UTC)First, that he's allowing mythic treatments of quotidian material - see his comments on Britten. I expect he would let in Adams under that allowance. Exploring the mythic in the material is the pure essence of the libretti of Adams' operas, and to my mind separates them distinctly from those of Berg and Gershwin, or the Menotti works I was referring to.
Second, that by success he means the kind of commercial and popular success that came to earlier operas, not critical esteem. Birtwistle's operas may be mythic, but the general opera-going public has never taken to them, so they're not a counter-example.
Returning to my own account, I'm going to have to wait till the next time I come across non-superannuated musicians talking about serialism as if it's still the only way to fly, to cite it for you. I have before, but I can't recall the instances.