malik@helos.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) (12/13/84)
>Greetings, fellow old-composer admirers. Let's start some discussion. I admire many old composers; for example, John Cage is 72. >1) Who makes "music" - the composer or the performer? When we refer to > a piece of music, are we referring to a. the composition on paper, > b. the way the composition is usually heard, or c. a particular > performance of a piece of music? The composer, Charles Wuorinen once said 'The thing I like best about music is the fact that it doesn't exist'. I think what he was trying to say is that the 'piece' is neither the performance nor the score. It's more conceptual. The score is a symbolic representation. The performance, a sonic representation. If music were sound, we'd have to say that Beethoven's 5th Symphony ceases to exist between performances. And 'pops' into being, here and there around the world like little blinking xmas-tree lights. >3) There seem to be two kinds of audience members. Some are forgiving of > technical errors in performance, and others are only moved when a piece > is first technically perfect, and second interestingly interpreted. > It seems to me that the former kind of member enjoys more performances. > Is one approach more enlightened than another? Depends on how many and what kind of mistakes they make. An occasional flub here and there is ok. However, missing an entrance or screwing up an especially important passage can be distracting. > In thinking about this (if anyone cares to), realize what it means > for modern symphony orchestras. If I can buy a fine recording of > a piece for less than the price of two tickets, a recording made > from multiple takes and with every wrong note and miscue editted > away, played by the best artists in the world, and with a review > already written so I know I'm not making a mistake, why should I > attend a live performance? I can think of a few reasons. I suspect I'm in the minority, but I much prefer the 'perfect' recording to the live performance. I want to hear the piece not the performer. Live performances often make me want to buy the record, a record never makes me want to hear a live performance. >4) Program notes. Which kind do you prefer: I prefer no-nonsense facts about the structure of the piece. I agree with Joe ("It helps me listen"). Extra-musical facts can enhance your understanding of the composer's intent, especially if that intent was programmatic or emotional. But things like 'after a plaintive oboe solo, the horns join in in boisterous contrast, followed by a sinister violin cadenza...' are worthless! It's like going to see the Mona Lisa and the gallery brouchure says 'There's this woman sitting there and in the background there is some landscape...'. Ridiculous. - Karl
jwg@lanierrnd.UUCP (Joe Guthridge) (12/17/84)
In article <> malik@helos.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) writes: > > I admire many old composers; for example, John Cage is 72. This brings me to one of the points I was trying to wrestle with. How many of you out there enjoy John Cage's music? Do you enjoy the idea of what he is doing, the act of doing it, the sounds produced while doing it, or just the fact that someone has to do it :-} ? Needless to say I don't. I'm trying to educate my taste in music, and here's a big question I confront often: SHOULD I enjoy this? It's true that there's music that almost everyone agrees is bad, and some that almost everyone agrees is good. In fact, outside those classifications, people can often agree that piece A is better than piece B. But what is the object of good taste in music? A friend once told me, "If I don't enjoy a piece, it's my problem." That's an easy and good answer to the problem, but I can't live with that. Is there always an answer to whether a piece is good or bad? Is there sometimes an answer? As an aside, I'm convinced that opera is an acquired taste. Flame me. > I suspect I'm in the minority, but I much prefer the 'perfect' >recording to the live performance. I want to hear the piece not the >performer. Live performances often make me want to buy the record, >a record never makes me want to hear a live performance. Maybe the answer to the whole problem is, "De gustibus non est disputandum." So when a performance is given, even if a performer takes great liberties with the score, one happy audience member justifies the performance. There's an interesting question: What, in general, "justifies" a performance? Awash in a sea of cultural profundities... -- Joe Guthridge ..!akgua!lanierrnd!jwg
dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne E. Perry) (12/18/84)
<if a tree falls in the forest and the media is not there to cover it, does it make a sound? - quote from The Now Berkeley> The piece of John Cage that I like the best is "Silence" (or something like that) - n.m minutes of it. It is clearly the best thing he ever wrote. As to opera being an aquired taste - in a sense, all music is an acquired taste (except maybe for some of the more primitive grunt music) and opera can be acquired by slipping into it gently (as can modern music as well). Step one: get the angel recording of Nicolai Gedda's French Opera Arias; Step two: get some highlight recordings of Traviata, Barber of Seville, etc; Step three: listen/attend to full length performances. Where does music go when it is not being performed? The same place your lap goes when you stand up!
gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (12/20/84)
In article <> jwg@lanierrnd.UUCP (Joe Guthridge) writes: > >This brings me to one of the points I was trying to wrestle with. >How many of you out there enjoy John Cage's music? Do you enjoy the idea >of what he is doing, the act of doing it, the sounds produced while >doing it, or just the fact that someone has to do it :-} ? > >Needless to say I don't. I'm trying to educate my taste in music, and >here's a big question I confront often: > SHOULD I enjoy this? I'd say offhand that you've gotta think through some pretty basic notions of what constitutes Art. The whole basis of the *SHOULD* I argument involves making some serious choices on whether or not you wish to locate yourself within the critical institutions of Music as "high art" (as we in the West call it.....). You may have noticed that this newsgroup is chockablock with those who ascribe to the "at some point the institution went off the track..." point of view. I am personally quite leery of doing something like that. Seems to me that the easiest way to wander into the minefield is to try being an historical secessionist. Why not argue your case from within the traditions of twentieth century music. As for Cage, why not hunt up some composers whose work is formally related to Cages's aesthetic of construction but acheive different results (you might try Takemitsu, Gavin Bryars, Michael Nyman (early stuff). If you're intelligent enough to separate the method from the result, then is your objection to Cage as a cultural figure, or the output of his designated system of compositions? Better yet, why not hang on and wait for another wave of fashion more in keeping with your personal tastes? In keeping me biases out there in public, I would have to say that I *do* subscribe to a promarily institutional view of what constitutes Art (the advent of Post-Modernism has made that a lot easier). So I *am* biased. a>It's true that there's music that almost everyone agrees is bad, and some that >almost everyone agrees is good. In fact, outside those classifications, >people can often agree that piece A is better than piece B. But what is >the object of good taste in music? A friend once told me, "If I don't >enjoy a piece, it's my problem." That's an easy and good answer to >the problem, but I can't live with that. Is there always an answer to >whether a piece is good or bad? Is there sometimes an answer? > I would say that the object of good taste is nill in music: that's entirely a question of personal choice. As long as you choose to locate your tastes within the confines of *I* like or *dont* like. The trouble comes when you don your priestly garments and decide that anything you don't like must therefore be suspect as art. As Karl Malik so patiently points out, that often happens if you're unwilling to *really* spend the time with something and listen to it. You may find after doing that that you really don't care for it (that sums up me and Wagner (the Laurie Anderson of the 19th century) pretty well). The judgement of the institution is *always* provisional-time has a way of shaking those things out. If you're interested in chasing after this idea, why don't you ask someone (preferably a literary scholar, since the Musical version of this kind of criticism has only recently started early) about "reception criticism" or *Rezeptionsgeschichte*....a field that is very interested in the way in which a given view of Art and Artists changes over time. >As an aside, I'm convinced that opera is an acquired taste. Flame me. > No flames from here. In fact, the operatic folks have always been my paradigm case of the possible abuses of the "I don't like it, it must not be Art" school. Well, gotta go. This is a bit rambly, so let me condense. If Art is not your adversary, you'll live a longer and happier life. Of course, the newsgroup is awash with real "Romantics," so at least the arguments will be interesting. Ubi Caritas, Greg
jlg@lanl.ARPA (12/21/84)
> Needless to say I don't. I'm trying to educate my taste in music, and > here's a big question I confront often: > SHOULD I enjoy this? > It's true that there's music that almost everyone agrees is bad, and some that > almost everyone agrees is good. In fact, outside those classifications, > people can often agree that piece A is better than piece B. But what is > the object of good taste in music? A friend once told me, "If I don't > enjoy a piece, it's my problem." That's an easy and good answer to > the problem, but I can't live with that. Is there always an answer to > whether a piece is good or bad? Is there sometimes an answer? I have recently maintained that musical taste is totally subjective and that what agreement there is, is culturally based and depends upon the individuals background. I used to think that there should be some objective criterion by which to value music, but I can't come up with a consistent system. Based upon this idea I can't conclude that any of John Cage's music is bad since any given piece may fall within someones subjective range of what he considers good. I can conclude that random music generation IS a bad idea, since it does not necessarily generate music that anyone will like - not even the 'composer' (the human component of the composition process). To be good music, I think there should be directed effort on SOMEONE'S part to make the music enjoyable. Of course, these are just MY conclusions. I don't like John Cage either, but I have not felt the need to defend my tastes for some time since I think the whole thing is purely subjective anyway.
greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (12/21/84)
To say that there is no such thing as good, bad, great, and inferior music, that it is ultimately a matter of personal taste, is the kind of thing that people don't really believe themselves when they say it. They say these things so as not to offend and anger others. At least, I'm convinced that this is the case with anyone who really loves music, rather than considering it a trifling amusement. My own belief is that there are very real, tangible levels of greatness in musical composition just as there are varying degrees of talent in performers, and in all of the arts. Likewise, the ability to differentiate these, to perceive the differences, is ultimately what one means by referring to "taste" and is, in itself, a talent which not everyone possesses to the same degree. I realize that this sounds snobbish and elitist since I'm saying that some people will be inherently unable to reach the same levels of artistic perception that others will, but I feel that, however unfortunate it may be, this is the truth. I would say, further, that in great art there is a moral statement that has to do with the honesty and integrity of the composer and performer. This honesty and integrity, however, are strictly with regard to the relationship between the composer/performer and his art, and have nothing to do with the non-artistic personal life of the artist. Therefore, even though I don't particularly "enjoy" John Cage's music, I am not repelled by it as I am by most of Puccini's work, which is more "enjoyable" on a surface level. Cage's music has the effect on me of a drama whose plot and characters I am unable to relate to and follow and which therefore fails to sustain my interest. Puccini's music has the effect of a TV commercial which, although beautifully filmed with attractive people, is so blatantly contrived and manipulative of its audience that it angers me. The paradox is that I attend a number of Puccini opera performances and have a large number of Puccini recordings, particularly of "Tosca", one of the worst examples. The reason for this is that, even though the musical context bothers me, I enjoy hearing the actual work of Tebaldi, Callas, Price, and other great singers as they apply themselves to this music, just as I enjoy looking at the beautiful model even as the commercial's message is nauseating me. - Greg Paley
gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (12/26/84)
In article <> greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) writes: >To say that there is no such thing as good, bad, great, and inferior >music, that it is ultimately a matter of personal taste, is the kind >of thing that people don't really believe themselves when they say >it. They say these things so as not to offend and anger others. At >least, I'm convinced that this is the case with anyone who really >loves music, rather than considering it a trifling amusement. I have no objection to talking about the idea of good, bad, or indifferent music at all. What I am not sure I share with you is the suggestion that anyone who would claim otherwise is being disingenuous. It would be quite simple to hold to a number of aesthetic schemes in which the notions of "good" "bad" and "great" are not nearly so simple as you would claim (which I think you understand to mean "anyone with sufficient x will believe that y is truly a great piece of music"). How about beginning with simple recognition that the relative status that any individual or culture would ascribe to a piece of music like any piece of art is itself subject to often radical shifts in the individual or institution's grasp of what constitutes "great" music. That runs every gamut from critical statements like "Richard Wagner is the Laurie Anderson of the Nineteenth Century" to trying to convince Mendelssohn's contemporaries that Bach does indeed deserve the greatness that you would, I imagine, ascribe to him. Unless you're right up front about the possibility that your diagnosis of greatness is potentially fraught with cultural (possibly political) and ethnocentric biases, I'm suspicious of such a statement. Further, the suggestion that "anyone who loves music..." or that "anyone with enough exposure..." contains within it the standard bias that any elitist or "insider" uses to suggest that their *taste* (read idiosyncratic choice) is *actually* a recognition of some objective quality of the work in question. Again, I don't so much mind that viewpoint-it's just that you should be more upfront about the biases your judgements are salted with. >My own belief is that there are very real, tangible levels of >greatness in musical composition just as there are varying degrees >of talent in performers, and in all of the arts. Likewise, the >ability to differentiate these, to perceive the differences, is >ultimately what one means by referring to "taste" and is, in >itself, a talent which not everyone possesses to the same degree. >I realize that this sounds snobbish and elitist since I'm saying >that some people will be inherently unable to reach the same levels >of artistic perception that others will, but I feel that, however >unfortunate it may be, this is the truth. > Uh... what can I say here? Talent exists only in relation to some task. It would be foolish to assume that some composers are *not* better at acheiving some end than others. I think, though, that my difficulty lies in two areas: First, methinks that you're pushing for a rather Romantic version of talent that elevates *some* forms of ability above others....the artist who communes with the spheres vs. the lowly workman who slogs away. Certainly, if you believe that, then *taste* would certainly have a certain charm or appeal attached to it. Likewise, you could certainly argue for a sort of "natural aristocracy" to use Burke's term--that are "born" to appreciate this communion. I think you'd have a hard time getting someone like, say, Bach to agree with the ontological status you ascribe to the artist and his/her work. Art is a form of human work, and that is all. It has certain distinguishing features that allow one to separate it from "craft" or "folk art" (How do you handle that stuff?) So it seems to me that I can construct a number of alternative aesthetics that don't have quite such an elitist taint, and might conceivably do everything your aesthetic claims *without* being bourgeois and exclusivist. But secondly, I think I have some more general problems with what you refer to as taste. It seems to me that it looks a little like one of those nasty sense that can be explained only in terms of itself. Why not discuss the notion of making choices in terms of something other than an appeal to cultural supremacy? Say, in terms of every evaluative discourse? *Why* are choices about art different than any other sort of choice? >I would say, further, that in great art there is a moral statement >that has to do with the honesty and integrity of the composer and >performer. This honesty and integrity, however, are strictly with >regard to the relationship between the composer/performer and his >art, and have nothing to do with the non-artistic personal life >of the artist. I have absolutely no argument with you there. That was *very* well put. However, it would seem to me that you may at some point be called upone to say something evaluative about Hitler's architecture, or the wake of damaged sould that trail along behind the Romantic profligate composer of your choice. Appeals to the cultural purity of their art may serve your poorly, so be prepared to be able to talk about the terms of separation of art and life once you argue in its favour (ask one who has run aground on this a few times :-) ) Regards, Greg
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (12/30/84)
So whatsamatter with being an elitist? Fer chrissake, this is America!
*Anybody* can be an elitist here!! ( :-) )
By the way, what in the world is an "exclusivist"? Are they good to eat?
Look, deep down inside I don't give a rip whether anyone else understands
music the way I do, and if they have any brains they'll feel the same way
about me. And we'll all muddle on together toward that history that
Schoenberg liked to say would overrule our contemporary judgements.
Maybe we could listen to some music while we wait.
Happy New Year, I love ya all (Yes, even you, R. R.) ...
Jeff Winslowgreg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (01/03/85)
This is in response to Greg Taylor's comments on an article I posted, in which I expressed my conviction that there exist concrete levels of "greatness" in music, and that these are objective in that they are not the creation of the person perceiving them. Anyone accusing me of taking a Romantic view of art is quite justified, since the view I express follows the "ivory tower" concept of art and the artist which was most clearly set out at the peak of the literary Romantic movement, particularly by Goethe. In essence I believe that a great work of art, be it a symphony, painting, play, or set of choreographed movements, contains at its core a life of its own which, although dependent on cultural artifacts for its expression, transcends any particular culture and the artist himself. The artist is, in my view, a passive vehicle whose responsibility is to convert into physical material an abstraction which is actually external to him. His greatness as an artist depends on the clarity with which he can perceive that abstraction and the skill and sense of responsibility with which he is able to transform it into his material, whether it be paint, prose, sound or motion. For this reason, I am essentially unconcerned with knowing the details of an artist's private life or the culture surrounding him, since I consider these extraneous. This will be indigestible to many people. I'm not particularly concerned with convincing anyone that this is, in fact, true and infallible. I suppose if I wanted to support this view (for which there will ultimately be no physical proof), and answer as to how it would be possible to not be limited by my own cultural/environmental biases in perceiving a work of art, my only recourse would be to say that there are others who have attained some degree of eminence who think so too. Specifically, I would end up using Jung's discussions of the Collective Unconscious. I don't think that's necessary or relevant. My comment referring to "anyone who loves music" cannot in any sense be equated with a comment about "anyone with enough exposure" since my statement referred specifically to the particular situation of someone who genuinely loves an art form, as I do music. The statement was not an attempt to prove the validity of my views, but was, rather, merely a comment, based on my own feelings and discussions with other art-lovers, that part of that love is a tremendous conviction that what is loved is real and "objective" - i.e., not synthesized by the lover himself. Perhaps there is a means by which someone could prove that my >> diagnosis of greatness is potentially fraught with >> cultural (possibly political) and ethnocentric biases I won't admit it because I don't feel it as such. I feel, on the contrary, that it is the limitations imposed on me by my cultural and ethnic situation that prevent me from making more than a stumbling effort at expressing what I perceive. Is it being "upfront" to admit to things in yourself that you're not really convinced are there? >> So it seems to me that I can construct a number of alternative aesthetics that >> don't have quite such an elitist taint, and might conceivably do everything >> your aesthetic claims *without* being bourgeois and exclusivist. But secondly, >> I think I have some more general problems with what you refer to as taste. It >> seems to me that it looks a little like one of those nasty sense that >> can be explained only in terms of itself. Why not discuss the notion of making >> choices in terms of something other than an appeal to cultural supremacy? >> Say, in terms of every evaluative discourse? *Why* are choices about art >> different than any other sort of choice? I'm obviously more simple-minded. I'm unaware of having ever consciously constructed a primary aesthetic, much less an alternative one. If mine is bourgeois and exclusivist (?) then that's what it is. Although my expression of it is conscious, the development of it was not. Likewise, I've never found myself actually making choices when being confronted with a work of art (except the choice of whether or not I can afford to buy tickets or, in the case of a painting or record, buy the object) - I either perceive that abstract something that sets my pulses racing or I don't. If it seems like I back out of arguing, it's because I don't particularly care to argue, although I don't mind trying to explain further something I feel or have expressed previously. - Greg Paley