Prize patrol.

May 1, 2007

Prize patrol.

That’s why I have mixed feelings about Mr. Coleman’s Pulitzer. Should the jury have stretched the rules well past the breaking point in order to give it to him? I wish I could say yes. He deserves it, and so does jazz. Yet I can’t help but recall the footrace in "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland" that was judged by a dodo: "There was no ‘One, two, three, and away,’ but they began running when they liked… At last the Dodo said, ‘EVERYBODY has won, and all must have prizes.’" That’s no way to win an award — even one that you richly deserve.

That’s the final paragraph of a Wall Street Journal editorial on this year’s Pulitzer Prize for music by Terry Teachout, which ran last Saturday (April 28), Frank J. Oteri of NewMusicBox, who wrote a sharp essay on the subject himself, brought Terry’s piece to my attention last night.

Much as I deeply, passionately admire Ornette Coleman’s work and feel he deserves every bit of the household recognition this award must have brought him for a time, I have been troubled by the odd circumstances and apparent rule-bending that led to it. ("Song X" and "Turnaround," for instance, are not the only compositions on Sound Grammar that predate the disc’s recording in 2005.) Terry pretty much nails the problem on the head in his piece. Regular visitors to his blog have already seen his link to the essay; errant readers (like myself) and newcomers should go here.

I still feel a bit churlish to complain about the situation, but remain discouraged by it nonetheless. Good work, Terry.

Steve Smith

Uncategorized

6 responses to “Prize patrol.”

nd

May 1, 2007 at 1:08 pm

FYI–There’s a thoughtful response to Teachout’s dismissive attitude to the Pulitzer’s past history of awards, & to the award to Ornette, here….

Reply
DJA

May 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm

I’m actually hopeful that this award will result in a further breaking-down of the Pulitzer rules, which remain nonsensical. If people want to split it out into separate categories, that’s fine, but until then it’s called “The Pulitzer Prize for Music,” not “The Pulitzer Prize for Composition.” So regardless of what the rules say, I’m happy to see the award go to some of the most outstanding music released on record in 2006. (Who is more deserving? I’m kind of curious who Terry would have given the award to, had it been up to him.)
Anyway, the composition date of “Sleep Talking” or “Turnaround” seems completely irrelevant when we are talking about tunes whose function is to serve as a basis for group improvisation, especially in the hands of an ensemble where every performance is substantially and meaningfully different. The “composition” that’s being rewarded here is the spontaneous composition that happened between Ornette, Greg, Tony, and Denardo did on October 14, 2005 — not a blues head Ornette wrote almost 50 years ago.

Reply
Steve Smith

May 1, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Thanks for that, Nate. You’re right, that’s some high-level analysis. Readers here are encouraged to follow the link.
Darcy, I absolutely agree with you about the need for multiple awards. I’ve encountered those who disagree, taking a “we’re lucky we even get one award” point of view. But the acts of composition, recording and performance are suitably distinct to make the Pulitzer’s patchwork measures at equanimity sadly laughable.
Still, I can’t agree with you wholeheartedly on the second part of your argument. The date of a composition certainly did apply under the old Pulitzer rules, so we’re clearly dealing with a different award here no matter what it’s called. But if it is indeed the “spontaneous composition” of four individuals that is being rewarded, should it not be four individuals who are actually named recipients?
Would a Pulitzer for a document of a Butch Morris performance belong to Butch, for that matter?
But please don’t think I’m taking my ire out on Ornette: The Pulitzers were broken a long time before this year. John Corligliano’s Pulitzer for his Symphony No. 2, for instance, was basically nothing more than a make-up prize for having not done the right thing by him earlier (say, for example, his truly deserving Symphony No. 1).
There are many other such examples; Larry Kart digs into some of them in the link that Nate Dorward provided in the comment that preceded yours. And especially when I think about one of the short-listed contenders, I am immeasurably relieved that Ornette won.

Reply
Richard

May 1, 2007 at 4:05 pm

I think the Pulitzer’s did more harm to themselves this time than all the other times when they symbolically rewarded composers for past compositions while ostensibly rewarding them for new ones.
All of Terry’s points are correct, and furthermore, the lack of a written score for the Jurors was intended to open up the fields to non-written music. I myself prepared two applications for the Pulitzers for two different composers. The works were not from 2006 (2005 in both cases), but they did receive their recording debut in 2006.
This opening of the rules was a nice breath of fresh air, but it shouldn’t undermine the whole process. I recall reading somewhere about juror John Schaefer going out and getting a copy of (the ineligible) Coleman record which in addition to the actual jury’s decision, proves to me that they wanted this album (“composition”) to win the whole time.
I think developing multiple categories is a silly idea too.
I don’t think anyone is upset that Ornette Coleman won the highest award that an American composer can win, however, it doesn’t feel right. Just in recent memory: Corigliano should have one for his first symphony not his second, Adams should have won for Naive and Sentimental Music and not for On the Transmigration of Souls, etc.
Eichler pointed out that everyone’s biggest fear when they shook up the rule process was that the soundtrack to Mission Impossible VII would win…excuse me but why not if it were really the best music? I can think of plenty of deserving scores from the last year, which would have been interesting considerations.
My point is simply that for such a prestigious award, they shouldn’t put a set of rules together only to ignore them. If you want to throw out the rules do so…but while you are at it REALLY throw out all the rules, and give awards to the best piece of music (2 minutes or 2 hours in whatever genre or format….do not stand on tradition and make a false choice, it only berates the tradition and the perceived value of the award.

Reply
DJA

May 1, 2007 at 4:16 pm

But if it is indeed the “spontaneous composition” of four individuals that is being rewarded, should it not be four individuals who are actually named recipients?
I’ve actually had this exact discussion with a few people, and I can definitely see the argument for that. On the other hand, I’m sure you’ll agree that Ornette’s presence as a leader is enormously powerful (probably even determinative) when it comes to shaping the music. Put Greg, Tony, and Denardo with anybody else — Charles Gayle, say — and what those three musicians play would be radically different.
(Well, okay, maybe not Denardo so much, but that’s kind of a special case.)
Would a Pulitzer for a document of a Butch Morris performance belong to Butch, for that matter?
I would say yes, unreservedly. For instance, Burnt Sugar with Butch conducting sounds utterly unlike Burnt Sugar without Butch, even with exactly the same personnel otherwise.

Reply
Dan

May 2, 2007 at 8:43 am

When you bring the improvisation factor into the equation, it does indeed make singling out one prize winner quite a bit more complicated for reasons stated above. If the Pulitzer committee ever wanted to truly take improvisation seriously, then they’d have to seriously consider a group like the Art Ensemble of Chicago winning for a recording, and in that case it would be impossible to single out one winner.
I think the question of conductors is interesting as well, since in the classical realm they certainly receive no prize – only the composition. However, I agree with DJA that in the Butch Morris example he’s undeniably shaping the music in a way that puts him in a leadership role.

Reply