ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (05/01/84)
--
This tripe about classical music == bad because its composers
have been almost entirely white males is truly specious logic.
Clearly this phenomenon is not restricted to music. Indeed,
Western European society is and has been white, gentile, and
sexist. But do not confuse the products with the culture that
produced them, lest you fall into the old Nazi routine about
"Jewish science." I don't see any of you giving up on computers,
even though most (I suspect all) of the significant discoveries
in computer science and engineering have been made by white men.
This makes our society suspect, not the computers.
Someone mentioned that there were few Jewish classical composers.
True, although there have been, and continue to be, many Jewish
performers. So what? How many Jewish, or women, composers of
rock (or whatever is considered more politically correct) music
are there?
As for the newsgroup, as anyone can clearly see, a plethora of classical
articles has spewed forth. I suspect that the single net.music
medium was considered too intimidating, as in "well, no one here is
really interested in this, are they". I voted for a .classical
group not to unsubscribe to net.music, but to be able to order my
reading time more productively. I am a pre-classical musician,
so I expect .classical to contain those articles that I need the most
time to digest. I expected that contemporary music lovers would
look forward to this separation for the same reason. But noooo!
So stop complaining--read music.classical. You need not certify your
breeding. Perhaps after hitting enough n's because you're just not
interested in the use of simultaneous cross-relations in early Jacobean
consort composition (why would anyone be?), you'll understand why it's
there.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 01 May 84 [12 Floreal An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (05/02/84)
Ah, the ever amusing typo: Ken Perlow has suggested that the
poster of this article is engaging in "spacious logic." I shall
have to ring up my modal (model?) logician pals and regale them
with that....
But seriously. The suggestion is that there is a serious error
in not separating the products of culture from the processes that
produced them, citing the Nazi use of the term "Jewish Science
as an example of such analysis. He has certainly chosen an emotionally
loaded example for his argument. According to this bit of logical
legerdemain, I should rise to the bait and thus make it appear that
I am arguing in support of the Nazi cause, or spend my energies instead
in a sort of side argument. I would like to avoid that bit of informal
fallacy, if I may.
The question of elitism in a fine art tradition IS involved with the
relationship of product and process in culture. It is, however, as
misleading to say that one can or should only consider classical
(or any type of music, for that matter) music as a discrete entity as
it is to say that its essential character is determined entirely
by its point of origin (which one then proceeds to argue agains by
doing a bit of crooked reasoning about the source....)-which is the
abuse that ken refers to. But perhaps Ken merely misunderstands my
question. I shall try it this way (with apologies to Lukac (sp?)
and those other delightful Frankfurt School types, whose analysis
I shall doubtless reduce in the telling):
It is interesting to note that a "Fine Arts" tradition is somewhat
unique to Western Culture. Other people at other times would find
our separation of Art from its Context ("Just take the music as the
music. Don't pay any attention to those 'extrinsic' things") most unusual.
Likewise, one does not find nearly as strong a set of distinctions
elsewhere (again, other places, other times) between "Classical" and
"Folk" art and "Classical" and "Folk" artists. That seems puzzling,
and a person might be forgiven for wondering whether or not this
distinction serves another, less obvious function ( No need to start
fuming here about any negative connotations you might assume I'm
laying on the line of inquiry . Many entirely proper customs and divisions
in societal structures serve more than one function quite well, and there
is no guile or deceit in the fact that most people don't discuss the
secondary aspect of the behaviour ). A glance at certain aspects of this
certain tradition reveal structures like those we recognize elsewhere.
There aren't very many women involved in some parts of this tradition.
Not many ethnic minorities either, though they've been around quite a long while. ANd have you ever noticed that the authority structure of a symphony
orchestra looks like a sort of social paradigm? Look who gives the
orders! And this thing called a "score": People holler loudly when it's
not done right, but there's a tendency to credit people who play with
the instructions in an interesting way. Is the score the piece, or merely
a set of blueprints?
I confess that I am indulging myself a little at your expense by laying it
on a little thick here, but these are all engaging questions in the
territory I've referred to in my foray into "Spacious" Logic": Namely
that the process of making distinctions is proper and necessary, but
also serves a function within groups. It provides a sense of identity,
self-worth and an understanding of what is "important" in what is
often an entirely improper way. As I mentioned in my last posting
which included some little hack-brained bits on Glenn Gould and Rush,
that's not limited to classicists only, but some of the posting
of reasons for the "division" stirred me again into contemplating
that rich glow which can only come when we exclude others by referring
to our secret knowledge in the company of like-minded souls.
The music itself is a thing of great richness, beauty, transport
and pretty rewarding as a system of knowledge. BUt another different
and equally satisfying beauty comes from seeing it in the context of
the whole Structure ( I seem to have shown "my True Colours here-
am I a dreaded Sacramentalist, or merely another Structuralist? )
of human activity. A part of that pattern involves the relationship
between power and exclusion considered in the confines of musical
categories.
THis is even windier than my last late-night posting. After my
wife finishes her Ph.D. exams, I will probably stop coming in
late and writing these epistles. THank you for your indulgence.
g(Adrian Leverkuhn's music was boring, but i enjoyed his friend Thomas
very much)taylor@cornell
"gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (05/03/84)
I shall begin with a snappily written apology to Ken Perlow. Now that I go back and look carefully at my late-night posting, I can see that putting the little piece about "spacious logic" at the beginning of a rather serious bit of response might indeed look like one of those "you can't spell, what can you know?" bits. Bad move on my part. Fact was, it was the funniest typo I'd seen all week. If I try to look past that little oversight (and I would beg your indulgence here), it seems that we do agree that music does extend beyond its mere experience, which was all I was trying to say, though in a circumlocutionary way. However, one of the reasons that I went into such excruciating detail was out of some consideration for your response. You appeared pretty touchy about the whole "Jewish science" issue. I am not as acquainted with your past postings as I might be, but I wanted to take great pains in my response to suggest that my remarks were not motivated by some sort of proto-racism. I was simply concerned that your remarks would end the discussion prematurely (as I said in my last posting, you were responding to a "twisted" version of an entirely appropriate argument. You're entirely correct in taking exception, but I didn't feel it was the same species of statement). That is a common feature of life on the net, and its a shame to see a bit of insight lost in the midst of a flame (or, as you might say, in the midst of all this nonsnappy flatulence). I am asking you to accept that a bit of the pains I took to put everything three ways was motivated by a desire to be careful, and to engage you without offending you. It appears that I did so by being too careful. A classical gent out in California posted me a bit of private mail which reminded me that some of the very persons I was thinking of in formulating the last posting were, in fact, Jewish emigre's to this country. He found some irony in that that I don't entirely understand. ANybody know what he might have been talking about here? The Leverkuhn reference was a bit "too clever", but I was pretty sure you'd recognize it (sorry at how it looked, again). I am really hard pressed to come up with a better discussion of the dangers of separating Art and the world than Mann's "Doctor Faustus" (my wife reminded me to say a few nice things about Klaus Mann's "Mephisto" here as well). Regards, g(working to be careful without pedantry)taylor
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (05/09/84)
-- >> Ah, the ever amusing typo: Ken Perlow has suggested that the >> poster of this article is engaging in "spacious logic." I shall >> have to ring up my modal (model?) logician pals and regale them >> with that.... >> But seriously. The suggestion is that there is a serious error >> in not separating the products of culture from the processes... . . . >> g(Adrian Leverkuhn's music was boring, but i enjoyed his friend Thomas >> very much)taylor@cornell >> " Well, yes, hahaha. Taylor spent about 80 lines on the fine points of Western "fine arts", and how they mirror society, etc, etc, and the elitism of arbitrary distinctions. But his comment about the typo is the only one written snappily enough to bear repeating. The rest of his philosophy lecture displayed just the sort of dress-to-impress snobbery--the "I'm right, so you must be wrong, you stupid twit you can't even spell" school--he accuses the classical enthusiast of. I don't understand why he chose this very white, male, Western European idiom to make his excruciatingly well-reasoned points, since he's down on art forms that don't exhibit affirmative action. Western European music is a lot deeper than symphony orchestras and coats-and-ties-only. If you go back far enough, for instance, you find the beat to which such curiosities as capitalism and the scientific method were invented. Of course, the proof of the art is something to say. That's why I like both William Byrd and Frank Zappa, late Beethoven and early Dylan. I suppose I should be embarrased because all four of them are/were white men, but I think I'll put another record on the Victrola, or better yet, make anothar typo! -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 02 May 84 [13 Floreal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***