maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) (06/27/91)
In article <11273@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes: |> [lots of relevant if extravagantly phrased stuff about listening] |> And last of all "composition" is dead, |> significant music is not made that way anymore. Oh yes? I'm almost sure that (1) you've made the case for this rather ominously proscriptive claim before, and (2) that you probably mean something milder and seek in your vehemence primarily to get our goats, but (hey) I'll allow my goat to be gotten. How do you know I can't make "significant" music by composing? And how do you know when music is significant anyway? Citation? Record sales? Vance
eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (06/29/91)
In article <1991Jun27.161828.17195@agate.berkeley.edu> maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes: ;In article <11273@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot ;Handelman) writes: ;|> And last of all "composition" is dead, ;|> significant music is not made that way anymore. ;How do you know I can't make "significant" music by composing? "Composing" is too limited, not general enough. That's why it pays so little. That's why in turn it does not attract "the best minds of my generation" (ginsburg). No critical base.
news@ai.mit.edu (news) (06/29/91)
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory From: mrsmith@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Mr. P. H. Smith) Path: rice-chex!mrsmith In article <11353@idunno.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes: >In article <1991Jun27.161828.17195@agate.berkeley.edu> maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes: >;In article <11273@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot >;Handelman) writes: > >;|> And last of all "composition" is dead, >;|> significant music is not made that way anymore. > >;How do you know I can't make "significant" music by composing? > >"Composing" is too limited, not general enough. That's why it >pays so little. Although a few chaps manage to do quite well in this respect: Andrew Lloyd Weber made $240 million in one year by composing. >That's why in turn it does not attract "the best minds >of my generation" (ginsburg). No critical base. It never has. Mozart, Wagner, Sweelinck, Alkan, Haydn, Schoenberg -- are these the "best minds" of their generation? Perhaps Beethoven, Bach, and Bartok were? It's hard to figure out what you mean by "best minds." Musically? Overall intellectual aptitude? If the latter, then composers generally don't qualify. Paul mrsmith@ai.mit.edu
eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (06/30/91)
In article <16722@life.ai.mit.edu> news@ai.mit.edu (news) writes: ;Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory ;From: mrsmith@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Mr. P. H. Smith) ;Path: rice-chex!mrsmith ; ;In article <11353@idunno.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU ;(Eliot Handelman) writes: ;>In article <1991Jun27.161828.17195@agate.berkeley.edu> ;maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes: ;>;In article <11273@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot ;>;Handelman) writes: ;> ;>;|> And last of all "composition" is dead, ;>;|> significant music is not made that way anymore. ;> ;>;How do you know I can't make "significant" music by composing? ;> ;>"Composing" is too limited, not general enough. That's why it ;>pays so little. ; ;Although a few chaps manage to do quite well in this respect: Andrew Lloyd ;Weber made $240 million in one year by composing. I can assure you, he did not make that money by "composing." He made that money by "selling." Webber's music is intrinsically dime-a-dozenish, there is absolutely nothing about it that a priori singles it out for the sort of success he's enjoyed. If you want to appreciate his success you need to look at a much larger chunk of the world than what notes the man put down on his page. This is not meant to sound sour, by the way. ;>That's why in turn it does not attract "the best minds ;>of my generation" (ginsburg). No critical base. ; ;It never has. Mozart, Wagner, Sweelinck, Alkan, Haydn, Schoenberg -- ;are these the "best minds" of their generation? Perhaps Beethoven, ;Bach, and Bartok were? It's hard to figure out what you mean by "best ;minds." Musically? Overall intellectual aptitude? If the ;latter, then composers generally don't qualify. Musical minds, I said "no critical base." "Composition" is one of a thousand different ways of making music. What's music? It's like asking "what's a shoe"? It's more than something structural. Somehow the shoe industry has billeted a large dedicated section of cortex that integrates shoes. Wear the wrong shoes and you no longer look human. What the shoes actually look like is irrelevant, the important thing is that the industry observes design restrictions otherwise no real appropriation of integrative resources could succeed at a neurological level. The same is true of cars, that's why they all look the same, though this wasn't always the case! And of course the same is true of industry music, which fundamentally is all alike. So there isn't any real interest in design particulars, in how you make your piece go, or even in originality, which now serves no purpose. What's interesting is the bigger chunk of the world that has succeeded in the transmission of designer consciousness. The contents of the individual unit of perception -- the composition -- either agrees with the tendencies impressed upon or induced in the consumer (that's you and me) brain or causes momentary discomfort. So in effect it's the consciousness industry that has long-term potentiality -- the "original," "expressive," "artistic," is just a momentary shock that wears off as soon as the next shock arrives. It's expendable. We know that from 50 years of a subsidized "avant-garde," and genuine musical intelligence is able to appreciate that. The best musicians are by now all in the music industry or on its fringes.