Music and struggling

[Karl Henning]

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

Free the Sarge!      

[Henk]

Some Nietzsche:

"Against the Art of Works of Art.  Art is above all and first of all meant to embellish life, to make us ourselves endurable and if possible agreeable in the eyes of others.  With this task in view art moderates us and holds us in restraint, creates forms of intercourse, binds over the uneducated to laws of decency, cleanliness, politeness, well-timed speech and silence.  Hence art must conceal or transfigure everything that is ugly — the painful, terrible, and disgusting elements which in spite of every effort will always break out afresh in accordance with the very origin of human nature.  Art has to perform this duty especially in regard to the passions and spiritual agonies and anxieties, and to cause the significant factor to shine through unavoidable or unconquerable ugliness.  To this great, super great task the so-called art proper, that of works of art, is a mere accessary.  A man who feels within himself a surplus of such powers of embellishment, concealment, and transfiguration will finally seek to unburden himself of this surplus in works of art.  The same holds good, under special circumstances, of a whole nation.  But as a rule we nowadays begin art at the end, hang on to its tail, and think that works of art constitute art proper, and that life should be improved and transformed by this means — fools that we are!  If we begin a dinner with dessert, and try sweet after sweet, small wonder that we ruin our digestions and even our appetites for the good, hearty, nourishing meal to which art invites us!"

[Henk]

Some more Nietzsche:

"THE ART-NEED OF THE SECOND ORDER

The Art-Need of the Second Order.  The people may have something of what can be called art-need, but it is small, and can be cheaply satisfied.  On the whole, the remnant of art (it must be honestly confessed) suffices for this need.  Let us consider, for example, the kind of melodies and songs in which the most vigorous, unspoiled, and true-hearted classes of the population find genuine delight; let us live among shepherds, cowherds, peasants, huntsmen, soldiers, and sailors, and give ourselves the answer.  And in the country town, just in the houses that are the homes of inherited civic virtue, is it not the worst music at present produced that is loved and, one might say, cherished?  He who speaks of deeper needs and unsatisfied yearnings for art among the people, as it is, is a crank or an impostor. Be honest!  Be honest!  Only in exceptional men is there now an art-need in the highest sense — because art is once more on the down-grade, and human powers and hopes are for the time being directed to other matters.  Apart from this, outside the populace there exists indeed, in the higher and highest strata of society, a broader and more comprehensive art-need, but of the second order.  Here there is a sort of artistic commune, which possibly means to be sincere.  But let us look at the elements!  They are in general the more refined malcontents, who attain no genuine pleasure in themselves; the cultured, who have not become free enough to dispense with the consolations of religion, and yet do not find its incense sufficiently fragrant; the half-aristocratic, who are too weak to combat by a heroic conversion or renunciation the one fundamental error of their lives or the pernicious bent of their characters; the highly gifted, who think themselves too dignified to be of service by modest activity, and are too lazy for real, self-sacrificing work; girls who cannot create for themselves a satisfactory sphere of duties; women who have tied themselves by a light-hearted or nefarious marriage, and know that they are not tied securely enough; scholars, physicians, merchants, officials who specialised too early and never gave their lives a free enough scope — who do their work efficiently, it is true, but with a worm gnawing at their hearts; finally, all imperfect artists — these are nowadays the true needers of art!  What do they really desire from art?  Art is to drive away hours and moments of discomfort, boredom, half-bad conscience, and, if possible, transform the faults of their lives and characters into faults of world-destiny.  Very different were the Greeks, who realised in their art the outflow and overflow of their own sense of well-being and health, and loved to see their perfection once more from a standpoint outside themselves.  They were led to art by delight in themselves; our contemporaries — by disgust of themselves."

[some guy]

Something else occurred to me, and Elgarian's narrative of his struggles with Sibelius' seventh symphony crystallized that for me.

And that is to speculate on the causes of the struggles.

I have observed that often (usually) when someone mentions struggling (as a bad thing), it is almost always because there were expectations and those expectations were not fulfilled--or that there was desire for something else. Most of the blaming I see of various composers or styles or schools of music for being wrong or bad or destructive or corrupting is on account of a strong desire for something else.

Now I think a strong desire for something else is in the abstract a good thing. My first thought about this continuation of the topic about struggling was how absurd it would be to go up to the mountains and look out across the lake to the snow-covered peak and complain about the placement of a tree. Needs to be twenty feet or so to the left. Then I imagined a painter. That person could very easily "fix" the problem by simply painting the tree a bit to the left. Part of the creative impulse is to change how things are into something else. So wanting to add or to fix or to alter is a good wanting. But when it takes the form of mindless whining, then it's not so pleasant or useful.

A listener is in a particular relationship to the things being auditioned. Short of becoming a composer oneself and working the thing you don't like into your own piece in a way that makes the thing acceptable, one's function as a listener is to accept. Apparently a lot of people find this difficult. I've had experiences like that, too. I liked Berio's music generally, and especially Thema: Ommagio a Joyce, but Visage made me physically ill. Well, that's easy. Don't listen to Visage. But it nagged at me, for decades. All this other Berio, which I liked, bolstered by his frequent trips to L.A. in the seventies and eighties--all of whose concerts I attended--made me want to like Visage as well.

Eventually, yes. A lot of other music by other people and one day putting Visage on and finding it excruciatingly beautiful.

Anyway, I think for a listener, acceptance is key. This is what the composer has done. There's nothing you can do about it. Here it is. It does this thing and that thing, and it does them in spite of any tastes or expectations or desires you may bring to any hearing of it. It's just itself. You can accept that or you can reject it. You can't change it. The best way to go into a confrontation with something new and unfamiliar is to take it as given. There it is. Nothing else matters, certainly not any impertinent expectations or desires. I know for myself that every time I have disliked a piece on first hearing that turns out to be a piece I enjoy eventually, it's because I wanted something other than what I was getting.

But the piece doesn't know that; the composer doesn't know what I want. The composer only knows what it took to get that piece to do what it does. I don't enter into it until I do, and when that happens, I have a pretty specific job to do--listen to what I've been offered without preconceptions and without any other desires than to hear this new thing I've never heard before and enjoy it for what it is, not for what it isn't.

Well, that was a bit preachy--I hope the choir wasn't too bored--which is why I named this post "credo," doncha ya know.

[Brian]

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


Sarge

One might say...until you escape?   

[Karl Henning]

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

[Elgarian]

Anyway, I think for a listener, acceptance is key. This is what the composer has done. There's nothing you can do about it. Here it is. It does this thing and that thing, and it does them in spite of any tastes or expectations or desires you may bring to any hearing of it. It's just itself. You can accept that or you can reject it. You can't change it. The best way to go into a confrontation with something new and unfamiliar is to take it as given. There it is. Nothing else matters, certainly not any impertinent expectations or desires. I know for myself that every time I have disliked a piece on first hearing that turns out to be a piece I enjoy eventually, it's because I wanted something other than what I was getting.

Bang on the money. Essential reading for anyone repelled or baffled by ANY kind of art.

The only snag is - it can be very hard to achieve this open-ness. Not always by any means. Sometimes lightning just strikes from a clear sky and I'm sizzling. But there are other times when those preconceptions and expectations will keep on bubbling up and demanding attention, time and again. When the problem was with Sibelius 7, the answer was relatively simple: talk to Brian and his gang. They can open new windows. Of course Brian isn't always there ...

[Henk]

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

So enough reason for you to distrust and discard the complete works of Nietzsche?

[Elgarian]

So enough reason for you to distrust and discard the complete works of Nietzsche?

Well, any declaration of what Art is, is immediately suspect. Art seems to have a way of wriggling out of any fixed definition.

[Madiel]

I find this quote from Igor Stravinsky's autobiography relevant.  He discusses the pros and cons of musicians connecting with wider audiences and how with the advent of new technology (he was referring to radio though it could just as easily have been the web) would ultimately weaken the impact of music because it asks less of its audience.  Stravinsky convincingly makes the case that the ease that it takes listeners to hear music ultimately deadens their interest in music.  What do you think about this?  Does effort result in greater appreciation?

Yes, I think effort results in great appreciation, and I'm going expand on that to talk about the lack of effort these days in acquisition of music.

We've moved from having to hear music live, to having to go through processes to physically acquire music recordings, to easily downloading (including downloading at no cost), to not batting at an eyelid at the fact that people put up entire albums on Youtube, to expecting a streaming service to deliver whatever we want.

Each step along the way increases the chances that people will take music for granted and expect it to be there when they want, in much the same way that we generally don't think about where the water comes from when we turn on a tap.

I read an article a few days ago about how iTunes was driving away its most music-obsessed customers, the people who collect music and lovingly organise it, by integrating Apple Music - a service that tells you everything you could possibly want is supplied by it and even tended to wreck people's personal libraries in the first place. And it made me realise that's what I am, a music collector. The fact that the world around me is moving towards not owning ANY music beyond marking something as a "favourite" on Spotify fills me with dread. To me, buying music is setting up a relationship, it's a commitment, it's a statement that out of that great seething mass of music and recordings of music, this is the one I've chosen to invite into my home.

So when I talk about the 'effort' of getting to know a piece of music, I'm almost always talking about making that relationship work, having already invited the music into my home.

[Henk]

Well, any declaration of what Art is, is immediately suspect. Art seems to have a way of wriggling out of any fixed definition.

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

Karl should also have noticed this.

[Henk]

Well, any declaration of what Art is, is immediately suspect. Art seems to have a way of wriggling out of any fixed definition.

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

[Henk]

Really need to do something proper now. I will read your replies tomorrow.

[Madiel]

I have observed that often (usually) when someone mentions struggling (as a bad thing), it is almost always because there were expectations and those expectations were not fulfilled--or that there was desire for something else. Most of the blaming I see of various composers or styles or schools of music for being wrong or bad or destructive or corrupting is on account of a strong desire for something else.

...


Anyway, I think for a listener, acceptance is key. This is what the composer has done. There's nothing you can do about it. Here it is. It does this thing and that thing, and it does them in spite of any tastes or expectations or desires you may bring to any hearing of it. It's just itself. You can accept that or you can reject it. You can't change it. The best way to go into a confrontation with something new and unfamiliar is to take it as given. There it is. Nothing else matters, certainly not any impertinent expectations or desires. I know for myself that every time I have disliked a piece on first hearing that turns out to be a piece I enjoy eventually, it's because I wanted something other than what I was getting.

Oh my goodness, yes.

This represents hundreds of conversations I've had with people, mostly fellow Tori Amos fans. Mostly when they're complaining that album no.5 or 8 or 11 doesn't sound like the first couple of albums where she sat at the piano and played pretty but devastatingly emotional songs.

And it also represents a conversation with Tori Amos a year ago, where I told her that what I loved most about her music was how each album had a different music language, and how there was a process of understanding what that language was and what the music was doing. And I told her that I would keep being engaged in that process no matter where she 'took' me with each new album, and she gave me an excited hug and said that I was exactly the sort of person that she was creating music for.

To me the essence of good music is that it is true to ITSELF. That it sets out it's own "rules" or "language" and then follows through on that. My number one response to people when they criticise an album or piece of music because it isn't doing this or that is that it isn't trying to. People generally understand that a drama isn't trying to be screamingly funny and that saying a movie or play is only good when you laugh wouldn't make sense. But when it comes to music people seem less able to grasp that there are different goals and that having overly rigid expectations is a recipe for missing out on some good stuff.

I think everyone has some core "musical values" that are always going to be important to them, but the more abstract and general those values are, the more flexible a listener can be in terms of appreciating different styles and genres and approaches.

[Elgarian]

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

I feel like the chap who was asked the way to Timbuctoo, and replied 'well if I were going there I wouldn't start from here...'

I think such a huge topic on the nature of art would be in danger of hijacking this very interesting thread, so maybe it's a discussion that should take place elsewhere?

[Madiel]

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

Depends on what you mean by "beauty". Is Saving Private Ryan beautiful? The first part of that movie shook me utterly. I don't think it was trying to make me feel good, I think it was trying to make me feel horrible. It did a beautiful job.

[starrynight]

My number one response to people when they criticise an album or piece of music because it isn't doing this or that is that it isn't trying to.

This is what I often say as well.

Also people often don't understand that tastes/preferences can change over time anyway, with a bit of effort it can be broadened.  Of course that doesn't mean music can't be criticised, but it should be done based on the creativity within the style it is in, not on biases that nobody cares about except the person expressing them and those who share those biases.

[Cato]

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

Good ol' pietzsche Nietzsche is the suspect! 

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

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

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

[Brian]

Oh my goodness, yes.

This represents hundreds of conversations I've had with people, mostly fellow Tori Amos fans. Mostly when they're complaining that album no.5 or 8 or 11 doesn't sound like the first couple of albums where she sat at the piano and played pretty but devastatingly emotional songs.

And it also represents a conversation with Tori Amos a year ago, where I told her that what I loved most about her music was how each album had a different music language, and how there was a process of understanding what that language was and what the music was doing. And I told her that I would keep being engaged in that process no matter where she 'took' me with each new album, and she gave me an excited hug and said that I was exactly the sort of person that she was creating music for.

To me the essence of good music is that it is true to ITSELF. That it sets out it's own "rules" or "language" and then follows through on that. My number one response to people when they criticise an album or piece of music because it isn't doing this or that is that it isn't trying to. People generally understand that a drama isn't trying to be screamingly funny and that saying a movie or play is only good when you laugh wouldn't make sense. But when it comes to music people seem less able to grasp that there are different goals and that having overly rigid expectations is a recipe for missing out on some good stuff.

I think everyone has some core "musical values" that are always going to be important to them, but the more abstract and general those values are, the more flexible a listener can be in terms of appreciating different styles and genres and approaches.

LOVE this post!

[jochanaan]

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

+1