Originally posted by NemesioSorry i don't play the definitions game, your interpretations are subjective as are mine. But your biases speak for themselves, indeed.
Offer a counter definition that isn't so broad that fingernails scraping against a blackboard won't
be considered music, and we'll see if I concede that you are right.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio"I'm reasonably familiar with Western artistic periods through the early 20th century, but that's where my interest (and knowledge) generally wanes."
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Do you find value in abstract painting? Just curious.
You mean like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Theo_van_Doesburg_Counter-CompositionV_%281924%29.jpg
or:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image😛ollockTela.jpg
If so, then no. If my son can draw it, then I probably don't like it. Again, it' century on, with painting styles generally a generation ahead
of musical ones.
Nemesio[/b]
And thus, by definition, where your ignorance begins. Seems like we've come full circle.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHold on, hold on. I do not claim to be ignorant of 20th-century musical traditions; indeed, I've
And thus, by definition, where your ignorance begins. Seems like we've come full circle.
studied them as part of the regimen of my training as a musicologist. I excelled in those classes,
both as an undergraduate and in graduate work. To be clear: my understanding of these musical
forms added very little if anything to my appreciation of them. My objection to them was that,
often, the musicians strove to do something different than something beautiful. Cage himself
made it very clear that he had very little interest in being liked, just in being different. Well,
I think he succeeded, but only in being good at being different.
Now, I will admit that I am not nearly as well versed in the graphic artistic traditions of the 20th
century, but I wouldn't call myself ignorant either. And I am opened to learning why my inability
to appreciate abstract art (say, the two paintings I cited above) is a product of my own deficiency,
so if you would like to help me, I'm all for it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by eldragonflyYou have failed to articulate a single bias of mine accurately. You've simply levied that my
Sorry i don't play the definitions game, your interpretations are subjective as are mine. But your biases speak for themselves, indeed.
definition of music is too narrow (even while you continue to misrepresent what I think about
Western Art Music to begin with).
Nemesio
Perhaps it is too naive a question to ask, but it may shed some light on the discussion at hand: What is music exactly? Or, more to the point, what is the purpose of music? It may not convey any specific meaning in itself, but music must have a utility nevertheless. Didn't prehistoric cultures use rhythm as a means of gaining contact with the 'spirit world'? Perhaps nowadays folk might use different terms for the same phenomenon. Does atonal music fulfill this function of music? I would think that all would agree that yes it does. The debate has been about whether or not the musical cues which traditionally denote direction and mood are essential to music itself. But perhaps it would be wise to separate any given tradition into a sphere of its own and leave off speculating about whether that tradition defines all music (which of course is ludicrous). That would be tantamount to saying, for instance, that if a computer does not have a Vista operating system, then it is not really a computer. Different traditions utilize the same fundamentals of what makes music, music; likewise, different operating systems utilize the same computer interface. Maybe the real question should be, what tradition does atonal music actually fit into? Has it added to the development of a given tradition? If not, then why consider it a part of that tradition?
Originally posted by epiphinehasExcellent analogy epiphinehas.
But perhaps it would be wise to separate any given tradition into a sphere of its own and leave off speculating about whether that tradition defines all music (which of course is ludicrous). That would be tantamount to saying, for instance, that if a computer does not have a Vista operating system, then it is not really a computer.
Originally posted by jaywillI am going to go to Gaudeamus music competition (Netherlands) where you can play only contemporary music. Sometimes when playing that music I feel frustrated and I think that Bach, Mozart and other folks are turning in their graves but there are plenty worthy avandgard pieces...
I hope the primary respondents will be musicians or music lovers familiar with the classical music of composers like:
Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, Stochousen, Pendericke, Roger Sessions, Elliot Carter, Henze, and of course all "12 tone" composers of the 20th century.
You might add some electronic music composers like Morton Sobotnik and Milto ...[text shortened]... n.
What do you think of Arnold Schoenberg's concept of all tones being equally important?
But yeah, it's still a music... bad or good 😛
Originally posted by epiphinehas
Perhaps it is too naive a question to ask, but it may shed some light on the discussion at hand: What is music exactly? Or, more to the point, what is the purpose of music? It may not convey any specific meaning in itself, but music must have a utility nevertheless. Didn't prehistoric cultures use rhythm as a means of gaining contact with the 'spirit world'? Perhaps nowadays folk might use different terms for the same phenomenon. Does atonal music fulfill this function of music? I would think that all would agree that yes it does.
Okay. What is the 'purpose' or 'function' of music? Until we answer that, we can't answer whether
atonal music fulfills it. What is the utility of music that mention?
Maybe the real question should be, what tradition does atonal music actually fit into? Has it added to the development of a given tradition? If not, then why consider it a part of that tradition?
Okay. I say that atonal music doesn't fit into the Western Art Tradition, but was designed as
a way of intentionally departing from that tradition. Schönberg, in no small part, confirmed this
in his referring to his compositions and that of the Second Viennese School no as 'atonal,' but
antitonal, as a way of indicating his dissatisfaction with the direction that the tradition was
taking music and his efforts to depart from it.
Of course, it seems silly to say something like 'Is atonal music successful at being atonal music.'
This has no meaning. That's like saying Bach is a lousy bluegrass composer. Well, sure it's true
but, so what?
So, unless I have misunderstood you, I'm not sure the issue of tradition is particularly helpful
(but maybe it is and I don't yet see it!), but your first question about the purpose, function or
utility of music is. So let's see if we can tease that out. I proposed that one of the primary
functions of music is the creation and release of tension. I think we can find this element of
music in and outside Western Art music. Let's see if this function proves to be too restrictive
as eldragonfly seems to suggest.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIt's been my experience that those who have developed an understanding of "modern art", be it music, visual arts, dance, etc. can move from one to the other relatively easily. I think that there is a "realization" that needs to occur that doesn't necessarily come with university training. Without this realization, there is ignorance.
Hold on, hold on. I do not claim to be ignorant of 20th-century musical traditions; indeed, I've
studied them as part of the regimen of my training as a musicologist. I excelled in those classes,
both as an undergraduate and in graduate work. To be clear: my understanding of these musical
forms added very little if anything to my appreciation of them. product of my own deficiency,
so if you would like to help me, I'm all for it.
Nemesio
It seems like this is true of anything that requires abstract thought and depth of understanding.
"My objection to them was that, often, the musicians strove to do something different than something beautiful. Cage himself made it very clear that he had very little interest in being liked, just in being different."
While I don't doubt that Cage wasn't interested in "being liked", I don't get the impression that he was just about "being different". What I think he was about was attempting to bring "art" back into music by deepening the understanding of it. He brought depth of understanding by making a concerted effort to question the dogma that had been built up around "Classical Music". I think he succeeded quite nicely. I think there's "beauty" in that. It's about the "beauty" of an idea rather than the "beauty" that many equate with "feeling good" which is where it seems you're coming from.
Just for grins take a listen to these excerpts:
http://www.erstwhilerecords.com/catalog/041.html
Click on "tracks".
I think it'll be more interesting to get your thoughts if you go into this "cold", so don't read any of the info that's available. However I'll give you the musicians and instrumentation. Listen with only that to go on.
Keith Rowe guitar, electronics
Axel Dörner slide trumpet
Franz Hautzinger quartertone trumpet
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I think that there is a "realization" that needs to occur that doesn't necessarily come with university training. Without this realization, there is ignorance. It seems like this is true of anything that requires abstract thought and depth of understanding.
This sounds suspiciously like a secret-decoder ring theory. The idea that the 'realization' cannot
be articulated or explained strikes me as a copout. Anyone could claim that anything they did
was 'art' and that the 'deep' meaning of it was simply being missed by the masses. I find this
approach to be disingenuous at best. While I don't think music appreciation can be justified to
the nth degree, I think that we can constrain the justification.
While I don't doubt that Cage wasn't interested in "being liked", I don't get the impression that he was just about "being different". What I think he was about was attempting to bring "art" back into music by deepening the understanding of it. He brought depth of understanding by making a concerted effort to question the dogma that had been built up around "Classical Music". I think he succeeded quite nicely. I think there's "beauty" in that. It's about the "beauty" of an idea rather than the "beauty" that many equate with "feeling good" which is where it seems you're coming from.
Beethoven questioned the dogma of his time. Bach questioned the dogma of his time. Mahler
questioned the dogma of his time. Debussy did too. So did Messiaen. So did Monteverdi.
The notion that Cage brought the 'art' back to music suggests that it was lost. I find that a
problematic construct.
I think it'll be more interesting to get your thoughts if you go into this "cold", so don't read any of the info that's available. However I'll give you the musicians and instrumentation. Listen with only that to go on.
I merely clicked on the tracks, knowing nothing about it except the titles of the tracks (which
I could not avoid).
Frankly, I thought it was crap. Complete and total crap. I would not call it music, but noise.
I took a computer music course in graduate school, and I 'composed' a piece very similar to it,
synthesizing my own instruments (no live instruments). I thought my own piece was crap, but
my goal was to fulfill an assignment. I received an A on the piece and in the course. It literally
took me 15 minutes to 'write' once I designed the electronic voices I wanted (which took significantly
longer) and required no talent on my part.
Maybe that's part of what I object to... It embraces mediocrity. Anyone with the vaguest
understanding of computer music could produce the noise in those tracks. There's no sense
of what constitutes a 'good' piece, or whether first track captures the spirit of 'magenta' better
than the second track captures the spirit of 'yellow' or whatever the goal may have been for
those pieces (if there was one, which there may not have been).
Further, assuming that the rest of the music on the CD has the same character (that soft
white noise, with the occasional burbling), I bet that the composer(s?) himself/themselves
couldn't identify which track a 15-second excerpt of their own music came from. Or, better
yet, I bet they couldn't tell if I cut 15 seconds out of one and spliced 15 seconds from another
and played it which 15 seconds it was.
Music such as this basically tells you that 'everything is music' and thus everything is 'good
music.' And I don't believe that, not one bit. I think Mozart was a more able composer than Clementi.
I think Beethoven was better than Czerny. I think that 'The Beetles' are better than 'KC and
the Sunshine Band.' And I'm striving to compare apples with apples here and not say that
Bach is better than Brahms, a comparison which is fraught with problems.
Is it, for example, a better example of its genre than this?
http://www.berkowski.net/audio/species128.mp3
Who can say? There's no standard. There's no expectations. There's no 'right or wrong,'
'better or worse,' 'accomplished or unaccomplished.' All we have are just the contrivances
of composers who spend their lives doing what I was able to do in fifteen minutes after a
semester of computer music. It's all art.
Well, I don't buy that at all. I don't think all that has been written in literature is of equal quality.
I don't think that all that has been painted is of equal quality. I don't think all plays ever
written were of equal quality, and so forth. But who can say of this of the music you asked me
to listen to? What is its purpose? Is it create tension? No. Is it to enlighten? No. Is it to
simulate something? No. Is it to tell a story? No.
Why must music have a purpose? In order to justify someone's listening to it. There are too
many people in the world with too many ideas about what makes good or bad art, taste, or
whatever for a conscientious person to sift through in a lifetime. Many, many of these composers
complain that their music doesn't get programmed, or that no one listens to them. What do
they do that makes them worthy of an individuals limited time? How do they distinguish their
art as remarkable? Some do so by simply being radical: taking a dump on a photograph of Ghandi,
or composing an opera set to the text of Mein Kampf. Some do so by being utterly
inscrutable knowing that the intelligentsia, fearful of appearing ignorant, will nod their
heads knowingly and give them credence even though they couldn't tell a quarter-tone trumpet
from an elephant snore.
Some are actually masters of a craft -- maybe a new and innovative craft, maybe an extant one.
I think that masters in their craft are recognizable even by the woefully ignorant. And, with
knowledge of that master and their craft, the brilliance of their work becomes ever the more
apparent and ever the more awesome.
Maybe it would help me to hear what you think of these pieces, or how I might abandon my
hermeneutic and hear these pieces differently such that I would appreciate them.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioHave you head 'The Elephant in the Room'? If you listen very carefully, you can actually here the elephant snore ...
Some do so by being utterly
inscrutable knowing that the intelligentsia, fearful of appearing ignorant, will nod their
heads knowingly and give them credence even though they couldn't tell a quarter-tone trumpet
from an elephant snore.
Look, here's a page of stuff by Cage: http://www.ubu.com/sound/cage.html
And I can say that I like two pieces quite a lot: 'Mureau' and 'John Cage meets Sun Ra'. The one is 'Walden' edited by Cage's famous I Ching chance method; the other is what you might expect ... But the point is that I genuinely enjoy listening to these pieces, while I don't really enjoy listening many of his other ones. So, it's not a case of some tin-eared intellectual worshipping at the altar of post-modernism.
Speaking of Sun Ra (do you like his stuff?) -- I do have a tin ear for most free jazz (although not Sun Ra; I don't know why); I just don't get it most of the time. Would you lump free jazz in with the same pile of 'crap'? I'm betting that you wouldn't.
And what do you have against noise? Don't you understand it? From Throbbing Gristle to the Boredoms, noise is a whole planet of sound. Just because an art form is democratic ('anyone can do it'😉 doesn't make it worthless; besides, I'll think you'll find that however debased you might think a particular genre is, certain artists will nevertheless rise to the top (viz. the 80s Liverpool post-punk scene), a phenomenon that needs accounting for.
If you sense a nascent charge of elitism mounting -- you could be right
😉
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf John Cage were really consistent with his philosophy I think he would not attach his name to a composition.
Have you head 'The Elephant in the Room'? If you listen very carefully, you can actually here the elephant snore ...
Look, here's a page of stuff by Cage: http://www.ubu.com/sound/cage.html
And I can say that I like two pieces quite a lot: 'Mureau' and 'John Cage meets Sun Ra'. The one is 'Walden' edited by Cage's famous I Ching chance method; th se a nascent charge of elitism mounting -- you could be right
😉
I mean what is a piece of music by John Cage ??
Is the sound of cars driving up and down on the road outside my window a piece of music by John Cage?
I haven't listened to it, but that elephant snoring thing made me laugh. That's outrageous.
You have all heard of Elton John. But if I recall right, there was a John Elton of electronic music who had a very few nice pieces. One involved special effects applied to a violin. A kind of echo chamber - very mellow, soothing.
It could have been John Eaton rather than Elton.
==============================
Beethoven questioned the dogma of his time. Bach questioned the dogma of his time. Mahler
questioned the dogma of his time. Debussy did too. So did Messiaen. So did Monteverdi.
================================
In each case, they knew that there must be an audience out there ready to hear something a little different.
Beethoven didn't need to write symphonies like Mozart and Haydn because they had already done that. He couldn't go on unless thay had gone before.
But, I wonder what Beethoven would say if he were to hear a piece of music by Elliot Carter and told that this was a 20th century symphonic composition.
I think he would have thought that mankind had gone mad.