Music and struggling

[Karl Henning]

Well Nietzsche distinguishes life art and "art of the art works", he doesn't try to declare the latter.

Karl should also have noticed this.

Karl noted that Nietzsche was a creature of his day, not the Prophet.

[jochanaan]

...I have observed that often (usually) when someone mentions struggling (as a bad thing), it is almost always because there were expectations and those expectations were not fulfilled--or that there was desire for something else....Anyway, I think for a listener, acceptance is key. This is what the composer has done. There's nothing you can do about it. Here it is. It does this thing and that thing, and it does them in spite of any tastes or expectations or desires you may bring to any hearing of it. It's just itself. You can accept that or you can reject it. You can't change it. The best way to go into...something new and unfamiliar is to take it as given. There it is. Nothing else matters, certainly not any impertinent expectations or desires....

Excellent observations, very much on point.  And this may be true as much for Rossini or Johann Strauss Jr. (both of whom I have disparaged in these forums) as for Schoenberg or Carter.

[mc ukrneal]

Isn't art about beauty? Would you deny this?

100%. Art is about making us think, seeing the world a different way, suing images/sound/etc. to make a statement about the world, etc. It can also be about beauty. But think back to the artists hundreds of years ago who were painting images of Christ. They were sometimes beautiful, awful, peaceful, sad, etc. I don't think art (and artists particularly) have ever striven to be one thing.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Statements like "Art is meant to"--and especially "Art is above all meant to" --strike me as immediately suspect.

But.....

ART IS MEANT TO BE CREATED!
ART IS MEANT TO EXIST!!!!

A world without it is not a world at all

[Florestan]

"The propagation of music by mechanical means and the broadcasting of music - that represent formidable scientific conquests, which are very likely to spread even more - merit close examination as for their importance and their effects in the domain of music. Of course, the possibility for both authors and performers to reach the masses, and the fact that these masses are able to make themselves acquainted with musical works, represent an unquestionable advantage.  However, it cannot be concealed that this advantage is dangerous at the same time. In the past, someone like Johann-Sebastian Bach had to walk ten leagues in order to hear Buxtehude perform his works. Today, any inhabitant of any country simply has to either turn a knob or play a record in order to listen to the piece of his choice. Well! It is in this very incredible easiness, in this very lack of effort that lies the vice of that so-called progress. In music, more than in any other branch of art, comprehension is only given to those who actively contribute to it. In itself, the massive reception is not enough. The listening of certain combinations of sounds, and the automatic growing accustomed to them does not necessarily involve the fact of hearing and grasping them, for one can listen without hearing, the same way one can watch without seeing. What renders people lazy is their lack of active effort and their developing of a liking for this easiness. People no longer need to move about as Bach had to; the radio spares them the traveling. Neither do they absolutely need to make music themselves and to waste time studying an instrument in order to know the musical literature. The radio and the disc take over. As a result, the active faculties, without which music cannot be assimilated, gradually atrophy among the listeners who no longer train them. This gradual paralysis leads to extremely serious consequences. Overwhelmed with sounds, the most varied combinations of which leave them indifferent, people fall into a sort of mindless state, that deprives them of all ability to judge, and renders them indifferent to the very quality of what they are served. In the near future, such disorganized overfeeding is more than likely to make listeners lose their hunger and their liking for music. Indeed, there will always be some exceptions - some people within the hoard will be able to select what they like. However, concerning the masses, one has all the reasons to fear that instead of generating love for and understanding of music, the modern means involved in spreading music will lead absolutely to opposite results; it is to say, they will lead to indifference, to the inability to recognize them, to be guided by them, and to have any reaction of some value." Igor Stravinsky - "Chronicles of My Life" - 1935

Reactionary* hogwash, a bit surprising coming from one of the fathers of modern music ---but truth be told, when Stravinsky put pen to paper for the purpose of writing anything other than music the reuslt was usually jus that: hogwash. 

* irrational fear of technical progress, especially when it seems to benefit "the masses" or "the hoard", disguised as deep concern for their spiritual condition.

[Henk]

Karl noted that Nietzsche was a creature of his day, not the Prophet.

No, Nietzsche was far ahead of his day. And he changed the world forever.

[Henk]

100%. Art is about making us think, seeing the world a different way, suing images/sound/etc. to make a statement about the world, etc. It can also be about beauty. But think back to the artists hundreds of years ago who were painting images of Christ. They were sometimes beautiful, awful, peaceful, sad, etc. I don't think art (and artists particularly) have ever striven to be one thing.

Well, as we can define the concept "life" in 45 different ways so art. And "beauty" really is a important element in that way. That's the point.

[Henk]

Good ol' pietzsche Nietzsche is the suspect! 

Right!  Who can say what Art is meant to be or do?  From the impulse to create artworks, an impulse going back to the caves apparently, and possibly before, we can deduce a very few things.  For example, not everyone wants to create art, or can.  Not everyone appreciates art in the same way, or at all.

What was the art in the caves, and we can include music here as well, (given the presence of "Neanderthal flutes"), "meant to do" ?  Was it "meant to be" religious, or an aid in telling hunting stories, or _____ (insert your guess)?

For the artists, the reasons for the impulse to create may not be known to them either.  Do they struggle?  Ask to look at Beethoven's sketchbooks and see how he treated his initial inspirations! 

'

You didn't read that aphorism by Nietzsche it seems. Nietzsche writes some very sensible and useful things. Why not appreciate that?? Why not see if you can follow him, and maybe learn from it? You can have some hesitations, but you must take some things he writes with a grain of salt. Otherwise, you only try to put him of a pedestal. That's not very respectful for the great thinker he was!

[Florestan]

Some more Nietzsche:

"THE ART-NEED OF THE SECOND ORDER

The Art-Need of the Second Order.  The people may have something of what can be called art-need, but it is small, and can be cheaply satisfied.  On the whole, the remnant of art (it must be honestly confessed) suffices for this need.  Let us consider, for example, the kind of melodies and songs in which the most vigorous, unspoiled, and true-hearted classes of the population find genuine delight; let us live among shepherds, cowherds, peasants, huntsmen, soldiers, and sailors, and give ourselves the answer.  And in the country town, just in the houses that are the homes of inherited civic virtue, is it not the worst music at present produced that is loved and, one might say, cherished?

Some examples would have been in order here, maybe Henk can help with them. Who were the composers loved and cherished in country towns and in which way their music was worse than the melodies or songs which delighted the soldiers and sailors?

He who speaks of deeper needs and unsatisfied yearnings for art among the people, as it is, is a crank or an impostor. Be honest!  Be honest!  Only in exceptional men is there now an art-need in the highest sense — because art is once more on the down-grade, and human powers and hopes are for the time being directed to other matters.  Apart from this, outside the populace there exists indeed, in the higher and highest strata of society, a broader and more comprehensive art-need, but of the second order.  Here there is a sort of artistic commune, which possibly means to be sincere.  But let us look at the elements!  They are in general the more refined malcontents, who attain no genuine pleasure in themselves; the cultured, who have not become free enough to dispense with the consolations of religion, and yet do not find its incense sufficiently fragrant; the half-aristocratic, who are too weak to combat by a heroic conversion or renunciation the one fundamental error of their lives or the pernicious bent of their characters; the highly gifted, who think themselves too dignified to be of service by modest activity, and are too lazy for real, self-sacrificing work; girls who cannot create for themselves a satisfactory sphere of duties; women who have tied themselves by a light-hearted or nefarious marriage, and know that they are not tied securely enough; scholars, physicians, merchants, officials who specialised too early and never gave their lives a free enough scope — who do their work efficiently, it is true, but with a worm gnawing at their hearts; finally, all imperfect artists — these are nowadays the true needers of art! What do they really desire from art?  Art is to drive away hours and moments of discomfort, boredom, half-bad conscience, and, if possible, transform the faults of their lives and characters into faults of world-destiny.

Spot on, comrade Nietzsche! Down with the false-conscientious bourgeoisie and the decadent aristocracy, up with the most vigorous, unspoiled, and true-hearted classes; power to the shepherds, cowherds, peasants, huntsmen, soldiers, and sailors!

Very different were the Greeks, who realised in their art the outflow and overflow of their own sense of well-being and health, and loved to see their perfection once more from a standpoint outside themselves.  They were led to art by delight in themselves; our contemporaries — by disgust of themselves."

Oh, absolutely. Only the deepest self-disgust could have led Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner, Cesar Franck, Berlioz, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Verdi, Richard Strauss, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin (to name a few of Nietzsche´s contemporaries) to write the music they wrote...

[relm1]

Reactionary* hogwash, a bit surprising coming from one of the fathers of modern music ---but truth be told, when Stravinsky put pen to paper for the purpose of writing anything other than music the reuslt was usually jus that: hogwash. 

* irrational fear of technical progress, especially when it seems to benefit "the masses" or "the hoard", disguised as deep concern for their spiritual condition.

The point was not about technological progress but was about passive listening resulting in less comprehension since music is slow to reveal its secrets and meaning and taking effort to comprehend.  The result being a cycle of dumbing down.

[Henk]

Good ol' pietzsche Nietzsche is the suspect! 

You can have your critisism and hold your own views. But what you say here, makes me deeply hate you. And saying it jokingly makes it only worse, poor Hamish.

The same feeling Schnabel had with the guy dressed in a t-shirt and eating his sandwich not trying to listen to the Beethoven Schnabel performed for him. But maybe even in a higher order. I expressed my view of it some posts ago.

Disgust and angriness I feel for you.

Henk

[Florestan]

The point was not about technological progress but was about passive listening resulting in less comprehension since music is slow to reveal its secrets and meaning and taking effort to comprehend.  The result being a cycle of dumbing down.

This point is moot as well, because, if anything, recorded music enables people to repeatedly listen to a work, thus enhancing the opportunity to penetrate its secrets and meaning. I find the idea that the advent of recorded music set in motion a dumbing down cycle completely out of touch with reality.

Besides, what is meant by "passive listening"? How, and why, is listening to a CD while sitting in one's armchair and having a drink any more passive than sitting stiff and still for two hours in a concert hall?

[Karl Henning]

Disgust and angriness I feel for you.

You're way out of line.  But my feelings are untouched.

[Henk]

Some examples would have been in order here, maybe Henk can help with them.

Let me suffice to quote another aphorism (the aphorism that follows the earlier aphorism AGAINST THE ART OF WORKS OF ART in his book "Human, all too Human", part 2 "Miscellaneous Maxims and Opinions")

Continued Existence of Art.  Why, really, does a creative art nowadays continue to exist?  Because the majority who have hours of leisure (and such an art is for them only) think that they cannot fill Up their time without music, theatres and picture galleries, novels and poetry.  Granted that one could keep them from this indulgence, either they would strive less eagerly for leisure, and the invidious sight of the rich would be less common (a great gain for the stability of society), or they would have leisure, but would learn to reflect on what can be learnt and unlearnt: on their work, for instance, their associations, the pleasure they could bestow.  All the world, with the exception of the artist, would in both cases reap the advantage.  Certainly, there are many vigorous, sensible readers who could take objection to this.  Still, it must be said on behalf of the coarse and malignant that the author himself is concerned with this protest, and that there is in his book much to be read that is not actually written down therein. 

[Henk]

You're way out of line.  But my feelings are untouched.

It's what I feel, Karl.

[Karl Henning]

I haven't contributed to this thread, and I hesitate now...but yes, I struggle with your "Concord Jail"    I will continue the struggle, though, until it becomes struggle-free   


Sarge

I meant to add, too, that I appreciate your telling me of the struggle!

[Henk]

You're way out of line.  But my feelings are untouched.

You seem indeed the bully of these forums as another poster accused you a long time ago. Starting to become fed up with you now really.

It really is not as witty as you may think of yourself.

No sign of kindness since a long time from you. You must hate me..

[Florestan]

Let me suffice to quote another aphorism (the aphorism that follows the earlier aphorism AGAINST THE ART OF WORKS OF ART in his book "Human, all too Human", part 2 "Miscellaneous Maxims and Opinions")

Continued Existence of Art.  Why, really, does a creative art nowadays continue to exist?  Because the majority who have hours of leisure (and such an art is for them only) think that they cannot fill Up their time without music, theatres and picture galleries, novels and poetry.  Granted that one could keep them from this indulgence, either they would strive less eagerly for leisure, and the invidious sight of the rich would be less common (a great gain for the stability of society), or they would have leisure, but would learn to reflect on what can be learnt and unlearnt: on their work, for instance, their associations, the pleasure they could bestow.  All the world, with the exception of the artist, would in both cases reap the advantage.  Certainly, there are many vigorous, sensible readers who could take objection to this.  Still, it must be said on behalf of the coarse and malignant that the author himself is concerned with this protest, and that there is in his book much to be read that is not actually written down therein. 

This doesn't even begin to address my question, which I restate: who were the composers loved and cherished in country towns and in which way their music was worse than the melodies or songs which delighted the soldiers and sailors?

[North Star]

Disgust and angriness I feel for you.

You seem indeed the bully of these forums as another poster accused you a long time ago. Starting to become fed up with you now really.

Yeah, that must be it - people should just accept it when you say they are disgusting, otherwise they are bullies!

[Madiel]

How, and why, is listening to a CD while sitting in one's armchair and having a drink any more passive than sitting stiff and still for two hours in a concert hall?

The great majority of people don't actually put a CD on, sit in an armchair and just listen to it while having a drink. Most people fill that time with other activities. Members of this forum are probably not typical in that they are far more likely to make listening to the music the primary activity.

EDIT: Henk, I haven't paid much attention to the Nietzsche discussion until now, but the only person appearing to a be a bully in the last couple of pages is you, attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you how about how wonderful Nietzsche is. It is not edifying.