Carlos Chavez is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Carlos Chavez and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the.

. 9 My selection and ordering varies from Hess’s own because I am at pains here to list only the critic22 This is not to say that there are no blind spots in Hess’s narrative. In her quest for sameness she relies on a few critics who find themselves inclined in a felicitous direction for a moment in time. These critics are, roughly in order of appearance, Paul Rosenfeld, Olin Downes, Virgil Thomson, Elliot Carter, Gilbert Chase, Irving Lowens, and John Rockwell.

Hess tells us that these are “critics of the first rank”, (p. 8) and that is precisely the trouble with using them to trace an over-arching narrative about the reception of Latin American composers in the U.S. Most of the critics have musical training, are culturally knowledgeable, are based in New York, and are gainfully employed either as critics or composers; in other words, they have all the markers of that forbidden category in the U.S. Lexicon: class.

It is unclear how this vantage point influences their evaluations, but one suspects that familiarity with European cultural and concert norms, for example, could shape a narrative about cosmopolitanism or universalism. The bias also endangers a frank evaluation of the role of difference in reception; when one examines press material Stokowski prepared for the H.P. Premiere and the results of it made manifest in smaller papers across the U.S., for example, one realizes that there can be quite a distance between what might be understood or preferred amongst the middle-class of smaller towns versus the elite of New York. I suspect, based on this research (which is admittedly limited) that the narrative of sameness to which the critics emphasized in Hess’s text remain dedicated pushes against a larger cultural narrative of difference unexamined in this text.

Evangelion episode 24 download raw anime. (Coverage and accuracy) = Y Passed.

That larger narrative might also explain why studies more concerned with individuals and the shaping of identity see and hear more difference in the same cultural milieu. That is not to say that Hess is obligated to study that larger narrative of difference, or that emphasizing this largely forgotten sameness narrative is somehow invalidated, but that the limitations on the scope of sameness should be explained more carefully in the structure and articulation of her overarching methodology and its expected results.23 In a similar fashion, Hess’s description of an “epistemological chasm” between scholarly texts of the last forty years and music criticism of the previous decades seems to be an overstatement. Some circles at some moments looked for aspects of sameness in certain composers’ works; in their search for sameness, critics were influenced by overt political movements and cultural shifts. As suggested above, part of the trouble is that, although the cultural context she provides absolutely justifies a hypothesis that sameness governed the Good Neighbor discourse where difference occupied the Post-Cold War period discourse, we hear most about a certain class of critics of the Good Neighbor Period and area study musicology scholars of the Post-Cold War period, which is not a balanced comparison.