jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/21/83)
"Mostly, Rounder deals in Bluegrass and Blues, but any modern music
scholar knows that the end result etc. etc."
"Modern music scholar"! My, aren't the pop culture freaks getting
pretentious these days!
All this talk about lack of creativity in rock, jazz snobs, etc. cracks
me up. All you have to do is listen to some late Beethoven quartets, maybe
Mahler's 6th symphony, maybe Schoenberg's Ode to Napoleon, to realize what's
more limited and what's less limited. Of course, you may have to listen
to these pieces 7 or 8 times before you begin to get the hang of them, but
that's a small price to pay for never getting tired of them afterwards.
Now, mind you, I'm not saying rock, punk, jazz, etc. are horrible
and shouldn't be listened to. But when it comes to subtlety and range
of expression, just remember what kind of music is at the top of the
heap.
Quick, Watson, the asbestos...
Jeff Winslowrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (09/28/83)
It's interesting that, in Jeff Winslow's original article, he points a finger at "the lack of creativity" in modern so-called popular music, while he names compositions that are between (approximately) 100 and 200 years old as examples of creativity in classical music. Hmmmm... And to think that I flame at fans of '70s music (progressive rock and heavy metal) for being "archaic" and "wallowing in nostalgia". My apologies to you all. Compared to Jeff you're practically futurists! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/29/83)
It's interesting that, in my original article, I most emphatically did NOT
point a finger at a "lack of creativity" in modern "popular" music (sorry
I can't find a better term either). Several other people's articles did,
however; this moved me to point out a great source of creativity which
these articles ignored. I named compositions that are, respectively, 160,
80, and 40 years old. The fact that they are still alive at those ages is
proof enough of the creativity of their composers. Last but not least,
chronological newness or the lack of it has nothing to do with the creativity
that went into a piece of music (although, if not much went into it, it will
probably sound "old" in some sense).
Jeff Winslowdya@unc-c.UUCP (10/02/83)
References: tekecs.2222
...And these arguments on how to define creativity show a suprising
lack therof. The fact that most "creative" music is alive today is not
because it is creative but because of technological advancements which have
permitted the archiving of music in some form. Publishing of music in
its variant forms (sheet, disc, mag tape) is a relatively recent invention.
The argument that ' because something endures it must be good and
therefore have the attributes I am trying to argue ' is logically fallacious.
One does not find the premises to fit the conclusion and call them THE
TRUTH. Such premises might be A truth.
Also, Jeff, what are we going to have? The fact that music is still
alive is proof of creativity, but chronological newness or the lack of it
has nothing to do with creativity ? Sentences of the form p and not p
are impossible, by definition.
End of flame..............
--David { .....duke!mcnc!unc-c!dya }jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (10/04/83)
Perhaps the attempts to define creativity are not themselves creative
because they have never been created in the first place! Not by me, anyway.
Where did you get the idea that I did?
The idea that these older works are still alive simply because somebody
took the trouble to archive them ignores the most important point: Why did
they bother? Loads of music (in a "classical style") that you never hear was
written and published between, say, 1850 and 1900. Most of it survives only
in attics and musicologists' shelves. But some of it is alive, having a large
and enthusiastic audience. Why? Not simply because their composers were good
publicists (although some of them were). Not by luck. But because these
composers were creative enough to come up with something that generation
after generation finds interesting. (Well, some of each generation, anyway.)
Remember that there is a difference between being alive and merely surviving.
As for 'newness or the lack of it' and self-contradictory sentences, try
reading it this way: "The date of composition has nothing to do with the
creativity that went into a piece of music." That in no way contradicts the
statement, "The fact that these pieces ARE STILL ALIVE at this age is proof
enough of their composer's creativity." And the latter statement is not an
attempt to define creativity!
Jeff Winslow