18 Apr 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou're quoting this famous Stravinsky line to advance your point of view?
"Once I remember being handed a score composed by Mozart at the age of eleven. What could I say? I felt like de Kooning, who was asked to comment on a certain abstract painting, and answered in the negative. He was then told it was the work of a celebrated monkey. 'That's different. For a monkey, it's terrific.'"
18 Apr 08
3 edits
For the record this is the context in which "realization" was introduced:
"It'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.
It seems like this is true of anything that requires abstract thought and depth of understanding."
18 Apr 08
5 edits
Originally posted by NemesioThe point is that "de Kooning" recognized a poor abstract painting. From what you've said thus far {"If my son can draw it, then I probably don't like it, etc."} it seems like there's little danger that you would. Is it so far out of the realm of possibility that you don't understand enough to judge?
You're quoting this famous Stravinsky line to advance your point of view?
18 Apr 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneTo which I responded: This sounds suspiciously like secret-decoder ring theory, that there is some
"It's been my experience that those who have developed [b]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.
It s ...[text shortened]... this is true of anything that requires abstract thought and depth of understanding.[/b]"[/b]
magical, hitherto undefined realization that needs to occur, and without it a person is totally in
the dark (ignorance).
This, of course, is in contrast with other music, it would seem. Consider Mozart, in which there
can be graduated levels of realization; one could be very ignorant of Mozart, of symphonies, of
orchestras, of melody or harmony and still appreciate the Forty-First Symphony.
So, are you going to provide an introduction into how to develop the 'depth of understanding'
required to hear something other than what I heard in the tracks you offered in your earlier
post?
Nemesio
18 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWe return to criteria, then. I am perfectly capable of explaining why a particular Bach fugue is
The point is that "de Kooning" recognized a poor abstract painting. From what you've said thus far {"If my son can draw it, then I probably don't like it, etc."} it seems like there's little danger that you would. Is it so far out of the realm of possibility that you don't understand enough to judge?
more successful than, say, a particular Johann Ludwig Krebs fugue. Or why the first movement
of a particular Beethoven piano sonata is more successful than a particular one by Czerny. I
can walk you through treatment of melody, voice leading, the nature of modulation, the use
of register, counterpoint, and so forth. I'm sure you believe that I can do this.
I do not believe that you can do this with this modern sound organization. As I said, given
that you had a month to study the music from that disc, to listen to it, soak it in, contemplate
it or whatever, if I excised 15 seconds out of one track on that disc and inserted a different
15-second excerpt from another track, I bet you couldn't tell, despite your claim to having
realized it. I'm confident that, if you gave me any disc with music from the early 20th century
or earlier, I could.
I also would contend that if I went on the internet and found five pieces written by various
different composers, you couldn't tell me which one was a well-recognized composer and
which one was a kid working out of his basement. By contrast, I'm confident that I could
tell the difference between Mozart and someone writing like Mozart (for example).
In the absence of putting your money on the table and defining your criteria, you can maintain
whatever vague sense of 'music' you want, and any piece of music is good and any sound
organization is music, and so on.
Nemesio
18 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThe more you rant, the more I'm convinced that you're a nuts and bolts kind of guy who has little patience for or understanding of the abstract. That's fine. The world can always use mechanics. Though it's unfortunate that you feel compelled to denigrate the work of those who work outside your limited domain.
We return to criteria, then. I am perfectly capable of explaining why a particular Bach fugue is
more successful than, say, a particular Johann Ludwig Krebs fugue. Or why the first movement
of a particular Beethoven piano sonata is more successful than a particular one by Czerny. I
can walk you through treatment of melody, voice leading, the nature of any piece of music is good and any sound
organization is music, and so on.
Nemesio
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNemesio isn't the only one here curious about and willing to learn what you know about appreciating abstract music. You're the one who brought it up, so it'd be bad etiquette to leave us hanging. Please proceed, sir.
The more you rant, the more I'm convinced that you're a nuts and bolts kind of guy who has little patience for or understanding of the abstract. That's fine. The world can always use mechanics. Though it's unfortunate that you feel compelled to denigrate the work of those who work outside your limited domain.
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasPerhaps you should read through the thread so that you can understand what I did and did not bring up.
Nemesio isn't the only one here curious about and willing to learn what you know about appreciating abstract music. You're the one who brought it up, so it'd be bad etiquette to leave us hanging. Please proceed, sir.
But then, you seem to be having trouble keeping track of your own position. I see nothing's changed for you.
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo, you're not the one who brought up the idea that a person needs a certain realization in order to appreciate the abstract? No, I'm pretty sure that's you.
Perhaps you should read through the thread so that you can understand what I did and did not bring up.
But then, you seem to be having trouble keeping track of your own position. I see nothing's changed for you.
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou often seem to be at least slightly out of phase as well as disingenuous. I can see that it's still pointless to discuss anything with you.
So, you're not the one who brought up the idea that a person needs a certain realization in order to appreciate the abstract? No, I'm pretty sure that's you.
19 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou seem to be taking this very personally, though I am unclear why. I mean, why should it
The more you rant, the more I'm convinced that you're a nuts and bolts kind of guy who has little patience for or understanding of the abstract. That's fine. The world can always use mechanics. Though it's unfortunate that you feel compelled to denigrate the work of those who work outside your limited domain.
arouse any passion in you if I think this music is crap? I don't have any personal vested interest
if you thought, for example, that Mendelssohn is crap, even though I love his music.
Indeed, if you found his music to be crap but showed an interest in learning about it, I would be
interested in teaching you.
As for my so-called limited domain, that's just silly. I listen to Western Art Music from the 9th to
the early 20th century, as well as jazz, classic rock, Latin American music, and a smattering of
other modern genres. Simply because I don't appreciate the field of abstract music does not
itself make my perspective limited. Indeed, I would say that calling a person whose musical
tastes reach across a millennium 'limited' only betrays a certain closed-minded perspective on
your own part.
You asked me what I thought of the tracks you selected. I'm beginning to suspect that you
might be the composer or a friend of the composer, or somehow are involved in the field of
composing this sort of organized sound. If you didn't want my opinion, then you shouldn't have
asked. And if you are so thin skinned about the issue, maybe you shouldn't bring it up because
there are always going to be people who dislike a particular genre of art.
Lastly, you seem to be equating a mechanical tendency with some pejorative, or perhaps worse
that people who appreciate Mozart, Beethoven or Bach as 'nuts and bolts' sort of people (but
in a bad way). That seems bizarre to me, as if mechanical people are not creative. It seems
that maybe you have the denigrating attitude, not I.
I mean, look at it this way: I want to learn, you have decided that I am unable to be taught.
You are erecting an unscalable ivory tower and insisting that I and Epiphinehas stay out with
our closed-minded attitudes. Who is more tragic: the one who does not know and wishes to
learn, or the one who claims to know and will not teach?
If you want to actually have a discussion, then let me know.
Nemesio
19 Apr 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'll tell you why he won't share, Epiphinehas: it's because there is nothing to share. It's the
Nemesio isn't the only one here curious about and willing to learn what you know about appreciating abstract music. You're the one who brought it up, so it'd be bad etiquette to leave us hanging. Please proceed, sir.
Emperor's New Clothes. A blue square on a field of chartreuse, it's brilliant can't you see? If you
can't see, you're an uncultured, denigrating sot (and a communist and atheist, too). Do you
see the brilliance now?
Uh huh. Yeah.
Nemesio