But fantastic though his insights were, Corigliano was a member of the old guard; it took a younger composer, one born after World War II—into a world where high and low culture weren't quite so segregated—to turn the tide. When composer John Adams won in 2003 (On the Transmigration of Souls), he told the New York Times that he had little interest in the award at all: "Among musicians that I know, the Pulitzer has lost much of the prestige it carries in other fields like literature and journalism." Why? Because the list of past winners doesn't contain "most of America's greatest musical minds...especially, the great jazz composers." These creative spirits, he wrote, had been passed over year after year, "often in favor of academy composers who have won a disproportionate number of prizes."
That did it. The next year's jury announced that they'd found his comments "very strong medicine," and the board announced that they were making a new effort to broaden the category to include musical soundtracks, film scores, and other genres. Some former winners were furious. The move sparked Lewis Spratlan's above-quoted screed of (self-) righteous indignation, and similarly pigheaded remarks from other Pulitzer laureates. John Harbison — a previous winner, as well as one of those elite few who was always popping up on the jury — called it "a horrible development. If you were to impose a comparable standard on fiction you would be soliciting entries from the authors of airport novels." (That's really the way these people think: if you're not writing symphonies and operas, you're writing throwaway trash.)
My favorite reaction, which was also a reaction to jerk-offs like Spratlan and Harbison, came from classical composer/critic Greg Sandow.
what's really going on here — if you ask me — is a last-ditch defense of the obsolete and snobbish idea that only classical music can be art. Or, maybe, something even worse. Since just about everybody knows by now that this old idea is totally and completely wrong, I wonder if [these academy composers] aren't (whether they know it or not) simply trying to protect their turf, trying to preserve some distinction, some chance at prestige and momentary fame, that might elude them if the Pulitzer prize were given simply for artistic merit.
And Sandow saved a special bit of response just for John Harbison's "airport novels" comparison: "If he'd taken half the risk he takes here — been willing to leap this far out on a limb to make an unmistakable statement — in his Great Gatsby opera, it would have been 10 times a better piece."
And yet, except the token '97 award for Marsalis (which was cheating anyway, since Blood on the Fields premiered in 1994 — it was just released on CD in 1996), the Pulitzer Prize Board continued to give its music award to classical pieces even after its great and terrible rules-change. In fairness, it may be that those works deserved the award. And in further fairness, I don't believe that Coleman's was the best jazz recording of last year (that was Andrew Hill's Time Lines), let alone of the new century so far (Dave Holland's 2003 Extended Play: Live at Birdland).
Article comments
1 - El Bicho
great reporting, mjw. it makes me want to spend the night on the keyboard, probably will once the Sbares finish off the Islanders. you should be writing more.
2 - Pico
I caught the news of this last Monday, didn't even know prior to this that there is a Pulitzer for music. Ornette very much deserved the recognition.
3 - Michael J. West
Thanks, El Bicho. You, too, Pico. I'll actually be writing again tomorrow, but on a far less pleasant note: if you guys weren't aware, Andrew Hill passed away this morning...
4 - Howard Dratch
I never thought about a Pulitzer for music before either. But if there was a jazz musician to win it, as you point out, Ornette Coleman was the man to do it. There is fine music, musicianship and then there is someone like Coleman who steps beyond all of that into new territory.