A first-rate blog post by ACD :
http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2008/04/on-music-and-gi.html
Can it not be both?
Quote from: bwv 1080 on April 24, 2008, 08:01:30 PM
Can it not be both?
Yes, if you think of music in the broadest sense = combination of tones,
or rather: combination of sounds.
Since I hear in Elliott Carter "a perceptible and coherent musical narrative from beginning to end," I conclude his work is not gibberish but music.
Eric, in your signature, you want the its without any apostrophe.
And . . . do you often sail on the H.M.S. Pimp-a-Blog? Jolly good!
Karl, thanks for pointing out the unnecessary apostrophe.
I find it interesting that two prominent writers/critics have expressed their impatience towards the music of Elliot Carter.... That's all.
Quote from: Operahaven on April 25, 2008, 04:52:55 AM
Karl, thanks for pointing out the unnecessary apostrophe.
I find it interesting that two prominent writers/critics have expressed their impatience towards the music of Elliot Carter.... That's all.
Which two?
Quote from: Operahaven on April 25, 2008, 05:00:13 AM
Justin Davidson and ACDouglas.
Oh. It was the word "prominent" that threw me.
One man's gibberish is another man's music.
End of thread. ;D
QuoteWe don't give a rat's ass about the processes and methods a composer uses to create his works. We insist only that those works be music and not gibberish which is to say we insist on each having a perceptible and coherent musical narrative from beginning to end.
Agreed. ;D
Darn--I had hoped for something other than the usual supercilious mediocrity from Mr. Douglas.
Wasn't familiar with Mr. Davidson. Apparently he writes for New York Magazine, which David Mamet recently referred to as "an open running sore on the body of world literacy...."
A curious note (curious to me, at least) is that I generally agree with Mr. Douglas in a shared preference for tonal music. But that, I pray, is where the similarity ends.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 25, 2008, 05:01:13 AM
Oh. It was the word "prominent" that threw me.
Precisamente.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 25, 2008, 05:01:13 AM
Oh. It was the word "prominent" that threw me.
Yes, of course. But do you mean that Mr. Operahaven's irony is not intentional?
Operahaven, if I wanted to, I could easily find two "prominent critics" who would defend Carter and Perle more eloquently than your two attack them. But what I really want to know is, what do you think? ???
As for me, I am unacquainted with the music of Perle, but I find Carter's music (what I know of it, which I confess isn't much; I have little time now for exploratory listening amid the amount of playing I do) to be fascinating, and to possess a narrative that, while having little to do with conventional notions of coherence, still evokes a desire to know "What Next?" You don't need tonality or a conventional story to evoke a compelling musical or dramatic experience.
It's gibbermusic.
Gibberish music is music without structure; which might imply that there either is none, or that you are not able to discern it. Simple as that. A modicum of modesty is implied in case the last alternative turns out to be the case.
Quote from: erato on April 28, 2008, 10:28:26 AM
Gibberish music is music without structure; which might imply that there either is none, or that you are not able to discern it. Simple as that. A modicum of modesty is implied in case the last alternative turns out to be the case.
Oh, I was just playing around. I've never heard any Carter. Not on purpose anyway.
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 28, 2008, 10:34:34 AM
Oh, I was just playing around. I've never heard any Carter. Not on purpose anyway.
My post wasn't specifically meant for you. But there's a differece between music one doesn't like, or understand, or whatever, and bad music. Just as music you like isn't automatically great music. I like lots of dross. If one dislikes great music, and likes c..p, it's your joy or loss or whatever.
For the amateur, how do you know the difference between not liking something because you don't understand it and not liking something because you just don't like it? I assume if you're, for example, 44 years old :) and have been listening to all kinds of music your whole life, then you have a real good idea what you like and don't like and "understanding" the music won't help a jot.
I don't. Therefore I shut up when faced with music I don't "get". Then I try and try again over the years. Sometimes I experience what I initially missed, at other times; who knows`?
Quote from: erato on April 28, 2008, 10:57:19 AM
I don't. Therefore I shut up when faced with music I don't "get". The I try and try again over the years. Sometimes I experience what I initially missed, at other times; who knows`?
I think you have to trust your own experience and instincts to some extent. Just because a bunch of "professionals" like something that you don't doesn't mean it's any good. :D
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 28, 2008, 11:03:56 AM
I think you have to trust your own experience and instincts to some extent. Just because a bunch of "professionals" like something that you don't doesn't mean it's any good. :D
Just because a bunch of "professionals" like something that I don't doesn't mean it's any good
to me. If someone else likes it I have no problem with that.
The other way round is more problematical.
Quote from: erato on April 28, 2008, 10:28:26 AM
Gibberish music is music without structure; which might imply that there either is none, or that you are not able to discern it. Simple as that. A modicum of modesty is implied in case the last alternative turns out to be the case.
A modicum of modesty is just exactly what you are
not going to find in the
bloggueur under advisement.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 28, 2008, 11:08:39 AM
A modicum of modesty is just exactly what you are not going to find in the bloggueur under advisement.
I know. Thats why I prefer other blogs.
Quote from: erato on April 28, 2008, 11:07:14 AM
Just because a bunch of "professionals" like something that you don't doesn't mean it's any good to me. If someone else likes it I have no problem with that.
The other way round is more problematical.
You have touched the matter keenly. The enormous error the
bloggueur is committing (and an error to which
Eric has been susceptible, so I don't wonder at his feeling a sympathy) is taking one's own dislikes as (a) normative for the whole world at all times, and/or (b) as fixed for all time even in terms of
one's own perception.
Granted that someone who makes the bizarre effort to rig up a whole theory of why this or that composer is "gibberish," tends to become invested in his own rigmarole, and when added to a stubbornness of character, this makes it unlikely that he will permit his ears to change over time. But it is the normal experience, I think, for the appetite to alter -- however that alteration may be complected.
Quote from: erato on April 28, 2008, 11:09:50 AM
I know. Thats why I prefer other blogs.
Hearty agreement there, sir.
Knowing the details about how cleverly a composer manipulated his musical structure won't impress me much if the music still sounds like a trash can rolling down a steep staircase. ;D
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 28, 2008, 11:46:45 AM
a trash can rolling down a steep staircase. ;D
What better metaphor for Eric's aesthetical polemics?
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 28, 2008, 11:46:45 AM
...a trash can rolling down a steep staircase. ;D
Hmmm...an idea for my next composition! Oh, wait--P.D.Q. Bach already beat me to it.*
*See
Grand Serenade for an Awful Lot of Wind Instruments.**
**Better yet, HEAR
Grand Serenade for an Awful Lot of Wind Instruments. ;D (Apologies to Victor Borge.)
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 28, 2008, 11:46:45 AM
trash can rolling down a steep staircase. ;D
Trash cans falling down makes a random sound, known as noise, which per se is without structure. So in that case you would be right.
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 28, 2008, 10:53:20 AM
For the amateur, how do you know the difference between not liking something because you don't understand it and not liking something because you just don't like it?
You can't really. The only way you can tell the former is retroactively: that is, you eventually discover that you like a certain piece of music you disliked before. Otherwise, you can assume the latter. You don't need to justify your dislike for a piece of music. You have the right to dislike music just because you don't like it. But it is a good idea to revisit those pieces you don't like from time to time to see if maybe your understanding has changed.
When I listen to a piece for the first time my brain performs a mental triage and places the piece in one of three categories: 1) I like it. 2) I don't like it. 3) I might like this in the future. I know my tastes pretty well now. Pieces that I assign to category 2 rarely find their way into either of the others. I dive into category 1 pieces like a child into candy. Category 3 pieces are often the most satisfying when I finally reach the point where they click.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on April 28, 2008, 12:55:21 PM
You can't really. The only way you can tell the former is retroactively: that is, you eventually discover that you like a certain piece of music you disliked before. Otherwise, you can assume the latter. You don't need to justify your dislike for a piece of music. You have the right to dislike music just because you don't like it. But it is a good idea to revisit those pieces you don't like from time to time to see if maybe your understanding has changed.
When I listen to a piece for the first time my brain performs a mental triage and places the piece in one of three categories: 1) I like it. 2) I don't like it. 3) I might like this in the future. I know my tastes pretty well now. Pieces that I assign to category 2 rarely find their way into either of the others. I dive into category 1 pieces like a child into candy. Category 3 pieces are often the most satisfying when I finally reach the point where they click.
That makes a whole lot of sense, Mark. I think there are some things I should quit trying to like. ;D
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 28, 2008, 11:46:45 AM
Knowing the details about how cleverly a composer manipulated his musical structure won't impress me much if the music still sounds like a trash can rolling down a steep staircase.
Well, but (to address the content
sans smiley) even if you read a description of Japanese grammar, the first time you listen to someone speaking Japanese, your ear and what you've read of the syntax are not going to match perfectly, either.
Nonetheless, many will attest to the coherence of the grammar.
Listening involves developing skills; demanding that all music just queue up to our already-formed listening toolbox is . . . well, what is the suitable adjective? 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 28, 2008, 01:15:53 PM
Listening involves developing skills; demanding that all music just queue up to our already-formed listening toolbox is . . . well, what is the suitable adjective? 8)
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/funny-pictures-mad-skillz-dj.jpg)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 28, 2008, 01:15:53 PM
Well, but (to address the content sans smiley) even if you read a description of Japanese grammar, the first time you listen to someone speaking Japanese, your ear and what you've read of the syntax are not going to match perfectly, either.
Nonetheless, many will attest to the coherence of the grammar.
"Music is the universal language of mankind." -- Longfellow
So, either you understand it or you don't, right?
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 28, 2008, 01:32:35 PM
"Music is the universal language of mankind." -- Longfellow
So, either you understand it or you don't, right?
So, say, Brahm's 3rd Violin Sonata is the "universal language of mankind"? Its language accessible to someone with no experience of Western Classical Music?
How come people used to joke that the Orchestras should post signs on the doors "Exit in case of Brahms"?
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 28, 2008, 01:32:35 PM
"Music is the universal language of mankind." -- Longfellow
So, either you understand it or you don't, right?
No. Think Mark Simon's point 3.
As an undergrad in a poetry class long ago taught by a fairly distinguished poet (Louis Simpson), a student raised her hand at one point and said: "Well, I read the poem but . . . " - at which point Simpson cut her off and said: "No. You can never say you've read a poem. You can say only you're at a certain point in your reading of a poem." Substitute "music" for "poem" and "understand" for "read," and I think you'll see my point.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 28, 2008, 02:10:33 PM
No. Think Mark Simon's point 3.
As an undergrad in a poetry class long ago taught by a fairly distinguished poet (Louis Simpson), a student raised her hand at one point and said: "Well, I read the poem but . . . " - at which point Simpson cut her off and said: "No. You can never say you've read a poem. You can say only you're at a certain point in your reading of a poem." Substitute "music" for "poem" and "understand" for "read," and I think you'll see my point.
We've read your post ..........
Quote from: Dm on April 28, 2008, 02:53:54 PM
We've read your post ..........
Yes, but mere posts don't count.
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 25, 2008, 05:21:31 AM
Yes, of course. But do you mean that Mr. Operahaven's irony is not intentional?
I would never accuse Mr. Operahaven of intentional irony of any kind. However, I'd like to respond to this remark by "ACD":
QuoteFor however harmonically outrageous or disregarding of received or established form [Mozart's or Beethoven's] mature works might have gratingly struck contemporary ears, no-one — except his rhetoric get the better of his common sense, or he be literally tone deaf — could have accused either composer of composing works absent a perceptible and coherent musical narrative.
But in fact, the charge of "incoherence" is precisely what was levelled at Beethoven's music by some of his contemporaries. As a poster at rmcr stated:
QuoteAfter all, we've come a long way since the day when Berlioz wondered if there was something wrong with his ears because the C# minor quartet left him trembling with emotion when he heard it performed in Paris while most people in the audience regarded it as the incoherent ravings of a deaf old lunatic.
Berlioz himself wrote of the Beethoven symphonies:
QuoteSome thirty six or seven years ago, Beethoven's works, which at the time were completely unknown in France, were tried out at the Opéra's concerts spirituels. Today it would be hard to believe the storm of criticism from the majority of musicians that greeted this wonderful music. It was described as bizarre, incoherent, diffuse, bristling with harsh modulations and wild harmonies, bereft of melody, over the top, too noisy, and horribly difficult to play.
http://www.hberlioz.com/Predecessors/beethsym.htm
Il y a trente-six ou trente-sept ans qu'on fit, aux concerts spirituels de l'Opéra, l'essai des œuvres de Beethoven, alors parfaitement inconnues en France. On ne croirait pas aujourd'hui de quelle réprobation fut frappée immédiatement cette admirable musique par la plupart des artistes. C'était bizarre, incohérent, diffus, hérissé de modulations dures, d'harmonies sauvages, dépourvu de mélodie, d'une expression outrée, trop bruyant, et d'une difficulté horrible.
And I haven't even looked for contemporary comments on the Great Fugue. Weber was one who considered Beethoven's music chaotic. Of the 4th symphony, Weber "wrote a scathing allegorical review - a dream in which the instruments of the orchestra complain about the treatment they suffered in this new symphony. The manager of the theater threatens them with the prospect of playing Beethoven's "Eroica" Symphony (No. 3) if they will not be quiet; he then describes a new symphony full of
unconnected ideas and furious effects. "At this point I woke in a dreadful fright," Weber wrote, "lest I was on the road to become either a great composer - or a lunatic."
http://www.hollywoodbowl.com/music/piece_detail.cfm?id=95
Of the introduction to this symphony, Weber wrote: "Every quarter of an hour one hears three or four notes," as if he were talking about the distinguished successor 120 years later whose name adds an "n" at the end of his own. And for Weber, the 7th symphony proved Beethoven was "ripe for the madhouse."
Obviously, saying Beethoven was incoherent to his contemporaries proves nothing about the coherence of Elliott Carter. But since ACD states with considerable confidence that the music of Beethoven and Mozart (who was also considered difficult, prolix, overly generous with his ideas) was never thought of as incoherent, his scholarship on the matter appears somewhat questionable.
Well, now I look once again at ACD's blog, where an update has been issued stating he was referring "NOT to Carter's music specifically with which music, as we've above noted, we're only glancingly familiar and, further, from that glancing exposure concluded that what we heard was indeed genuine music and NOT gibberish."
Whatever. So now we can all rest easy knowing Elliott Carter writes genuine music and NOT gibberish. And now Operhaven's statement that he finds "it interesting that two prominent writers/critics have expressed their impatience towards the music of Elliot Carter.... That's all" must be modified, since now only one such critic . . . . you get the idea.
Mozart and Beethoven's music may have been called incoherent by some, but it was also immediately (or soon after) popular (with obvious exceptions).
I'd like to know - if a work is completely atonal, and has no audible structure, how do you tell if it's good or bad?
Quote from: eyeresist on April 28, 2008, 10:35:38 PM
Mozart and Beethoven's music may have been called incoherent by some, but it was also immediately (or soon after) popular (with obvious exceptions).
It wasn't until the 20th century that the late music of Beethoven assumed the popularity it now has. Performances of the late quartets were few and far between in the 19th century.
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 28, 2008, 01:32:35 PM
"Music is the universal language of mankind." -- Longfellow
So, either you understand it or you don't, right?
Longfellow was being poetical rather than . . . quite sensible 8)
Quote from: eyeresist on April 28, 2008, 10:35:38 PM
I'd like to know - if a work is completely atonal, and has no audible structure, how do you tell if it's good or bad?
These are two different issues, of course. It may take time to deduce a work's structure or lack thereof, so one should proceed with caution before levelling such a charge. Many pieces in the last 50 years have been composed according to schemes which can never be heard by a listener, but there may be larger, more basic organizational principles at work which can be heard. Carter's music is always very clear in this regard. There may not be themes, but there are gestural types, similar and recognizable types of figures which keep coming back, and which function like themes. Carter generally leads his music up to a definite climax shortly before the end on his larger pieces.
There is some music where I truly cannot hear any structure. I have no interest in such music, but others seem satisfied to listen from moment to moment.
Quote from: eyeresist on April 28, 2008, 10:35:38 PM
I'd like to know - if a work is completely atonal, and has no audible structure, how do you tell if it's good or bad?
"It's good" means "I like it" (or "I recommend it"). "It's bad" means "I don't like it" (or "I don't recommend it"). All the other gibberish is just rationalization.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 28, 2008, 02:10:33 PM
You can never say you've read a poem. You can say only you're at a certain point in your reading of a poem.
Thanks for sharing this. It's a wonderful lesson in humility, without which idiots like ACD mistake their superficial reactions for profound understanding.
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 29, 2008, 05:48:22 AM
Thanks for sharing this. It's a wonderful lesson in humility, without which idiots like ACD mistake their superficial reactions for profound understanding.
I think we should stop comparing music to words.
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 29, 2008, 05:50:00 AM
I think we should stop comparing music to words.
Thank you for the pertinent reminder that music is not bound to the same organizational principles that words are (which is another reason the "Objection by Non-Narrative" is a non-starter).
Quote from: MN Brahms on April 29, 2008, 05:50:00 AM
I think we should stop comparing music to words.
No, the analogy I stated works very well and applies to any art form - music, art, dance, literature. You can never say you've thoroughly heard or understood or grasped any piece of music, because your hearing of the piece is always shaped by your experiences in hearing the piece multiple times (perhaps in multiple performances), by your hearing of other music, by the conversations you have on this board and in real life with other people, etc. These things are always fluid and have the potential for growth. The danger is in taking a rigid or intransigent attitude towards any piece of music and saying, often on the basis of a snap judgment, that "I've made up my mind, and nothing is going to change it!"
Quote from: karlhenning on April 29, 2008, 06:07:42 AM
Thank you for the pertinent reminder that music is not bound to the same organizational principles that words are (which is another reason the "Objection by Non-Narrative" is a non-starter).
It doesn't have to be for my analogy to work.
Quote from: Sforzando on April 29, 2008, 06:44:03 AM
It doesn't have to be for my analogy to work.
The poem bit? Quite right. The instructor's interruption ("No, you're always still reading the poem") is a little poetical (and why not?) but the notion that our relation to any great work of art is a process, not a fixed point, is well taken.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 29, 2008, 06:51:01 AM
The poem bit? Quite right. The instructor's interruption ("No, you're always still reading the poem") is a little poetical (and why not?) but the notion that our relation to any great work of art is a process, not a fixed point, is well taken.
Yep.
Obviously, different music is created for different reasons. And obviously, Carter wasn't pissing into the void when he wrote his works. He created music for a certain audience (himself? and others like him) and he found that audience--obviously, whether you or I like it or not. So, no, it's not gibberish.
From a different corner of the musical world . . . comments made to Martin Williams in
The Jazz Review:
Quote from: Eric DolphyI think of my playing as tonal. I play notes that would not ordinarily be said to be in a given key, but I hear them as proper. I don't think I leave the changes; every note I play has some reference to the chords of the piece. And I try to get the instrument to more or less speak.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 29, 2008, 07:48:47 AM
From a different corner of the musical world . . . comments made to Martin Williams in The Jazz Review:
And Dolphy, along with his colleagues Miles Davis, John Coltrane and others, was accused many times of playing nothing but chaos. :o
Quote from: eyeresist on April 28, 2008, 10:35:38 PM
I'd like to know - if a work is completely atonal, and has no audible structure, how do you tell if it's good or bad?
The structure may be inaudible at first hearing... :)
Quote from: jochanaan on April 28, 2008, 09:56:48 AM
Operahaven, if I wanted to, I could easily find two "prominent critics" who would defend Carter and Perle more eloquently than your two attack them. But what I really want to know is, what do you think? ???
As for me, I am unacquainted with the music of Perle, but I find Carter's music (what I know of it, which I confess isn't much; I have little time now for exploratory listening amid the amount of playing I do) to be fascinating, and to possess a narrative that, while having little to do with conventional notions of coherence, still evokes a desire to know "What Next?" You don't need tonality or a conventional story to evoke a compelling musical or dramatic experience.
Jochanan,
As I see it art music is basically tonality. Without it there are only formal considerations for aesthetics to work with. It's a bit complex, but at the end that's about it I'm afraid.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on April 28, 2008, 12:55:21 PM
You can't really. The only way you can tell the former is retroactively: that is, you eventually discover that you like a certain piece of music you disliked before. Otherwise, you can assume the latter. You don't need to justify your dislike for a piece of music. You have the right to dislike music just because you don't like it. But it is a good idea to revisit those pieces you don't like from time to time to see if maybe your understanding has changed.
When I listen to a piece for the first time my brain performs a mental triage and places the piece in one of three categories: 1) I like it. 2) I don't like it. 3) I might like this in the future. I know my tastes pretty well now. Pieces that I assign to category 2 rarely find their way into either of the others. I dive into category 1 pieces like a child into candy. Category 3 pieces are often the most satisfying when I finally reach the point where they click.
Right now, listening to Pli Selon Pli, it's more or less 3 for me. Music that simply requires lots of relistening..... but i am enjoying it a lot more than the first few times, at least.....
Quote from: jochanaan on April 29, 2008, 03:47:11 PM
:oThe structure may be inaudible at first hearing... :)
exactly, there really isn't a such thing as structurelessness..... you can divide music up any way you like.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 29, 2008, 07:48:47 AM
From a different corner of the musical world . . . comments made to Martin Williams in The Jazz Review:
Quote from: Eric DolphyI think of my playing as tonal. I play notes that would not ordinarily be said to be in a given key, but I hear them as proper. I don't think I leave the changes; every note I play has some reference to the chords of the piece. And I try to get the instrument to more or less speak.
This speaks to my own experience exploring jazz recordings: the beboppers would play the tune through straight, the first time, allowing listeners to understand what the later improvisations were based on. But when progressive jazz dumped the run-through, the music became mostly inaccessible to anyone who didn't know the original material, because they couldn't understand where the notes were derived from. Of course, this helped with jazz's aspiration to be taken seriously in the academy..
Is this a thread, or is it gibberish?
Quote from: Dm on April 30, 2008, 07:28:52 PM
Is this a thread, or is it gibberish?
beehives
Quote from: Dm on April 30, 2008, 07:50:18 PM
Elgar
no-legged Poju/Elgar chimera monster.
I win.
Quote from: Operahaven on April 30, 2008, 01:20:31 PM
Jochanan,
As I see it art music is basically tonality. Without it there are only formal considerations for aesthetics to work with. It's a bit complex, but at the end that's about it I'm afraid.
So you would not call non-tonal music "art music"? What about modal music such as European music from the Medieval or Renaissance period, or Asian or Native American or other world musics?
The trouble with this is that there is no sharp break between "tonal" and "atonal." Even in Mozart you can find considerable dissonance (for example, the second movement of Piano Concerto #21), and as far back as Chopin there is music that strays distressingly far from standard tonality, as I and others have detailed. So where do you draw the lines? ???
Much of Debussy is atonal. Triadic harmony ≠ tonality.
Quote from: Corey on April 30, 2008, 09:21:49 PM
Much of Debussy is atonal. Triadic harmony ≠ tonality.
IIRC Eric admits that he dislikes Debussy's later directions, and much of his music :D
Quote from: jochanaan on April 30, 2008, 08:23:19 PM
So you would not call non-tonal music "art music"? What about modal music such as European music from the Medieval or Renaissance period, or Asian or Native American or other world musics?
The trouble with this is that there is no sharp break between "tonal" and "atonal." Even in Mozart you can find considerable dissonance (for example, the second movement of Piano Concerto #21), and as far back as Chopin there is music that strays distressingly far from standard tonality, as I and others have detailed. So where do you draw the lines? ???
I agree. Whatever nonsense is there in insisting art = tonal?
Quote from: Lethe on April 30, 2008, 11:34:56 PM
IIRC Eric admits that he dislikes Debussy's later directions, and much of his music :D
Ha! ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on April 30, 2008, 08:23:19 PM
So you would not call non-tonal music "art music"? What about modal music such as European music from the Medieval or Renaissance period, or Asian or Native American or other world musics?
The trouble with this is that there is no sharp break between "tonal" and "atonal." Even in Mozart you can find considerable dissonance (for example, the second movement of Piano Concerto #21), and as far back as Chopin there is music that strays distressingly far from standard tonality, as I and others have detailed. So where do you draw the lines? ???
Mozart is often dissonant, but always within a tonal context. (Even the famous "12-tone sequence" at the start of the development in K550, mvt 4, is basically a sequence of diminished seventh chords.) And I don't know about "distressingly," but I would agree that the Chopin A minor prelude certainly pushes tonality pretty far. One of my teachers used to play a 2-bar atonal-sounding passage out of context for us to identify - Schoenberg? no, it was from the Chopin F# major Impromptu.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 01, 2008, 05:27:48 AM
...And I don't know about "distressingly,"...
"Distressing" only to those who insist that great music is always tonal. ;D
And we can always append a tangential Is any music really atonal? discussion 8)
I think it says something about the music that we still have to have these arguments.
Quote from: MN Brahms on May 01, 2008, 08:31:05 AM
I think it says something about the music that we still have to have these arguments.
We don't
have to, but what does it say?
Quote from: Sforzando on May 01, 2008, 10:23:31 AM
We don't have to, but what does it say?
That it's still controversial?
Quote from: Lethe on April 30, 2008, 11:34:56 PMIIRC Eric admits that he dislikes Debussy's later directions, and much of his music :D
Exactly right Lethe.
I truly dislike his later works i.e. the books of piano Preludes, Etudes and especially
Jeux.
Why?
Because they are not sensual to my ears.... Because I do not hear romanticism in this music.
For me, Music is the romantic art; and it follows that the greatest music has been, is, and always will be, romantic... Passion, emotion and sentiment, it is in the expression of these things that music is supreme I believe.
This is what I find in abundance in his early String quartet in G-minor opus 10,
Prelude To The Afternoon of A Faun,
Pelleas et Melisande and
La Mer.
Quote from: jochanaan on April 30, 2008, 08:23:19 PM
So you would not call non-tonal music "art music"? What about modal music such as European music from the Medieval or Renaissance period, or Asian or Native American or other world musics?
The trouble with this is that there is no sharp break between "tonal" and "atonal." Even in Mozart you can find considerable dissonance (for example, the second movement of Piano Concerto #21), and as far back as Chopin there is music that strays distressingly far from standard tonality, as I and others have detailed. So where do you draw the lines? ???
We can't really call modal music "atonal", can we?
In Mozart and Chopin, apparent atonality is, I would argue, used for an effect that derives partly from
contrast with tonality. This contrasting effect vanishes from purely atonal music.
BTW, I finally heard some Carter (if Amazon samples count!). I didn't find it at all horrific or disturbing, but I did find it very dull. This may be in part because I didn't understand what I was hearing.
Quote from: Corey on April 30, 2008, 09:21:49 PM
Much of Debussy is atonal. Triadic harmony ≠ tonality.
harmony ≠ tonality ???
Quote from: eyeresist on May 01, 2008, 06:36:22 PM
We can't really call modal music "atonal", can we?
I prefer to say "pre-tonal." The musical language of the Renaissance has many tonal features, but it lacks some of the essential elements of fully developed tonality - such as modulation and fully functional harmony based on the circle of fifths.
Quote from: Operahaven on May 01, 2008, 06:28:42 PM
I truly dislike his later works i.e. the books of piano Preludes, Etudes and especially Jeux.
Why?
Because they are not sensual to my ears.... Because I do not hear romanticism in this music.
Many of us truly like those works,
Eric, and do in fact hear aspects of Romanticism in them. Even (or especially) in
Debussy, you don't have this clean hermetic break from "stuff with Romanticism" and "stuff from which Romanticism is entirely absent."
As to "sensual," that's a moving target. In a broad sense, since obviously we receive music via the sense of hearing, all music is
sensual.
Quote from: eyeresist on May 01, 2008, 06:36:22 PM
harmony ≠ tonality ???
I was attempting to highlight the error inherent in Operahaven's reasoning that all great art is tonal, assuming that he liked Debussy's later output, but as Lethe pointed out (and Operahaven himself has verified) that isn't the case. That said, I'm still not sure what you're confused about.
Doh! (Ouch!)
I didn't know Operahaven's "secret identity." That explains everything. Forget reasoning, Corey. Consider the gulf between rationality and rationalization.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 02, 2008, 05:20:58 AM
Consider the gulf between rationality and rationalization.
Elegant in its simplicity, surgical in its accuracy.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 02, 2008, 05:20:58 AM
Doh! (Ouch!)
I didn't know Operahaven's "secret identity." That explains everything. Forget reasoning, Corey. Consider the gulf between rationality and rationalization.
Well I always trust people to be rational until they prove to be otherwise (and usually they do 8)).
Quote from: Operahaven on May 01, 2008, 06:28:42 PM
Exactly right Lethe.
I truly dislike his later works i.e. the books of piano Preludes, Etudes and especially Jeux.
Why?
Because they are not sensual to my ears.... Because I do not hear romanticism in this music.
For me, Music is the romantic art; and it follows that the greatest music has been, is, and always will be, romantic... Passion, emotion and sentiment, it is in the expression of these things that music is supreme I believe.
This is what I find in abundance in his early String quartet in G-minor opus 10, Prelude To The Afternoon of A Faun, Pelleas et Melisande and La Mer.
A fair enough set of statements. But can you accept that many of us find sensual enjoyment in non-Romantic music? I, for example, hear great sensuality in the music of Edgard Varèse. (And I think I've shown great restraint in not bringing his name into the discussion before now. ;D) True, it's a sharper sensuality than that in, say,
Prélude à l'Après-Midi d'un Faune, but it's still very sensual to me.
What could be more sensual than a good string quartet by Uncle Milty Babbitt?
That sounds faintly creepy..... :o
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 02, 2008, 10:36:33 AM
That sounds faintly creepy..... :o
It was intended to be.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 02, 2008, 10:32:31 AM
What could be more sensual than a good string quartet by Uncle Milty Babbitt?
Are you talking about this gentleman ?
(http://www.schirmer.com/images/composer/large/babbitt-m.jpg)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 02, 2008, 04:14:59 AMMany of us truly like those works, Eric, and do in fact hear aspects of Romanticism in them.
I don't doubt that for a moment Karl... But I don't like it when the "experts" say that
Jeux is Debussy's greatest orchestral masterpiece just because it is one of the most "advanced" in its harmonic language.
La Mer is much, much better in my opinion.
Quote from: Operahaven on May 02, 2008, 06:36:55 PM
But I don't like it when the "experts" say that Jeux is Debussy's greatest orchestral masterpiece just because it is one of the most "advanced" in its harmonic language.
Bit of a strawman,
Eric. That is scarcely the sole (or primary) reason why we expert guys rate
Jeux very highly.
Though there's no reason why you should not be entitled to like
La mer better, of course.
It figures, my favorite Debussy is En Blanc et Noir. :)
Quote from: Operahaven on May 02, 2008, 06:36:55 PM
I don't doubt that for a moment Karl... But I don't like it when the "experts" say that Jeux is Debussy's greatest orchestral masterpiece just because it is one of the most "advanced" in its harmonic language.
La Mer is much, much better in my opinion.
It's completely fair to prefer La Mer to Jeux, or just to feel that it is 'better', or both. But (accepting for the sake of argument your rather simplistic description of the situation) the 'experts' are working differently to you here - they recognise that in the end, whether one person prefers LM to J or vice versa doesn't really matter, and doesn't tell us much of use about anything, however important it may be to the individual person (and without denigrating the latter either). What they are doing in saying J represents Debussy at his most advanced is using a kind of quantitative, measurable method to appraise the music - to say that, regardless of matters of personal taste, J can be demonstrated to be Debussy's most advanced orchestral score in certain directions (harmonically, orchestrally...). Whether that makes it 'better' is then a matter of whether one prioritises these directions as signifying quality. But I doubt, btw, and as Karl suggests, that any 'expert' makes a judgment quite that bald.
I know that this analytical method is anathema to you, but it remains the only way to say anything more about music than simply 'I just
feel x is better than y'. Contrary to Sean, who feels that academics rarely actually
love music, I'd suggest that their eagerness to penetrate into the secrets of a work, to go beyond simply enjoying the sound and to try to understand it on every level - I'd suggest that this implies a deep longing to 'possess' the piece as much as possible. And thus - I'm merely trying to pre-empt here - to try to split the critical audience for, say, Debussy into those who tear his music to pieces but aren't really music-lovers, and those who really understand the music because they love its sensuous surface - I'd say that doesn't hold water at all.
Quoteto go beyond simply enjoying the sound and to try to understand it on every level
Well, it's more a case of never enjoying the sound, to put it that way, and just going straight to analysis- because their brains aren't wired up for anything more sophisticated than rational dissection, and thus often completely missing the point of a work and making howling misjudgements with straight faces.
Jeux is a ravishingly sophisticated masterpiece, though does indeed fall short of the 'simpler'
La mer in artistic terms.
Quote from: Sean on May 02, 2008, 11:57:21 PM
Well, it's more a case of never enjoying the sound, to put it that way, and just going straight to analysis- because their brains aren't wired up for anything more sophisticated than rational dissection, and thus often completely missing the point of a work and making howling misjudgements with straight faces.
I'll simply say, once again - this doesn't match a single musical academic I've ever met, all of whom were totally in love with the music they devoted their lives to (hence the willingness to endure penury etc.). I think you've just been unlucky.
Okay, though I do find this an odd comment of yours to read. I hope you're serious, and perhaps we can think through it a little more next time.
Why odd? It's nothing different to the way I've answered this accusation of yours before. I don't think we should be surprised that people who dedicate their lives to analysing music, often for very little reward, actually rather like that music. I nearly follwed that path myself, re Janacek - and I dare you to suggest that I don't love every note of his music! To suggest sweepingly that no academics actually have a feeling for the music they work with actually seems to me hugely unfair and monstrously dismissive and disrespectful. At the same time, it's a rather clicheed, anti-academic view ('they're all out of touch with the real world' ::)) which I must say is rather a conventional for one such as you, Sean. ;)
My best friend is a musical academic. He has written a book about pitch-class set theory (Milton Babbitt figuring heavily), which will be published later this year in the US. I can vouch for his deep love of music - it's the reason we have been friends for almost 30 years...
Quote from: Sean on May 02, 2008, 11:57:21 PM
Well, it's more a case of never enjoying the sound, to put it that way, and just going straight to analysis- because their brains aren't wired up for anything more sophisticated than rational dissection, and thus often completely missing the point of a work and making howling misjudgements with straight faces.
I love it when pots call kettles black. You really think you can speak for the brains of thousands of academics, Sean? Talk about howling misjudgements.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 02, 2008, 11:50:15 PM
I know that this analytical method is anathema to you
Luke,
It's not just anathema to me, it's anathema to the great Frederick Delius.
He adored
Pelleas,
Faun and
La Mer but he remained thoroughly unimpressed by the piano music and all of the later works in which he claimed that Debussy had degenerated into a mannerist.
Delius was right.
Quote from: Operahaven on May 03, 2008, 03:50:40 AM
Luke,
It's not just anathema to me, it's anathema to the great Frederick Delius.
So what?
This thread is now moving dangerously towards gibberish instead of music. It's nearly enema to me. ;D
Quote from: Corey on May 02, 2008, 05:32:19 AM
Well I always trust people to be rational until they prove to be otherwise (and usually they do 8)).
That was one of the hardest life adjustments for me to make, Corey. When young I was an intellectual and proud of it. I thought everyone wanted to behave rationally but some just had faulty data or bad mental wiring. Life experience falsified this premise...and PDQ!
There have been some amusing comments in this thread, but still I suggest it be retitled: "Is it thoughtful analysis based on sound reasoning regarding all the relevant data, or is it pompous BS spewed by narcissistic halfwits who think they're effin' geniuses?"
Quote from: Sean on May 03, 2008, 12:08:27 AM
Okay, though I do find this an odd comment of yours to read. I hope you're serious, and perhaps we can think through it a little more next time.
You can start,
Sean, by thinking through what evaluative choices with which you're front-loading opinion (and it
is opinion,
Sean, not Universal Truth) that "
Jeux . . . [falls] short of the 'simpler'
La mer in artistic terms.
Quote from: Operahaven on May 03, 2008, 03:50:40 AM
. . . the great Frederick Delius.
Great heavens, but I think even
Delius-fans will forgive me for finding this one of the out-of-the-wild-blue funniest phrases I've read here in a while.
Of course, in
Eric-speak,
Delius's 'greatness' derives from his love for
Pelléas . . . .
;D
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 03, 2008, 05:03:21 AM
There have been some amusing comments in this thread, but still I suggest it be retitled: "Is it thoughtful analysis based on sound reasoning regarding all the relevant data, or is it pompous BS spewed by narcissistic halfwits who think they're effin' geniuses?"
An excellent suggestion! $:)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 03, 2008, 06:52:16 AM
Great heavens, but I think even Delius-fans will forgive me for finding this one of the out-of-the-wild-blue funniest phrases I've read here in a while.
Of course, in Eric-speak, Delius's 'greatness' derives from his love for Pelléas . . . .
;D
As a Delius-fan I forgive you, Karl... ;)
Yes, Delius had an intense hatred of academicism, but he could only rely on his musical
instinct as masterly as he did because of his
learning. Every artist has to have both, as the art of composing, writing, painting et cetera by definition isn't
natural but a skill you acquire and develop and hone throughout your life. Relying solely on instinct is the only requirement, perhaps, for art-
consumers - and even then they are limiting themselves -, but spells almost certain death for art-
producers (even
naive artists must know the basics).
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 02, 2008, 11:50:15 PM
I know that this analytical method is anathema to you, but it remains the only way to say anything more about music than simply 'I just feel x is better than y'. Contrary to Sean, who feels that academics rarely actually love music, I'd suggest that their eagerness to penetrate into the secrets of a work, to go beyond simply enjoying the sound and to try to understand it on every level - I'd suggest that this implies a deep longing to 'possess' the piece as much as possible. And thus - I'm merely trying to pre-empt here - to try to split the critical audience for, say, Debussy into those who tear his music to pieces but aren't really music-lovers, and those who really understand the music because they love its sensuous surface - I'd say that doesn't hold water at all.
But Luke, is music's coy retreat from the powers of ratiocination really to be punished by pelting it with terms like phonology, semiotics, semantics, syntax, pragmatics and metaphor?... Do those academics tell us anything about music or only something about the rational mind's flawed apprehension of it?
Speaking from personal experience, reading the analyses of others has often revealed things in the music that have only enhanced my appreciation of its beauty, Eric. You make the mistake of assuming that what you can hear is all that there is to hear, and that if you don't hear it immediately it isn't really worth bothering about. Whereas in fact others who have looked deeper into the music can bring back from their explorations all sorts of things which you were not aware of before, but which only make the music appear more beautiful.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 03, 2008, 10:25:56 AM
Speaking from personal experience, reading the analyses of others has often revealed things in the music that have only enhanced my appreciation of its beauty, Eric. You make the mistake of assuming that what you can hear is all that there is to hear, and that if you don't hear it immediately it isn't really worth bothering about. Whereas in fact others who have looked deeper into the music can bring back from their explorations all sorts of things which you were not aware of before, but which only make the music appear more beautiful.
Yes, that's right. That has been my experience, too. The music you like has been loved and thought about by other people before you were even born. It's fascinating to see what the most perceptive among them have made of it. I have profited enormously by reading - to name but a few - Charles Rosen, Donald Mitchell, Carl Dahlhaus, Malcolm MacDonald, David Fanning, but also very literate composers like Schumann, Berlioz, Wagner, Stravinsky... And this Forum, too, can boast a few people whose judgment I value very much.
...and, not to put words in Johan's mouth, but in my case, at any rate, that is why I come here - curiosity about music, desire to learn more, to hear of the experiences and views of others, all in the cause of enjoying it more for myself and also, through sharing my own ideas, in the hope of leading others in directions which they may enjoy. (All in all, then, I come here for positive reasons rooted in my love of music.)
OTOH, one wonders why someone like you, Eric, who is convinced that nothing can or should really be said about music beyond the music itself, and who in any case is satisfied that they ave discovered all that they will ever enjoy - one wonders what appeal a forum like this has for such a person. (And one is left to conclude that the appeal is only the negative one of attacking the music and the ways of approaching music that give others joy.)
Quote from: Operahaven on May 03, 2008, 09:10:19 AM
Do those academics tell us anything about music ?
Yes.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 03, 2008, 03:20:30 PM
Yes.
Certainly academics have told me much, much, much more about music than has
Eric's whingeing.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 03, 2008, 03:20:30 PM
Yes.
They don't.
Music is terrifyingly simple, something the inquiring intellectual has a hard time dealing with. Its effects can be profound and lasting, but its processes render the word ''meaning'' meaningless. Music bypasses reason..... And on another level the idea of the explanation and understanding of a piece of music in terms of its social and cultural context at the time the music was written has always seemed to me an enterprise perverse in the extreme in terms of interpretive understanding and performance; an idea inimical to the very music itself. Any music that lives beyond its time of creation will say and mean different things to succeeding generations and eras (which, in fact, is precisely what enables it to live beyond its time of creation), and attempting to fix what it has to say and means in terms of the social and cultural context of the time of its composition is not only thoroughly wrongheaded and potentially destructive but lethally contrary to a true and meaningful understanding of the music itself qua music.
Quote from: Operahaven on May 03, 2008, 03:52:45 PM
Music is terrifyingly simple, something the inquiring intellectual has a hard time dealing with. Its effects can be profound and lasting, but its processes render the word ''meaning'' meaningless. Music bypasses reason..... And on another level the idea of the explanation and understanding of a piece of music in terms of its social and cultural context at the time the music was written has always seemed to me an enterprise perverse in the extreme in terms of interpretive understanding and performance; an idea inimical to the very music itself. Any music that lives beyond its time of creation will say and mean different things to succeeding generations and eras (which, in fact, is precisely what enables it to live beyond its time of creation), and attempting to fix what it has to say and means in terms of the social and cultural context of the time of its composition is not only thoroughly wrongheaded and potentially destructive but lethally contrary to a true and meaningful understanding of the music itself qua music.
Since these are not your words you think you might credit the author, Pink?
I apologize.
The are the words of ACD.
Quote from: Operahaven on May 03, 2008, 04:52:25 PM
I apologize.
The are the words of ACD.
Oh.
ACD. Then it must be true.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 03, 2008, 05:13:54 PM
Oh. ACD. Then it must be true.
ACD is correct on this issue.
Quote from: Operahaven on May 03, 2008, 04:52:25 PM
I apologize.
The are the words of ACD.
Good, that's one step.
Next up: it's also true you've taken this snippet completely out of context.
Here's the entire article (http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2006/02/music_as_sociol.html) which of course gives the full story. The last line is of
particular import...
Quote from: Operahaven on May 03, 2008, 05:16:02 PM
ACD is correct on this issue.
You and he aren't saying the same thing...see link...
Quote from: donwyn on May 03, 2008, 05:19:08 PM
You and he aren't saying the same thing...see link...
Apparently what ACD is saying is that there is a question as to whether "the work of music [is] to be identified as the written text or its performance":
QuoteRosen quite correctly says that consideration of this question involves
...a difficulty that has irritated philosophers of aesthetics and their readers for a long time: Is the work of music to be identified as the written text or its performance? Is a symphony of Beethoven the printed score or the sound in the concert hall when it is played?
Rightly or wrongly, I quite clearly come down on the side of the latter — resoundingly and categorically.
Rosen's review (the first part of a two-part review, the second part of which is to follow at a future date) is brilliant and hugely informative in it own right, and must reading for every music-lover.
But while ACD makes it quite clear which "side" he comes down on, it's a little difficult to reconcile (however resoundingly or categorically) such a comment with his emphatic approval of the work of Charles Rosen - for Rosen, as should be unmistakable from his dual career as musicologist and pianist, as analyst and performer, is quite as much interested in the written texts of music and in intellectual analysis as he is in playing such texts on the piano.
Music is sound, not notation, just as dance is movement, not notation, and football is a game played on a field, not the playbook.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 03, 2008, 06:13:09 PM
Music is sound, not notation, just as dance is movement, not notation, and football is a game played on a field, not the playbook.
Very impressively phrased. But when Mahler set down Das Lied von der Erde as a score - which he never heard performed in his lifetime - was he not creating music? If a Balanchine ballet has not been performed for decades and has no videorecording, but was taken down in Labanotation, is it not choreography, and therefore dance? Musicians speak of a score as "the music," and music exists in both dimensions - as notation that performers can interpret and scholars analyze, and as sound that listeners can experience. Whereas Rosen alludes to " a
difficulty that has irritated philosophers of aesthetics and their readers for a long time," you (and apparently ACD, as well as certainly Operahaven) hastily dispose of it in a sonorously phrased sentence. Again, very impressively phrased, but not so impressive as to obscure the fact that you've missed the problem summarized in Rosen's statement.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 03, 2008, 05:59:46 PM
Apparently what ACD is saying is that there is a question as to whether "the work of music [is] to be identified as the written text or its performance":
But while ACD makes it quite clear which "side" he comes down on, it's a little difficult to reconcile (however resoundingly or categorically) such a comment with his emphatic approval of the work of Charles Rosen - for Rosen, as should be unmistakable from his dual career as musicologist and pianist, as analyst and performer, is quite as much interested in the written texts of music and in intellectual analysis as he is in playing such texts on the piano.
I guess ACD can be 'resoundingly and categorically' levelheaded when he wants to be...
I only hope Pink takes note of it, here...
Quote from: karlhenning on May 03, 2008, 06:48:29 AM
You can start, Sean, by thinking through what evaluative choices with which you're front-loading opinion (and it is opinion, Sean, not Universal Truth) that "Jeux . . . [falls] short of the 'simpler' La mer in artistic terms.
It just
does okay?!! It blinking does. There are more recordings of La mer, there's more beauty in the work, there's more to do with it...
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 03, 2008, 10:25:56 AM
... Eric. You make the mistake of assuming that what you can hear is all that there is to hear, and that if you don't hear it immediately it isn't really worth bothering about.
Aesthetics is universal, not subjective; it's only subjectively experienced.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 03, 2008, 12:16:04 AM
Why odd? It's nothing different to the way I've answered this accusation of yours before. I don't think we should be surprised that people who dedicate their lives to analysing music, often for very little reward, actually rather like that music. I nearly follwed that path myself, re Janacek - and I dare you to suggest that I don't love every note of his music! To suggest sweepingly that no academics actually have a feeling for the music they work with actually seems to me hugely unfair and monstrously dismissive and disrespectful. At the same time, it's a rather clicheed, anti-academic view ('they're all out of touch with the real world' ::)) which I must say is rather a conventional for one such as you, Sean. ;)
Hi Luke, I've spilled my bile on a Dinar thread, if you wish.
I think certainly in many cases that academics study and analyse music for reasons other than that they have a persona engagement with it. For instance many of them just
like score-reading: they really do, and like talking with like-minded other score-readers/ analyzers. And take Schenker! What a berk!
And by the way, if I didn't think you'd demonstrated some genuine sensitivity I wouldn't be bothering, and you probably wouldn't be here anyway.
As for being disrespectful though, many of these characters have been extremely disrespectful towards me out of fear of me: that's not to say that allow me to be, but I need to take a stand against them.
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 01:14:42 AM
Aesthetics is universal, not subjective; it's only subjectively experienced.
You and Eric (and ACD) do like going on in this way, but that doesn't at all answer my point, which wasn't about aesthetics, universality or subjectivity but merely about analysis Bringing-Stuff-To-Your-Attention-Which-You-Hadn't-Hear-In-The-Music-Before.
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 01:20:47 AM
Hi Luke, I've spilled my bile on a Dinar thread, if you wish.
Spent a bit of time looking for threads on the Iraqi currency before I worked out what you meant...! ;D
But I know what you are referring to now. How depressing - I'm confused as to why do you feel the need
a) to extrapolate from your interaction with these few academics that you understand them and their personalities entirely/ It could equally be that you just rubbed them up the wrong way, and in turn that could stem from a failing in
you, not in them - looking at your descriptions of your confrontations, and from what I know of your personality from GMG, I find it very easy to see how you could royally piss off someone attempting to talk on one subject whilst you insisted on talking about another... ;D ;)
b) to extrapolate from
that that all music academics are the same (do you simply not believe me when I've told you countless times that I haven't met people like the ones you describe? - maybe I just mixed in better circles ;D >:D ;) )
and finally, c) to post these people's names on the internet. I find that most unpleasant.
Actually, I should 'fess up. In order to keep things simple I've always said that I've never met any music academic like the ones you describe. Not quite true - I met one, a man I dislike intensely and who I suspect does not care particularly about the music he is a (leading) specialist on. But maybe he does; maybe that is just my dislike of him talking - I can admit that, and you ought to be able to also. What is more, although the opportunity to slag him off has arisen many times over the years on these forums, I've never done so although I've mentioned his work, which is admirable.
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 01:20:47 AMI think certainly in many cases that academics study and analyse music for reasons other than that they have a persona engagement with it. For instance many of them just like score-reading: they really do, and like talking with like-minded other score-readers/ analyzers.
Yes, I'm one of these score-lovers. You've seen your own mystery scores thread, so you know that! And I love scores because I love music, deeply, and, as I said in an earlier post, I want to get to grips with it in all its manifestations and, in my own way, to 'possess' it. To equate score-reading with dry, anti-musical irrelevance isn't the radical iconoclastic thinking you seem to believe it is. It's more like the boorish, confused, spluttering, affronted-because-they-don't-get-what-the-clever-people-are-talking-about line that we see in e.g. the Daily Mail ('intellectual elite', 'ivory towers' yawn yawn). A self-confessed elitist like you Sean, ought to shudder at towing such a line.
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 01:20:47 AMAnd take Schenker! What a berk!
Because... This is just the sort of spluttering I meant.
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 01:20:47 AMAnd by the way, if I didn't think you'd demonstrated some genuine sensitivity I wouldn't be bothering, and you probably wouldn't be here anyway.
Well, exactly. And yet I'm one of these terrible score-lovers you've just demonised. It doesn't compute, does it?
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 01:20:47 AMAs for being disrespectful though, many of these characters have been extremely disrespectful towards me out of fear of me: that's not to say that allow me to be, but I need to take a stand against them.
Well, there we have it - as I suspected, your hatred of musical academics (all of them, it seems) is rooted in your personal experiences of a small number. It's as if you think the characteristics of musicologists are universal too, and only our experiences of them are subjective. I hesitate to say it, but it could be that
my] experience of them, which isn't tainted by anger or affront but simply on personal interaction, may be closer to the Universal Truth about musicologist which you imply than
yours, which is full of your own subjective responses to your own rejection. And why, Sean, do you get into arguments so much.?
Quote from: donwyn on May 03, 2008, 09:59:55 PM
I guess ACD can be 'resoundingly and categorically' levelheaded when he wants to be...
Perhaps he can, but it seems to me that one can acquire a great deal of freedom in one's musical thinking if he does not take ACD's opinions with anything near the solemnity that ACD himself obviously takes ACD's opinions.
Sforzando,
(slightly off topic for a moment)
Speaking of Taruskin and other 'experts' do you know where he ranks Pelleas et Melisade on the greatness scale ?... At this time I don't feel like paying 500 dollars for this:
http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Western-Music-Set/dp/0195169794/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209907693&sr=1-4.... to find out.
If anyone owns this set I would really appreciate it if you could check for me... Thanks.
Does it really matter? I'm sure he ranks it very highly - everyone else of any seriousness does, it isn't the contentious piece you imagine it is - but why should it bother you in any case? This is what I genuinely don't understand - if as you claim the only important thing in music is its sensuous appeal to the individual listening, why should you be as concerned as you are to gather opinions of your favourite works so zealously? Be true to yourself, Eric - you like it, and that's all that matters, surely!
Quote from: Operahaven on May 04, 2008, 05:37:20 AM
Sforzando,
(slightly off topic for a moment)
Speaking of Taruskin and other experts [and yes, he really is, your quotation marks notwithstanding] do you know where he ranks Pelleas et Melisade on the greatness scale ?... At this time I don't feel like paying 500 dollars for this:
http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Western-Music-Set/dp/0195169794/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209907693&sr=1-4.... to find out.
If anyone owns this set I would really appreciate it if you could check for me... Thanks.
Why should you care about Taruskin's opinion? After all, he is an academic.
And no, I don't own these books. Perhaps your local library has a copy.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 04, 2008, 02:33:19 AM
Perhaps he can, but it seems to me that one can acquire a great deal of freedom in one's musical thinking if he does not take ACD's opinions with anything near the solemnity that ACD himself obviously takes ACD's opinions.
ACD's opinions carry no more weight than those of a the fellow standing next to you in any randomly chosen supermarket check-out line. Maybe less, because odds are that the fellow in the check-out line has no pretensions to authority he doesn't possess.
Back to whether music is the score or the performance--I see this as a semantic non-issue. Yes, we refer to one jotting down notation for an imagined conglomeration of sound as writing "music," but that's a convenience of speech understood by most, I believe--at least until they start overthinking it and get themselves all tangled up in category errors confusing reference and referents!
Quote from: Sforzando on May 04, 2008, 02:33:19 AM
Perhaps he can, but it seems to me that one can acquire a great deal of freedom in one's musical thinking if he does not take ACD's opinions with anything near the solemnity that ACD himself obviously takes ACD's opinions.
Oh, I'm not defending ACD...
I just think it ironic Pink should get hamstrung by his own plagiarizing. 8)
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 01:11:14 AM
It just does okay?!! It blinking does.
Assertion is not truth,
Sean.
QuoteThere are more recordings of La mer, there's more beauty in the work, there's more to do with it...
(a) There being more recordings of a work, does not demonstrate anything, one way or another, about its artistic worth, about its 'beauty quotient'.
(b) There's no way of 'weighing' whether there is "more beauty" in one piece or the other. They are both beautiful pieces; they are each about rather different musical 'things'.
'Tis pity,
Sean, that you do not appreciate the beauty of
Jeux for itself. And further pity that you are playing the same dead-end game that
Eric is mired in, of (essentially) wishing that
Debussy had gone on to write
La mer again, 5, 6, 25 times. You and
Eric are weirdly playing out
Debussy's complaint, a hundred years too late:
The Debussyistes
are killing me. Most of us here take it as a given that it is actually a measure of
Debussy's stature as an artist, that he was not content to circle around in re-treads of himself, but set out to create excellence in ways subtle different to, and 'evolving' from, who he had been.
Next you'll be crying over your porter that
Stravinsky ought just to have written (and re-written, and re-written again)
L'oiseau de feu.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 04, 2008, 05:42:03 AM
Does it really matter? I'm sure he ranks it very highly - everyone else of any seriousness does, it isn't the contentious piece you imagine it is - but why should it bother you in any case? This is what I genuinely don't understand - if as you claim the only important thing in music is its sensuous appeal to the individual listening, why should you be as concerned as you are to gather opinions of your favourite works so zealously? Be true to yourself, Eric - you like it, and that's all that matters, surely!
Luke and Sforzando,
Yes, I am true to myself but it's fun to read about other people's feelings and reactions towards a work I adore... That's all.
I am totally
ADDICTED to commentary on
Pelleas et Melisande... Anything I can get my hands on.
Have you read Dahlhaus on P+M? Very interesting things to say (which chime pleasingly with all the things I've always felt about the piece too ;D ).
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 04, 2008, 12:54:27 PM
Have you read Dahlhaus on P+M? Very interesting things to say (which chime pleasingly with all the things I've always felt about the piece too ;D ).
I have read several books by Dahlhaus (two about Wagner, one about Beethoven, and a collection of essays, all
in German). Where does he write about Pelléas?
In his book on 19th century music. A classic (or it should be)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 04, 2008, 01:05:35 PM
In his book on 19th century music. A classic (or it should be)
I 'know' that book (saw it in a library), but haven't read it yet. Thanks.
It's an eye-opener, for sure
On JSTOR I found this review of Dahlhaus's book by Arnold Whittall. Perhaps of interest...
http://rapidshare.com/files/112576780/Arnold_Whittall_about_Dahlhaus.pdf
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 04, 2008, 12:54:27 PM
Have you read Dahlhaus on P+M? Very interesting things to say (which chime pleasingly with all the things I've always felt about the piece too ;D ).
Thanks Luke... I will check him out. :)
But I'm really only interested in reading his subjective reactions about
Pelleas.... I have no desire for purely technical analysis/dissections... Now, if his observations are coupled with 'poetic-like' comments, then yes, that would be worth my time. :)
Quote from: Operahaven on May 04, 2008, 12:44:56 PM
Luke and Sforzando,
Yes, I am true to myself but it's fun to read about other people's feelings and reactions towards a work I adore... That's all.
I am totally ADDICTED to commentary on Pelleas et Melisande... Anything I can get my hands on.
This coming from someone who does not value anything but the music itself?
Music is a human pursuit, written by humans for humans. When I listen to music, I am after that humanity. Music isn't created in a vacuum, it is created by a brain. I want to know that brain, and music is the most potent language I know that can reach it. Music commentary doesn't substitute for music, it provides a doorway into places you could not venture before.
LukeyQuote...but merely about analysis Bringing-Stuff-To-Your-Attention-Which-You-Hadn't-Hear-In-The-Music-Before.
Well if you listened to it, at least repeatedly, you ought to have heard it. If you didn't you're just basically then introducing an artificial adulterated focus of attention not related to what the music means on the listening level...
QuoteBut I know what you are referring to now. How depressing - I'm confused as to why do you feel the need
Well maybe things are different at a particularly supportive environment as you may have found at Cambridge. Many places in the UK are out to stop people joining their cliques.
Quote...It could equally be that you just rubbed them up the wrong way, and in turn that could stem from a failing in you, not in them - looking at your descriptions of your confrontations, and from what I know of your personality from GMG, I find it very easy to see how you could royally piss off someone attempting to talk on one subject whilst you insisted on talking about another... ;D ;)
I knew someone would say this. I am, I can advise, a polite enough person. In fact I'm particularly concerned to ingratiate myself, given my outlook on many things. But I'm not a highly
socialized one- I'm into the arts because of the essentially critical and trans-social world of meaning they operate in. And when people bring their sorry little class identity to art music and find,
just find or notice, that I don't approach music in terms of its value helping me fit into a clique, they get mad
all by themselves. I only have to walk into a room of these people to cause extreme resentment. Resentment that is all their concern, not mine. You understand don't you?
Quote...maybe I just mixed in better circles ;D >:D ;) )
Well I'm not sure what the reason is; I suspect actually that you're being too polite and not thinking things through.
Quoteand finally, c) to post these people's names on the internet. I find that most unpleasant.
Good. If I had time to find the rest of the names on the various faculties I would.
QuoteTo equate score-reading with dry, anti-musical irrelevance isn't the radical iconoclastic thinking you seem to believe it is. It's more like the boorish, confused, spluttering, affronted-because-they-don't-get-what-the-clever-people-are-talking-about line that we see in e.g. the Daily Mail ('intellectual elite', 'ivory towers' yawn yawn). A self-confessed elitist like you Sean, ought to shudder at towing such a line.
As long as you keep the relationship between the score and the listening, as you clearly do, that's fine. That's what I'm arguing for: I'm not saying you shouldn't read scores. You have several thousand CDs don't you? I certainly don't know any academic with much of a CD collection, and that's the problem.
QuoteWell, there we have it - as I suspected, your hatred of musical academics (all of them, it seems) is rooted in your personal experiences of a small number...
No, there's a serious problem in the field of music study. Music is that thing we listen to, yet when we 'go to university to study music' very few people ever listen to any, or rather get to know any- the study is abstracted from what is studied. By contrast the study of maths for instance
is the maths. This is profoundly paradoxical and quite interesting to think about.
KarlQuoteAssertion is not truth, Sean.
QuoteThere's no way of 'weighing' whether there is "more beauty" in one piece or the other.
Not in any outward way.
Quote'Tis pity, Sean, that you do not appreciate the beauty of Jeux for itself. And further pity that you are playing the same dead-end game that Eric is mired in, of (essentially) wishing that Debussy had gone on to write La mer again, 5, 6, 25 times...
I appreciate Jeux, don't worry. Seen it performed too, under Rattle. Haitink's recording is one of his best though, coupled with the Nocturnes (and with a Whistler cover, extremely evocative). But it's not as great a work as
La mer.
QuoteNext you'll be crying over your porter that Stravinsky ought just to have written (and re-written, and re-written again) L'oiseau de feu.
Well it's a pity he couldn't find another way to use the language of the
Rite. But the Dionysiac is a singular thing...
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 08:32:03 PM
Lukey
Well if you listened to it, at least repeatedly, you ought to have heard it. If you didn't you're just basically then introducing an artificial adulterated focus of attention not related to what the music means on the listening level...
How convenient - that boils down to 'if I didn't hear it, it can't be important'
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 08:32:03 PM
Well maybe things are different at a particularly supportive environment as you may have found at Cambridge. Many places in the UK are out to stop people joining their cliques.
Or just to stop
you doing so... ;D
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 08:32:03 PM
I knew someone would say this. I am, I can advise, a polite enough person....
That's true, in fact - I'm [almost] always impressed by the way that you comport yourself here, even when being viciously attacked. But I'm also aware of the seething anger under the surface...
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 08:32:03 PM
In fact I'm particularly concerned to ingratiate myself, given my outlook on many things. But I'm not a highly socialized one- I'm into the arts because of the essentially critical and trans-social world of meaning they operate in. And when people bring their sorry little class identity to art music and find, just find or notice, that I don't approach music in terms of its value helping me fit into a clique, they get mad all by themselves. I only have to walk into a room of these people to cause extreme resentment. Resentment that is all their concern, not mine. You understand don't you?
Really, Sean, I understand, but in a different way to you. If you
only have to walk into the room to get these people twitchy, then the problem is clearly with you here.
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 08:32:03 PM
Well I'm not sure what the reason is; I suspect actually that you're being too polite and not thinking things through.
Yes, that's it. My life experience doesn't chime with yours, so I must be remembering it wrong.
No, I go through everyone with whom I worked extensively - I don't pretend to know the ones who I saw less, such as my dissertation supervisor who I met precisely once! - and I come up with a list of music lovers passionate about their chosen areas. I remember the intense conversations we had, not just in supervisions but in pubs, hushed over books in libraries, in chance encounters in the street (strangely, given that none of these people is interested in recordings, many of these encounters took place as we crossed paths in various Cambridge CD shops ??? ; conversely, the only such people I ever saw in Cambrige's best sheet music shop - where, surely, all these score-obsessed academics ought to hang out - were Robin Holloway and Hugh Wood, composers both)
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 08:32:03 PM
Good. If I had time to find the rest of the names on the various faculties I would.
Charming
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 08:32:03 PM
As long as you keep the relationship between the score and the listening, as you clearly do, that's fine. That's what I'm arguing for: I'm not saying you shouldn't read scores. You have several thousand CDs don't you? I certainly don't know any academic with much of a CD collection, and that's the problem.
Sean, every time I visited the house/rooms of one of these evil academics I noticed a large CD collection. Even the one guy I mentioned despising - he had a much bigger collection of Janacek CDs than I do.
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 08:32:03 PM
No, there's a serious problem in the field of music study. Music is that thing we listen to, yet when we 'go to university to study music' very few people ever listen to any, or rather get to know any- the study is abstracted from what is studied. By contrast the study of maths for instance is the maths. This is profoundly paradoxical and quite interesting to think about.
Again - I think through all the people who attended university with me and I can't think of very many at all who fit this description. I can think of plenty who introduced me to all sorts of things, and I returned the favour when I could. Just to give a flavour, I shared a house with the composer-pianist Huw Watkins - currently an evil academic teaching composition at the RCM and played at the Proms - and recall hilarious evenings round my piano where Huw played from my score of Wozzeck and we falsetto-ed our way through the vocal parts; or more serious evenings where he and I played Debussy piano duets; or times he came home excitedly saying 'you must hear this piece of Monteverdi/Mahler...'
to-the-point edit - in the case of the Mahler, now I think on a bit, it wasn't 'you must hear this piece', it was 'you must hear this
recording'.
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 08:39:38 PM
Quote from: KarlThere's no way of 'weighing' whether there is "more beauty" in one piece or the other.
Not in any outward way.
Right; in other words,
you feel that
La mer is more beautiful than
Jeux. And you are entirely welcome. There are many days when I feel that
Jeux is more beautiful than (among other great pieces)
La mer.
QuoteWell it's a pity he couldn't find another way to use the language of the Rite. But the Dionysiac is a singular thing...
You truly fail to see how pointless it is for you,
Sean, to look over the oeuvre of a giant of a composer, and for you to rue "what a might 'a' done."
Your navel-gazing carp there,
Sean, would mean more — would, in fact, actually mean
something, which it don't at present — if
you write a piece which finds another way to use that language. Let me know when that happens, there's a good chap.
(Mind you, I don't mean to speak ill of
any fish, smelt, hake or carp . . . .)
And, BTW, if you
do write that piece, it doesn't mean anything against
Igor Fyodorovich; but it will mean that you have made an actual contribution to the literature. Let's remind you,
Sean: it is the art which lasts; the chatter about the art lasts a season, and withers away.
Edit :: slight expansion, and the odd typo
Luke, has Sean demonstrated for us how La mer is "more beautiful" than Jeux? I don't like to think that I missed something 8)
Quote(Mind you, I don't mean to speak ill of any fish, smelt, hake or carp . . . .)
They will be much relieved.
Quote from: Jezetha on May 05, 2008, 03:48:51 AM
They will be much relieved.
Well, one feels gratitude to an order of creature which has so well fed one ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 05, 2008, 03:49:24 AM
Well, one feels gratitude to an order of creature which has so well fed one ;)
Yes, one loves what one eats.
The opposite, fortunately, usually isn't the case.
Quote from: Sean on May 04, 2008, 08:39:38 PM
I appreciate Jeux, don't worry. Seen it performed too, under Rattle. Haitink's recording is one of his best though, coupled with the Nocturnes (and with a Whistler cover, extremely evocative). But it's not as great a work as La mer.
This is the same elitist trolling of which you accuse academics. But where an academic provides examples and uses big musicological words, you substitute your opinion. The academic might be shortsighted to think his analyses could substitute for all tastes, but you think your opinion is the substitute. That's even more insulting.
Quote from: Jezetha on May 05, 2008, 04:01:56 AM
Yes, one loves what one eats.
Love is perhaps overstating the case 0:)
Oh well, another blocked thread on the Diner. Just tried to send you this Luke and the system says I can't because your inbox is full...
They could have axed it before I just logged on: for what its worth (not much) I wrote
Nice one Luke, I'm touched and gratified as ever. But the fact is most music academics are a right bunch of imposters, and that ***** was a particularly unpleasant and class-ridden person. Someone told me recently he quit music altogether, which would hardly surprise me.
Quote[Knight] What you have done might conceivably damage their reputations if it is copied out of our site and posted elsewhere.
Really? Big deal.
QuoteI am considering deletion of the names of the people involved, I will discuss this with the other Mods......and get back to you.
Sure, whatever- thought it'd have gone by now anyway.
Quote from: Catison on May 05, 2008, 04:05:36 AM
This is the same elitist trolling of which you accuse academics. But where an academic provides examples and uses big musicological words, you substitute your opinion. The academic might be shortsighted to think his analyses could substitute for all tastes, but you think your opinion is the substitute. That's even more insulting.
It's not. Aesthetics is 'opinion' or rather, absolute conviction in the personal experience one has, and which of course is universalizable.
Quote from: Sean on May 05, 2008, 04:39:37 AM
But the fact is most music academics are a right bunch of imposters
Part of your trouble,
Sean, is you don't have any proper grip on what a
fact is.
I suspect an elaborate post is in the works, Sean, but I doubt that you will answer the res. Your interpretation of and feelings about your own past experience (a) is not as cool-headed as you may perhaps imagine, nor (b) does not drive fact in the outside world.
Karl, I'm a genius and my pronouncements can be relied on with greatest confidence. You'll find it a lot easier and better for your health once you understand this a little more.
Luke, you're obviously as nuts as Karl- you two remind me of the mad hatters tea party.
Cliques aren't things I would or could want to join.
Basically though I do feel you're making a big mistake in your evaluations of the average 'music' academic, but one can live with.
I've heard Huw Watkins speak on the radio and he's a down to earth sort of chap- I've heard several of his works also, including if I remember a piano concerto.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 05, 2008, 04:59:25 AM
I suspect an elaborate post is in the works, Sean, but I doubt that you will answer the res.
Not exactly, I just can't think straight drinking dodgy Korean beer.
res ?
Is that like res extensa or res cogita?
Well, at least you've recovered some of your sense of humor, Sean. Perhaps there's hope.
Now all you need is a strategy for humor-recovery which doesn't entail intoxicants.
Can you say "Anatole's entailing intoxicants" five times fast?
How did a discussion on Carter's musical worth turn into a barrage of personal attacks against music academics?
Well, then, I will not attempt a further stirring of the pot, since being confrontational is not part of my nature, but let me just state my opinion on this issue - keeping, of course, to only the bare essentials for the sake of avoiding a long argument:
I can hear a clear musical narrative in Carter's works - or, at least, in those works he composed before adopting serialism - and if a rather inexperienced listener as me can, and a prominent critic such as ACDouglas can not, then obviously his musical sensibility deserves to be called into question. (Note that I don't mean to talk ill about serialism here - it is just a major problem area with me).
The idea that a composition can only be called "music" if it has such a narrative is, in my mind, suspect and unnecessarily restrictive; what to make of, for example, Morton Feldman, who intentionally set out to emphasize isolated musical moments, and require you to - in a way - forget the notes that come before? That said, I have a rather conservative definition of "music", and hesitate to call some of the more experimental works in the twentieth century onwards as such, but I have no problem with calling them art.
The notion that art music = only tonal music is gibberish, and I will not even bother arguing the point. Personally, I find that to like only early Debussy and to say that they are only worthy because of their Romantic sentiment is an insult to the composer, because rebelling against the confines (or excesses) of Romanticism is an integral part of Debussy's artistic vision.
Technical analysis will never suffice to describe a piece of music, or explain why the piece made the impact that it did, and score-reading can never be a substitute for real listening, but they can enhance your listening experience in ways that have been mentioned by other posters, and that I am not keen to repeat.
I can not comment on what music academics are generally like, having never met one myself, but the account given by Luke is more objective and level-headed compared to Sean's. In any case, when I read books written by some of these evil academics, and was usually left with the impression that these academics really loved the music that they specialized in. Therefore, if indeed there are academics who are devoid of any real musical sensitivity as Sean described, then I can be assured that at least these academics would never rise to a position of prominence in the eye of the public.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on May 05, 2008, 05:41:22 AM
I can hear a clear musical narrative in Carter's works - or, at least, in those works he composed before adopting serialism - and if a rather inexperienced listener as me can, and a prominent critic such as ACDouglas can not, then obviously his musical sensibility deserves to be called into question. (Note that I don't mean to talk ill about serialism here - it is just a major problem area with me).
1) Carter is never serial. He is atonal, but specifically rejects the use of 12-tone rows or other serial procedures.
2) The word "prominent" when applied to ACD has already been questioned.
3) ACD, when backed into a corner, issued an
"Important" codicil to his original blog entry where he claimed he wasn't talking about Carter at all! (Look for my post a few days back.)
Well-stirred, though I can hardly fathom your inability to see Sean for the genius he is.
Croche
QuoteI can not comment on what music academics are generally like, having never met one myself, but the account given by Luke is more objective and level-headed compared to Sean's.
Luke's problem is he's too level-headed: he needs to blow his sedate mind with some more passion and he'd see the light, and sound a bit less genteel and kind-of bandaged.
QuoteWell-stirred, though I can hardly fathom your inability to see Sean for the genius he is.
Mmm.
Quote from: Sean on May 05, 2008, 05:52:04 AM
Croche
Luke's problem is he's too level-headed: he needs to blow his sedate mind with some more passion and he'd see the light, and sound a bit less genteel and kind-of bandaged.
Sean, if only you knew..... ;D
Quote from: Sean on May 05, 2008, 04:59:53 AM
I'm a genius.
That's true. It takes genius --- albeit a peculiar one --- to exhibit with such magnificence the deep frustration and the bitter resentment that you are full of.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on May 05, 2008, 05:41:22 AM
...a prominent critic such as ACDouglas....
This is the only statement I object to in your fine post, M Croche. ACD is hardly a prominent critic, but just a garden variety wingnut with a website. (Or was your tongue in cheek? ;) )
Quote...the account given by Luke is more objective and level-headed compared to Sean's.
But of course. Stick around and you'll quickly learn to expect just that. Luke is consistently thoughtful, articulate, and knows whereof he speaks.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 05, 2008, 06:04:49 AM
Luke is consistently thoughtful, articulate, and knows whereof he speaks.
Agreed. 'Informed passion' - the real thing, in my opinion.
Skimming through here after my absence, I must quote this with certain emphases:
Quote from: Sean on May 05, 2008, 04:42:33 AM
Aesthetics is 'opinion' or rather, absolute conviction in the personal experience one has, and which of course is universalizable.
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( >:D $:) 0:)
which is the only personal and of course unversalizable reaction possible after such a definition!
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 05, 2008, 06:04:49 AM
This is the only statement I object to in your fine post, M Croche. ACD is hardly a prominent critic, but just a garden variety wingnut with a website. (Or was your tongue in cheek? ;) )
That's what makes this site such fun. When prominent critics and geniuses are involved, it's scarcely possible to tell who's being straight and who's laughing their asses off at the other lunatics.
This entire discussion is moot now, since on April 29, Douglas apologized in his blog to anyone who thought his remarks were directed at Carter:
An Important Clarification
After a number of chiding eMails scolding us for our apparently treating the music of Elliott Carter so rudely in this post of ours, we see that a clarification is urgently required.
In that post we said nothing about Carter's music, with which music we're only glancingly familiar. Justin Davidson did. It seems our breezy (and we now see careless and ill-chosen) "Just so" response to Mr. Davidson's quoted remarks on Carter's music is the culprit here. Our "Just so" was NOT meant as a comment on Carter's music. It was meant to indicate that Mr. Davidson's closing remarks on Carter's music, though expressed differently, expressed exactly what we said in our above linked post's opening graf as it applied to, "much of the atonal music of our experience that we found so, well, unmusical — worse, found to be non-music," NOT to Carter's music specifically with which music, as we've above noted, we're only glancingly familiar and, further, from that glancing exposure concluded that what we heard was indeed genuine music and NOT gibberish.
The fault here is due entirely our careless writing, not our readers' reading, and for that, our shamefaced apologies.
As for justin Davidson, I can't comment, since I did not read his original post and, in any event, I like Carter's music and would likely find unconvincing any attempt to prove, from a priori definitions of narrative, that it is gibberish.
Quote from: a bloggueurIt was meant to indicate that Mr. Davidson's closing remarks on Carter's music, though expressed differently, expressed exactly what we said in our above linked post's opening graf as it applied to, "much of the atonal music of our experience that we found so, well, unmusical — worse, found to be non-music," NOT to Carter's music specifically with which music, as we've above noted, we're only glancingly familiar and, further, from that glancing exposure concluded that what we heard was indeed genuine music and NOT gibberish.
To speak of gibbering . . . .
That's a "clarification," is it? ;D
Quote from: Joe Barron on May 05, 2008, 08:02:01 AM
This entire discussion is moot now, since on April 29, Douglas apologized in his blog to anyone who thought his remarks were directed at Carter:
An Important Clarification
After a number of chiding eMails scolding us for our apparently treating the music of Elliott Carter so rudely in this post of ours, we see that a clarification is urgently required.
In that post we said nothing about Carter's music, with which music we're only glancingly familiar. Justin Davidson did. It seems our breezy (and we now see careless and ill-chosen) "Just so" response to Mr. Davidson's quoted remarks on Carter's music is the culprit here. Our "Just so" was NOT meant as a comment on Carter's music. It was meant to indicate that Mr. Davidson's closing remarks on Carter's music, though expressed differently, expressed exactly what we said in our above linked post's opening graf as it applied to, "much of the atonal music of our experience that we found so, well, unmusical — worse, found to be non-music," NOT to Carter's music specifically with which music, as we've above noted, we're only glancingly familiar and, further, from that glancing exposure concluded that what we heard was indeed genuine music and NOT gibberish.
The fault here is due entirely our careless writing, not our readers' reading, and for that, our shamefaced apologies.
As for justin Davidson, I can't comment, since I did not read his original post and, in any event, I like Carter's music and would likely find unconvincing any attempt to prove, from a priori definitions of narrative, that it is gibberish.
This "important" - nay, "urgent" - clarification has already been mentioned by me - twice.
But reading these paragraphs of such earth-shattering importance - 193 words with one sentence of 85 words and about 27 parenthetical phrases, dependent clauses, and other gasbaggy hemming and hawing - I can only recommend to ACD this excellent rule from Strunk and White: "Omit needless words! Omit needless words! Omit needless words!"
Quote from: Sforzando on May 05, 2008, 08:27:45 AM
This "important" - nay, "urgent" - clarification has already been mentioned by me - twice.
But reading these paragraphs of such earth-shattering importance - 193 words with one sentence of 85 words and about 27 parenthetical phrases, dependent clauses, and other gasbaggy hemming and hawing - I can only recommend to ACD this excellent rule from Strunk and White: "Omit needless words! Omit needless words! Omit needless words!"
Sorry. I scanned the thread lookiong for the apology but missed it. :-[
Quote from: Joe Barron on May 05, 2008, 08:29:39 AM
Sorry. I scanned the thread lookiong for the apology but missed it. :-[
No problem! a clarification of such urgency and importance cannot possibly get too much attention.
Quote from: ye bloggueurThe fault here is due entirely our careless writing . . . .
Oops. =
due entirely to our [the Pompous We] careless writing.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 05, 2008, 09:45:58 AM
Oops. = due entirely to our [the Pompous We] careless writing.
Lest a matter of such grave importance be not correctly understood, the word "to" does not appear in the Original.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 05, 2008, 09:51:17 AM
Lest a matter of such grave importance be not correctly understood, the word "to" does not appear in the Original.
Thanks; I suspected not, but then, the Original is of no importance sufficient for me to have checked against it.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 05, 2008, 09:55:49 AM
Thanks; I suspected not, but then, the Original is of no importance sufficient for me to have checked against it.
Heretic!
Aiyiyiyi! Amazing how the thread entangles itself when I'm out of town a few days! :o ;D
And even the relatively meaningless question "Is the written text music or isn't it?" has reared its air-filled head. ;D For the record, my take is that the written text is not in itself music, but rather bears the same relationship to performed music that an architect's blueprint bears to the completed building. The difference is, of course, that musicians can alter the blueprint without the music falling apart--if they do it well and subtly. And you don't usually get more than one significant building out of a single blueprint. (The endless suburbs around our major metropolitan areas hardly count as significant--except in the way they destroy virgin land. ::))
Quote from: jochanaan on May 05, 2008, 12:11:30 PM
Aiyiyiyi! Amazing how the thread entangles itself when I'm out of town a few days! :o ;D
Obviously the solution, John, is for you never to leave home.
Quote from: jochanaan on May 05, 2008, 12:11:30 PM
And even the relatively meaningless question "Is the written text music or isn't it?" has reared its air-filled head. ;D For the record, my take is that the written text is not in itself music, but rather bears the same relationship to performed music that an architect's blueprint bears to the completed building. The difference is, of course, that musicians can alter the blueprint without the music falling apart--if they do it well and subtly. And you don't usually get more than one significant building out of a single blueprint. (The endless suburbs around our major metropolitan areas hardly count as significant--except in the way they destroy virgin land. ::))
I don't think it a quite "meaningless" question, nor do I echo Mr. Ross's opinion that it is a semantic non-issue. And in relation to the blueprint analogy, there are cases where an architect has been considered as having made a major contribution even though his buildings may never be built - or at most a scale model made. The "blueprint" suggests that the written text is a waystation en route to a performance, which by implication is the fulfillment of what is only implicit in the blueprint. While I accept that as
one aspect of the issue, from another perspective the written text is also the end result of a composer's labors - and thus, even when not being performed, can be in itself a source of aesthetic pleasure, contemplation, study, and so forth.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 05, 2008, 12:34:18 PM
Obviously the solution, John, is for you never to leave home.
Obviously! ;D
Quote from: Sforzando on May 05, 2008, 12:34:18 PM
I don't think it a quite "meaningless" question, nor do I echo Mr. Ross's opinion that it is a semantic non-issue. And in relation to the blueprint analogy, there are cases where an architect has been considered as having made a major contribution even though his buildings may never be built - or at most a scale model made. The "blueprint" suggests that the written text is a waystation en route to a performance, which by implication is the fulfillment of what is only implicit in the blueprint. While I accept that as one aspect of the issue, from another perspective the written text is also the end result of a composer's labors - and thus, even when not being performed, can be in itself a source of aesthetic pleasure, contemplation, study, and so forth.
True. And when the composer's labors cease, then labor begins for everybody else involved. :o
Ofttimes a score is a thing of beauty in itself--yet all the pleasure I take in scores (I speak only for myself) is in imagining or anticipating a live performance. :D
To the decons 8) of course, a score is simply an opinion!
Given the attitudes of some conductors, on this point at least they might be right!
Quote from: jochanaan on May 05, 2008, 12:11:30 PM
And even the relatively meaningless question "Is the written text music or isn't it?" has reared its air-filled head. ;D For the record, my take is that the written text is not in itself music, but rather bears the same relationship to performed music that an architect's blueprint bears to the completed building. The difference is, of course, that musicians can alter the blueprint without the music falling apart--if they do it well and subtly. And you don't usually get more than one significant building out of a single blueprint.
I think your blueprint analogy nails it down, Jo--except, rather than a blueprint for, say, the Guggenheim, it's more a like a basic blueprint for a tract house subject to a number of modest variations when the homes are actually built. ;D While the architect is at work on the blueprint, he's designing a house, but few would mistake the blueprint for the house itself, even though a trained eye can visualize the house from the
score blueprint.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 06, 2008, 05:00:19 AM
I think your blueprint analogy nails it down, Jo--except, rather than a blueprint for, say, the Guggenheim, it's more a like a basic blueprint for a tract house subject to a number of modest variations when the homes are actually built. ;D While the architect is at work on the blueprint, he's designing a house, but few would mistake the blueprint for the house itself, even though a trained eye can visualize the house from the score blueprint.
And I would reiterate that although this point of view is valid, it is reductive and limited to only one perspective - i.e., that the sole interest of music is performance. Even the last sentence of your post implies that all the trained eye is doing is "visualizing" the performance from looking at the "blueprint."
What this all leaves out, however - and where the blueprint analogy has no weight whatsoever - are other aspects of music that are of great interest to many musicians and certainly all musicologists: such things as the study of a composer's formal procedures, the development of a composer's style through his career, a composer's influences, the history of musical forms and periods, the relation of music to other arts and other currents in history, and so forth. A great deal of this study depends on scores and is independent of recorded or live performance. It may not be a perspective that interests you personally or Jochanaan, but that does not make it secondary or invalid.
Quote from: Sforzando on May 06, 2008, 05:27:52 AM
And I would reiterate that although this point of view is valid, it is reductive and limited to only one perspective - i.e., that the sole interest of music is performance. Even the last sentence of your post implies that all the trained eye is doing is "visualizing" the performance from looking at the "blueprint."
What this all leaves out, however - and where the blueprint analogy has no weight whatsoever - are other aspects of music that are of great interest to many musicians and certainly all musicologists: such things as the study of a composer's formal procedures, the development of a composer's style through his career, a composer's influences, the history of musical forms and periods, the relation of music to other arts and other currents in history, and so forth. A great deal of this study depends on scores and is independent of recorded or live performance. It may not be a perspective that interests you personally or Jochanaan, but that does not make it secondary or invalid.
It's true that I did not give thought to those important considerations, Sforzando, when developing my analogy; but I'd guess that the architects among us would say that similar studies are equally fascinating to students of architecture. Many volumes have probably been written on, say, how Michelangelo Buonarotti's designs influenced Christopher Wren's work on St. Paul's in London, or such subjects. :) Perhaps some choreographer has even choreographed a dance about it. ;D
On relativism: Do I favor a piece of music because it's good, or is the piece of music good because I favor it?
I'm paraphrasing you know who right here but I feel that a distinction can be drawn here. For instance, sometimes I will favor something, a film, painting, song, that I clearly know is not "good." For instance, Troll 2 is a notoriously bad movie, and that's a fact, not an opinion. Yet at the same time I love that movie - but I recognize its badness. So in this case I favor something not because it's good, and the object is also not in the state of being "good" in which to be favored. Yet so it is favored, in all its badness. This is why there is a difference between favorite and great or best, better art. A favorite can be bad, objectively. And also a favorite can be good, objectively. Something great simply is, love it or hate it.
Can the relativists/subjectivist simply admit that some have better taste than others?
I don't think it matters whether you favor something over something else. Art has never been about personal enjoyment, it's about self edification (to put the matter in excruciatingly simple terms). After all, the greater a work of art is, the longer it takes to enjoy it because of it's complexity and originality. Compare a Beatles song with the Art of Fugue. The first is instantly enjoyable while the latter takes a lot of effort and time before it begins to unravel itself (particularly if you are unfamiliar with concepts like counterpoint, harmonic progression and so forth, which most people are), but you persevere with it, right? And even after learning the piece, it's secrets always remain elusive and hard to grasp, but that's ok because the struggle is what keeps you going in the first place. Indeed, what is usually considered great art is often antithetical to direct enjoyment, which is often reputed as being vulgar and superficial.
The idea that the purpose of art is personal enjoyment, that it's all about having "fun", and that therefore the greatness of a work of art it's directly proportional to it's entertainment value is fundamentally flawed. The true purpose of art is spiritual fulfillment, and what is that without struggle?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 14, 2008, 04:06:52 AM
I don't think it matters whether you favor something over something else. Art has never been about personal enjoyment, it's about self edification (to put the matter in excruciatingly simple terms).
Quite the contrary, art is all about personal enjoyment, and if you can be edified in the process, so much the better.
The idea that enjoyment and spiritual fulfilment are opposed is fundamentally flawed. If you don't enjoy what you're listening to, you're never going to be spiritually uplifted.
Quote
Indeed, what is usually considered great art is often antithetical to direct enjoyment, which is often reputed as being vulgar and superficial.
Nothing like a blanket generalization, eh? But really, if you cede the idea that the Beatles are more enjoyable than the Art of the Fugue, you've already lost the battle. I don't listen to any music I don't enjoy. I enjoy the struggle to understand a difficult piece of music. I also enjoy a good tune. It is very important to the art of music that there be both. A well written piece of music should have elements that appeal immediately as well as deep structure that doesn't reveal itself except after many listenings.
But this too is a generalization. Yes, there can be great works which can only be appreciated after much study. But to say that all music has to be this way is unacceptable, because it boxes in art to only a small level of experience. In my opinion, the deepest art can be appreciated on many levels, from the immediately gratifying to the subtly obscure, all in one piece. But it is possible to have great music that exists only on the extremes.
Recently I've been listening to Lutoslawski again - to an untrained ear his symphonic pieces could indeed be gibberish. My own 'ear' IS untrained, but the gabble which Lutoslawski comes out with seems to make perfect sense in an other worldly sort of way. Everything is in order even in disorder.
Mark: "It is very important to the art of music that there be both. A well written piece of music should have elements that appeal immediately as well as deep structure that doesn't reveal itself except after many listenings...But to say that all music has to be this way is unacceptable, because it boxes in art to only a small level of experience. In my opinion, the deepest art can be appreciated on many levels, from the immediately gratifying to the subtly obscure, all in one piece. But it is possible to have great music that exists only on the extremes."
Yes, this thread is helping me come to terms with what it is I like about Lutoslawski (and others, mainly Polish), who differ so dramatically from the late Romanticism composers who are for the most part my staple diet. I guess music by any composer carries it's own signature mark. This mark talks to us in a way which we ourselves cannot understand, but connects to our core. Thus we pick up their flag and hoist it for all to see (even when we ourselves haven't a bloody clue what it's about...). There IS something deeply spiritual in the process of finding a connection with certain pieces - sometimes, perhaps most times we understand it completely and continue in the joy of it - but sometimes we have no idea why we enjoy something and what it does to us - it is at these moments music becomes MAGIC.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 14, 2008, 04:06:52 AM
I don't think it matters whether you favor something over something else. Art has never been about personal enjoyment, it's about self edification (to put the matter in excruciatingly simple terms). After all, the greater a work of art is, the longer it takes to enjoy it because of it's complexity and originality. Compare a Beatles song with the Art of Fugue. The first is instantly enjoyable while the latter takes a lot of effort and time before it begins to unravel itself (particularly if you are unfamiliar with concepts like counterpoint, harmonic progression and so forth, which most people are), but you persevere with it, right? And even after learning the piece, it's secrets always remain elusive and hard to grasp, but that's ok because the struggle is what keeps you going in the first place. Indeed, what is usually considered great art is often antithetical to direct enjoyment, which is often reputed as being vulgar and superficial.
The idea that the purpose of art is personal enjoyment, that it's all about having "fun", and that therefore the greatness of a work of art it's directly proportional to it's entertainment value is fundamentally flawed. The true purpose of art is spiritual fulfillment, and what is that without struggle?
I agree. And this is the point I was trying to make: that great art simply *is*. It cannot be considered as lesser simply because we don't always enjoy it. The greatness of art is independent of our lowly opinions.
Quote from: mahler10th on June 14, 2008, 07:19:17 AM
Recently I've been listening to Lutoslawski again - to an untrained ear his symphonic pieces could indeed be gibberish. My own 'ear' IS untrained, but the gabble which Lutoslawski comes out with seems to make perfect sense in an other worldly sort of way. Everything is in order even in disorder.
exactly how i feel about some of my favorites, like Xenakis & Penderecki.
Quote from: LVB_opus.125 on June 14, 2008, 12:19:50 PM
I agree. And this is the point I was trying to make: that great art simply *is*. It cannot be considered as lesser simply because we don't always enjoy it. The greatness of art is independent of our lowly opinions.
Well, music is neither entirely objective nor entirely subjective,
Ludwig. Your post presumes that there is some universal criterion for the 'greatness' of an artwork, when in truth there is none. We may well establish some facts regarding the value of a composer within a well-established framework, but the framework itself will always be subjective.
Of course, reducing everything to mere taste seems to me like a ridiculous way to approach music. The entire classical music tradition, after all, is founded on our capacity to pass objective judgement on artistic value: From the hundreds of composers scattered throughout history, which ones should we consider great enough to form the backbone of this tradition? I wonder if the hardcore relativists among us wish to declare this tradition irrelevant. This brings to mind Ned Rorem, who once said to the effect that young American composers were writing bad music without having any knowledge about such basic aspects of theory as traditional counterpoint, because they were told that it wasn't necessary to learn them! (I forgot the exact words). Now, Rorem's hostility to 'modern' music is well-known, and his remark needs to be taken with a grain of salt. However, there is no doubt to my mind that such an absurd situation would have its roots partially in the practice of taking artistic subjectivity to extremes. It is not in my capacity to judge the prevalence of this problem, but thankfully this writer (mortal, reactionary, intellectually provincial) has had the good luck to avoid exposure to music composed in such a vacuum, whose content may only reflect the input from its environment!
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on June 14, 2008, 06:10:48 AM
Quite the contrary, art is all about personal enjoyment, and if you can be edified in the process, so much the better.
The idea that enjoyment and spiritual fulfilment are opposed is fundamentally flawed. If you don't enjoy what you're listening to, you're never going to be spiritually uplifted.
Nothing like a blanket generalization, eh? But really, if you cede the idea that the Beatles are more enjoyable than the Art of the Fugue, you've already lost the battle. I don't listen to any music I don't enjoy. I enjoy the struggle to understand a difficult piece of music. I also enjoy a good tune. It is very important to the art of music that there be both. A well written piece of music should have elements that appeal immediately as well as deep structure that doesn't reveal itself except after many listenings.
But this too is a generalization. Yes, there can be great works which can only be appreciated after much study. But to say that all music has to be this way is unacceptable, because it boxes in art to only a small level of experience. In my opinion, the deepest art can be appreciated on many levels, from the immediately gratifying to the subtly obscure, all in one piece. But it is possible to have great music that exists only on the extremes.
Well-said,
Mark; those are exactly my sentiments. Almost. I personally believe that there is a line to be drawn between entertainment and art... In other words, it is not enough for art to be just for enjoyment of the senses; it must also be capable of edification, whether intellectually, spiritually, etc. etc. To borrow your own words, great art needs to engage the audience on multiple levels.
Quote from: erato on April 28, 2008, 10:39:31 AM
My post wasn't specifically meant for you. But there's a differece between music one doesn't like, or understand, or whatever, and bad music. Just as music you like isn't automatically great music. I like lots of dross. If one dislikes great music, and likes c..p, it's your joy or loss or whatever.
I agree with this as far as it goes. I have a hard time with extending it to a definition of great music that doesn't depend on anyone liking it. And if it depends on someone liking it, what Board of Experts qualifies to rule out some music as gibberish?
I don't have a conclusive answer to this. The closest I can come is that there are social elements to the valuation, where some circles deploy their expertise one way and other groups do so differently, and there's no fact of the matter that could adjudicate any difference that may arise. So the quarrel between various tendencies can't be decided by a fact either way, leaving the issue a historical one about what has been valued in the past. That doesn't give much guidance about recent developments.
Quote from: drogulus on July 09, 2008, 02:36:50 PM
That doesn't give much guidance about recent developments.
I guess time will bear out which side is the 'victor'. Though by that time it'll probably be of little consequence to any of
us... ;D
Quote from: drogulus on July 09, 2008, 02:36:50 PM
. . . That doesn't give much guidance about recent developments.
In any event, the worth of art created in our day, is not going to be determined by those at present who wring their hands at it.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on July 01, 2008, 10:57:49 PM
Well-said, Mark; those are exactly my sentiments. Almost. I personally believe that there is a line to be drawn between entertainment and art...
The difference is this: Art is entertainment with an extra dimension added. One might compare it to a two-dimentional vs. three-dimensional object. Both have height and length, but art also has depth. The two are not polar opposites. Art encompasses entertainment but is not limited to it. All art is entertainment, but not all entertainment is art.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 10, 2008, 04:21:33 AM
The difference is this: Art is entertainment with an extra dimension added. One might compare it to a two-dimentional vs. three-dimensional object. Both have height and length, but art also has depth. The two are not polar opposites. Art encompasses entertainment but is not limited to it. All art is entertainment, but not all entertainment is art.
That's the distinction that I'd like to make. I just can't quite make it. This suggest that something other than someone saying "this isn't just entertainment, it's art" decides the issue, a definite something that could be agreed upon.
The example of Shakespeare shows you can climb the ladder of entertaining junk all the way to high art without ever crossing an identifiable line, and this is true for memorable popular music and the
Godfather films as well. You could insist on some kind of high art intention but that throws out way too much, doesn't it?
Quote from: LVB_opus.125 on June 12, 2008, 09:54:58 PM
On relativism: Do I favor a piece of music because it's good, or is the piece of music good because I favor it?
Can the relativists/subjectivist simply admit that some have better taste than others?
The hard part is deciding between competing versions of good taste, especially when you find both of them persuasive.
:) I'm not saying that good taste is what I like, but that it's relative to the interpretive communities that care enough to have an opinion. When they disagree, as they frequently do, what decides between them? I hope it's nothing other than history.
Quote from: drogulus on July 10, 2008, 03:04:33 PM
The hard part is deciding between competing versions of good taste, especially when you find both of them persuasive. :)
I'm not saying that good taste is what I like, but that it's relative to the interpretive communities that care enough to have an opinion. When they disagree, as they frequently do, what decides between them? I hope it's nothing other than history.
Well, you either become a hard-liner or you accept that the good folks who are pro "gibberish" might actually be onto something. And by 'good folks' I mean the "interpretive communities" you see here on this board. At
least we steer clear of "Britney Spears" is art... ;)
Other than that I don't see any other option other than giving it up to history.
Quote from: drogulus on July 10, 2008, 02:13:31 PM
That's the distinction that I'd like to make. I just can't quite make it. This suggest that something other than someone saying "this isn't just entertainment, it's art" decides the issue, a definite something that could be agreed upon.
The example of Shakespeare shows you can climb the ladder of entertaining junk all the way to high art without ever crossing an identifiable line, and this is true for memorable popular music and the Godfather films as well. You could insist on some kind of high art intention but that throws out way too much, doesn't it?
It sounds as if you see "art" and "entertainment" as mutually exclusive. The more I get involved with the arts, the more I see those two concepts as ends, or rather points on a continuum. Mark has it right:
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 10, 2008, 04:21:33 AM
...All art is entertainment, but not all entertainment is art.
One can imagine a work of "perfect art" in which there is no "entertainment value" but only pure meaning conveyed in artistic terms--but I've never yet met a work of art that qualifies. Great paintings have attention-grabbing colors or textures or lines; great poetry has verbal melody and rhythm; great novels have action or romance or suspense; and I've never yet run across a piece of music where the "artistic value" wasn't encased in sounds that didn't grab you with their sensual or striking or haunting qualities. Yes, even the "gibberish that passes for music" these days. ;) (I trust I'm well-enough known here that everyone realizes I don't use that word seriously. :o) And I've met very few works of "entertainment" that didn't have some artistic value. But then, I'm not in the habit of frequenting "adult" book stores! ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on July 11, 2008, 07:19:50 PM
One can imagine a work of "perfect art" in which there is no "entertainment value" but only pure meaning conveyed in artistic terms--but I've never yet met a work of art that qualifies. ...And I've met very few works of "entertainment" that didn't have some artistic value. But then, I'm not in the habit of frequenting "adult" book stores! ;D
Nor in the habit of frequenting "performance art" events, apparently, some of which are not at all entertaining and have no artistic value whatsoever.
There is truth in Mark's distinction, but I am short of embracing it. It seems to me a broad notion of entertainment, to consider Liturgical music 'entertainment'. (Which is not the same thing as contemning entertainment, of course.)
True liturgical music, i.e. chant, does do a beautiful job of evoking spiritual contemplation. I do admire religions which maintain a music of purely liturgical significance, such as the lovely Russian monastery in Jordanville, New York, where they have taken great care to train the monks in the singing of Russian chant. I was lucky enough to stumble upon it one Sunday morning. Driving up a tiny country road, I was amazed to see glistening gilded onion domes atop towers looming ahead of me. I was able to go inside and see the inside of the chapel, all adorned with icons and paintings of bearded saints, with the monks swinging incense and chanting in harmony. Chant binds itself to the function of the worship service so completely that it can hardly survive being separated and listened to independent of worship.
Historically it has been difficult to retain the purity of liturgical music. In the Catholic church, chant had to become elaborately decorated with counterpoint to make it more interesting to listen to. Secular tunes like "L'homme armé" and "Se la face ay pale" found their way in during the middle ages. Composers of the 18th and 19th century set the mass to the same kind of music as operas, and of course the 20th century gave us the much deplored folk mass. Protestantism gave up on the whole idea of purity with Luther's declaration "why should the devil have all the good tunes?" It is clear from Ives' use of quoted music that hymns and popular tunes were commonly sung all together in his day just for entertainment value. And of course, spirituals, gospel music and "praise" music are indistinguishable from popular forms, save for the religious texts. As a Protestant myself, the notion of separating liturgical music from entertainment music carries little resonance, though I can see the appeal that a separate liturgical music like chant has for other branches of faith.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 12, 2008, 07:10:27 PM
True liturgical music, i.e. chant, does do a beautiful job of evoking spiritual contemplation. I do admire religions which maintain a music of purely liturgical significance, such as the lovely Russian monastery in Jordanville, New York, where they have taken great care to train the monks in the singing of Russian chant. I was lucky enough to stumble upon it one Sunday morning. Driving up a tiny country road, I was amazed to see glistening gilded onion domes atop towers looming ahead of me. I was able to go inside and see the inside of the chapel, all adorned with icons and paintings of bearded saints, with the monks swinging incense and chanting in harmony. Chant binds itself to the function of the worship service so completely that it can hardly survive being separated and listened to independent of worship.
The Orthodox Prayer Book we have in English is from a press in Jordanville, and I supposed there must be a monastery there.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 13, 2008, 05:15:15 AM
The Orthodox Prayer Book we have in English is from a press in Jordanville, and I supposed there must be a monastery there.
You should go there, Karl. It's a beautiful place, and but a day's drive from Boston. It's also very close to Cooperstown, home of the Glimmerglass Opera. You could see the monastery and take in an opera.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 13, 2008, 05:28:59 AM
You should go there, Karl. It's a beautiful place, and but a day's drive from Boston. It's also very close to Cooperstown, home of the Glimmerglass Opera. You could see the monastery and take in an opera.
And visit the Baseball Hall of Fame!
Quote from: jochanaan on July 11, 2008, 07:19:50 PM
It sounds as if you see "art" and "entertainment" as mutually exclusive.
It seems more like they aren't things but effects that blend into each other. It's about as far from mutually exclusive as you can get. I think everything is "artertainment". Or, as Jerry Fodor once said, "If it's something, it's something else."
;D ???
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 12, 2008, 02:56:53 AM
Nor in the habit of frequenting "performance art" events, apparently, some of which are not at all entertaining and have no artistic value whatsoever.
None for you, perhaps--but I regularly play for poetry jams at a local organic-foods cafe, and from the audiences' reactions, they are both entertained and "art-ified." ;) Besides, it's fun! ;D
Now, jo, he did say some of which . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on July 15, 2008, 08:49:40 AM
Now, jo, he did say some of which . . . .
that part is easy to miss, somehow- missed it myself when reading the quote.
Quote from: James on July 15, 2008, 08:52:29 AM
NOT FOR ME! The first time I heard the Art of Fugue (performed on piano) I was blown away and no one had to explain it to me, i liked it a lot on a gut level, how it moved me, and how it sounded. It drew me in and I knew nothing about it's "structure" or any technical or historical jargon about it whatsoever nor did I care about that. I think the way I have always been is when I hear music I don't analyse it all because I must experience it as much like a child as is possible for me....with a pure mind listening to the beauty of the sound & the music with no pre conceived ideas or ecclesiastical associations, not to confuse the experience of the art with intellectualizing....
To me, the real stuff is of substance & depth and usually has content of lasting value, finds lasting meaning in the transient, it stirs our emotions, it stimulates our thoughts profoundly & exclusively, it reveals the nature of our existence, it expresses a point of view and is of a personal perspective which manifests itself through craft, it's on the side of trying to create a better world (not about money or celebrity) and is an unconditional gift to others. It doesn't matter whether art is thin or fat, cold or hot, minimal or baroque; what matters is what it is about. And the meaning of a work of art is locked into it in the process of its creation. This gives true works of art the power to say so much more than objects lifted out of life or than works which are dependent on a non-intrinsic biographical context for their meaning.
Some music is just like this.... really weird how it works, huh?
Stuff like the Penderecki Threnody really blew me away the first time i listened. I thought, "So it really IS all that!" But I'm sure most people would have to warm up to something like that first. (then again, i did see a page from the score before listening......)
Then there's music which somehow leaves you feeling cold but then eventually becomes among your favorites- such as the Rite of Spring, for me. I had been listening to Prokofiev for awhile and was looking forward to this one, since it was "so dissonant", but i wasn't impressed too much on first hearing since i was used to hearing Prokofiev's "charm" in dissonant music and I felt it lacked charm. Sure, but that's not what it was supposed to be about. To warm up to some stuff, you have to break the connection in your mind to something else that's similar and just listen to it for what it is....
Quote from: jochanaan on July 15, 2008, 08:45:36 AM
None for you, perhaps--but I regularly play for poetry jams at a local organic-foods cafe, and from the audiences' reactions, they are both entertained and "art-ified." ;) Besides, it's fun! ;D
I was thinking of the guy whose "artwork" consisted of him masturbating under the installation floor, or the guys who butchered animals on stage for entertainment.
Quote from: jochanaan on July 15, 2008, 08:45:36 AM
None for you, perhaps--but I regularly play for poetry jams at a local organic-foods cafe
That's totally what I pictured when I saw you member pic.
Quote from: M forever on July 19, 2008, 08:19:40 PM
That's totally what I pictured when I saw you member pic.
You're going to need a bigger poetry cafe.
Quote from: drogulus on July 20, 2008, 06:48:09 AM
You're going to need a bigger poetry cafe.
We're working on it. ;D
Many great composers of the past were accused of writing"gibberish",too. There has always been rejection and incomprehension of music when it was new by some.
In the early 19th century, many people found Beethoven's music as impenitrable as many find Carter's music today. Many considered Wagner the Antichrist of music in the 19th century; Clara Schumann attended a performance of Tristan und Isolde when it was new and was absolutely appalled by it.
Who knows how people a century or so from now will see the music of our time, assuming that the world has not been destoyed by cataclysmic events? If we could come back and see what is popular and established, we might be extremely surprised !
Quote from: Superhorn on October 22, 2008, 07:28:21 AM
Many great composers of the past were accused of writing"gibberish",too. There has always been rejection and incomprehension of music when it was new by some.
In the early 19th century, many people found Beethoven's music as impenitrable as many find Carter's music today.
Indeed, in the 21st centrury too. Granted, I'm a musical ignoramous: I don't write, play, or even read music. Despite that -- or maybe because of it -- Carter's works were more immediately accessible and enjoyable to me than, say, Beethoven's late quartets or the Art of the Fugue.
For me I have and continue to think of Beethoven as the greatest composer. On that account I persevered with the Late Quartets and have come to appreciate these works in so far as my
very limited comprehension permits. Nevertheless I still much prefer a typical Carter work to the Grosse Fugue, or Art of the Fugue for that matter. And I don't "give a rat's ass" whether any of it is gibberish or not.
Quote from: Feanor on October 27, 2008, 12:22:05 PM
Indeed, in the 21st centrury too. Granted, I'm a musical ignoramous: I don't write, play, or even read music. Despite that -- or maybe because of it -- Carter's works were more immediately accessible and enjoyable to me than, say, Beethoven's late quartets or the Art of the Fugue.
No musical (or other) reason why that should not be. My 'elective listening' is much more frequently music of the 20th and 21st centuries, than of
Bach or
Beethoven.
Quote from: LVB_opus.125 on June 12, 2008, 09:54:58 PM
On relativism: Do I favor a piece of music because it's good, or is the piece of music good because I favor it?
I'm paraphrasing you know who right here but I feel that a distinction can be drawn here. For instance, sometimes I will favor something, a film, painting, song, that I clearly know is not "good." For instance, Troll 2 is a notoriously bad movie, and that's a fact, not an opinion. Yet at the same time I love that movie - but I recognize its badness. So in this case I favor something not because it's good, and the object is also not in the state of being "good" in which to be favored. Yet so it is favored, in all its badness. This is why there is a difference between favorite and great or best, better art. A favorite can be bad, objectively. And also a favorite can be good, objectively. Something great simply is, love it or hate it.
Can the relativists/subjectivist simply admit that some have better taste than others?
How can you have good taste without being subjective? What would be yours about it?
Sure, I can admit that someone else has better taste than me, and in fact I insist on it. Better and worse tastes are like better and worse music. They are underdetermined by any set of facts, except what people express about how they feel. After all the objective features of a piece of music have been weighed, you still have to decide how you feel about it. That's why it's possible to say that you feel Bach is the greatest composer though you don't care for his music very much, and everyone understands what you mean.
So, favorite is subjective, and so is greatest. The difference is greatest is a judgment made collectively over time, and your personal idea of greatest is an assessment of this collective judgment, and perhaps how you would wish to change it. This is an oversimplification, of course, but I think it hits the main points.
;)
Quote from: Christi on November 28, 2008, 01:23:05 PM
I heard it was Very early Country
I heard you were very early igloo.
Quote from: Operahaven on May 03, 2008, 03:50:40 AM
Luke,
It's not just anathema to me, it's anathema to the great Frederick Delius.
He adored Pelleas, Faun and La Mer but he remained thoroughly unimpressed by the piano music and all of the later works in which he claimed that Debussy had degenerated into a mannerist.
Delius was right.
Well, goody goody for Freddy.