Henry Brant
Pre–performance talk, April 9, 1983, North American New Music Festival   (NAF29)
ca.4:15

Audio files: mp3 file (1.84 MB) real audio file (10.2 MB)

Transcription by Angela Cheasty.
Copyright, Henry Brant, who has kindly granted permission to mount both transcription and audio file.

[The tape begins while Brant is in mid-sentence and is only partially intelligible for the first few sentences.]

…or somewhat unfamiliar in terms of five decades ago or half a century ago. I'm trying to glean the last drop of blood out of ….

At that time the - 20th century music seemed as though it was going to be a pretty good thing and for those of us writing, we could point anytime to the fact that certain people were alive and well and writing, all at the same time. I'll read you some of their names: Stravinsky, Ives, Ruggles, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern , Shostakovich, Bartók , Prokofiev, Milhaud , Hindemith, Villa Lobos, Ravel, Revueltas , Vaughan Williams, and you can, I'm sure, add other names of your choice, and perhaps subtract any here that you don't like.

But there was, there were, - masterpieces coming out every year and those of us who were starting in to compose - like myself and my contemporaries - looked forward to what they were doing, and it felt as though they were exploring new territory for us and they were out there defending us. None of these masters who laid [the groundwork for] the early part of the 20th century in Western music will ever write another note. And I myself think that their work is done because music that is being written now, I think myself, goes in different directions. It explores new ground rather than carrying on the work done by these great predecessors. There are still many musicians though who seem to feel that the best thing that the 20th century in music could possibly do would be to go away quietly and dig a hole in the ground, get in and shovel dirt on top of itself and be heard no more.

But I would like to quote some recent opinions to the contrary just because opinions of this kind I think - are good to hear stated. A musician whom I respect, Reinbert De Leeuw, believes that the 20th century is one of the greatest in musical history. He thinks that it's on that level. I feel that too. If so, somebody ought to say it, and he did. Nicolas Slonimsky, a musician whom I revere equally, thinks that the 20th century is the most innovative in musical history. These are no small things and the century is not yet over. He said “innovative” and if only because for the first time in the century a composer could end a piece any way he likes instead of on a triad or a common chord, or as I would put it, by some some squalid and sneaky cadential formula.

So, the news isn't so bad. In the early 1930's most of us knew, who were writing music, I think, knew that things were were pretty rotten in the world and were getting worse. Nevertheless, it seemed to have a lot of point to write music, and I am happy to feel from those of my younger contemporaries with whom I have an opportunity to speak, that they, sharing the ends of an equally frightful century, nevertheless feel that the practice of music, the practice of inventing music, and occupying the mind as seriously as possible in that fashion, is still just as worth while to the student as ever. So - if you agree with me, [???], long live 20th century music.