IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU (12/09/89)
To: Love-Hounds
From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
Subject: Are temperatures finally descending? Not so fast...
Thanks very much to Neil for the description of _Wogan_!
Thanks to Julian for his formula. It seems to IED to be an
excellent means to an end: the end being the development of
a capacity in various trigger-happy Love-Hounds like Drukman
to _support_ their criticisms with examples of how the flaws
which they claim exist in Kate's work could be fixed. It's
an excellent idea, Julian. (IED also agrees with you about 2001.)
IED didn't, Julian is right in pointing out, succeed in explaining
his idea of "perfection" in Kate's work, or in art in general. That's
because he doesn't really know how. What he was trying to get at
was that "perfection" in art may not actually be definable as
a parallel to "perfection" in other aspects of reality. IED meant
to say that there may indeed be "flaws" of a technical or even of
an expressive kind in some of Kate's work; but he questions not
only whether their removal or "correction" would "improve" the
work, but also whether those "flaws" are evidence of _imperfection_
at all. Perhaps they--like the evil which religious people cannot
explain, but which through their faith in God's omniscience they
assume must have a purpose--are aspects of the Perfect Work which
we mere listeners cannot understand.
This religion analogy is dangerously misleading, however, because
IED does _not_--he wants to emphasize again--consider Kate herself to
be any kind of Godlike figure at all. IED does suspect, however, that
there is in Kate's _work_--as perhaps in all parts of our universe--
an element of some kind of indefinable, eternal perfection. IED doesn't
see this aspect of existence in many things, nor does he experience
it often, but he does believe that it exists in all of Kate's work.
To draw a prosaic parallel, so (in IED's view) does it exist in
all of Mozart's or Beethoven's works--their minor, even awkward
early pieces and potboilers included. Wherever the hand of the
supernatural touches the hand of an artist (or the hand of any
creator or any object of nature), perhaps there is a spark of
perfection which the "flaws" obtained through transcription to
our mundane plane cannot extinguish.
So IED is offering a somewhat different definition of "perfection"
than Julian's, therefore: cannot perfection in a work of art exist
_with_ "flaws" in its final presentation? Is not the property of
"perfection" in a work of art real _in_spite_of_ the _human_
_imperfections_ which that work will inevitably acquire in the process
of transcription from the spark to the page? For does the kernel
of a great work of art lie in its pigments and brushstrokes, in its
DX-7 and Ampex-master? Or does it hide in some richer, deeper, more
ephemeral and less definable region?
Nevertheless, one can still request that those who see
faults in a work of art point to specific properties that they
find wanting in it, and to explain how those might have been
improved upon by the artist. Otherwise, how can the critics
expect to convince their listener of the acuity of their judgement?
IED realizes that he still hasn't defined perfection itself--
whether it be found in the work's final form or contained in its
conception only. Even in the latter case Julian's formula may apply, but
if so, IED would have no way of testing it, given his inexperience
with divine phenomena and consequent inability to analyze them.
> *ANY* judgment of anyone's work is solely a result of one's own tatse,
>and can have no "concrete support" -- including judgment of the music
>of Madonna and Lionel Ritchie. Is this going to stop me from saying
>that Lionel Ritchie's music sucks. No way! I think that any
>intelligent listener has the ability to determine that any objective
>statement about inately subjective phenomena really indicates just a
>certain degree of strength of belief in the opinion.
This isn't true, and is, furtherfore, a cop-out. Not all judgement
is based entirely on personal "taste", :>oug. There are, as IED's
brief consideration of some aspects of _Reaching_Out_ showed, a great
many things to be considered in judging the effectiveness of a piece
of music. Now, perhaps in some ultimate sense all of these things
can be traced back to subjective values, but that's hardly relevant
for practical purposes. By saying that all judgements are equally
subjective, you are not being "objective"--you are just giving yourself
an excuse for failing to offer any intelligent _reasons_ for your _own_
judgement. Drukman recently wrote the following:
>discussion of the classical roots of "Reaching Out" left me in the
>dark. It still has no bearing on my opinions.
Evidently, therefore, Drukman's _reasons_ for disliking _Reaching_
_Out_ are unrelated to and impervious to IED's highly specific reasons
for considering it a success. The important distinction to be noticed,
here, however, is that, whether ultimately based upon values which
Western civilization has developed along subjective lines or not,
IED provided _reasons_--and highly specific ones, at that--for his
judgement, whereas Drukman did not. We are all, nevertheless (if
we are to accept Doug's or Drukman's lazy attitude), supposed to
give the same attention, respect and credit to their judgements--unex-
plained or supported by reasons as they were--as we do to IED's. Does
that make sense? Especially since Drukman not only fails to
present any support for his own judgements, but (with typical
complacency) proclaims--above--that he didn't even _understand_ IED's
arguments in favor of the song (arguments which, though it's IED
who says it, were pretty damn lucid and easily testable by the
critical reader). If, as Drukman puts it, he is "left in the dark"
by IED's explanation, how is he able so confidently to conclude that
his own judgement has greater--or even equal--validity? Does Drukman's
"I just don't like it!" judgement convince? Does it persuade _anyone_?
Is this the level of intellectual intercourse we are to be left with
in Love-Hounds? IED hopes not.
Perhaps what IED deplores most about Drukman's and Doug's shared
attitude is reflected in Drukman's final statement:
> Of course I'm detached. It's only music, after all.
IED mind reels to find that anyone who professes to understand and
respond to the music of Kate Bush can say something as baldly Philistine
and meaningless as the above. (And any comparison of Drukman's
statement with similar recent remarks by Kate to the effect that
_TSW_ is "just an album" is inapplicable in IED's opinion, not
only because Kate is clearly trying for therapeutic purposes of
her own to convince _herself_ that such is the case, but also
because Kate's view of her own work is just not something which
we are any of us in a position to understand.) Anyway, if indeed
Drukman can dismiss the importance of music as cavalierly as that,
how, then, is it that he is apparently quite incapable of
offering correspondingly dispassionate and rational arguments in
support of his judgements? Anyone to whom music is so insignificant
a phenomenon that he can remain detached even about Kate Bush's
recordings has _no_ excuse for failing to provide intelligent, coolly
explained _reasons_ for his musical judgements.
So let's see you try, Jon: apply Julian's standards to
_Reaching_Out_, and tell us all what you would change, add
or subtract from its components in order to bring it up to _your_
high standards--different though they must be from IED's, whose
remarks about the song simply left you in the dark--?
-- Andrew Marvick
> There was nothing wrong with <Love-Hounds>, other than the lack
> of willingness on the part of the moderator to moderate it.
That's sure not what :>oug was telling us at the time, if
you recall, Jon. He had all kinds of technical problems on his
hands, if we were to believe him...jsd@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (Jon Drukman) (12/12/89)
In article <8912090145.AA11956@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU writes: > > *ANY* judgment of anyone's work is solely a result of one's own tatse, > >and can have no "concrete support" -- including judgment of the music > >of Madonna and Lionel Ritchie. Is this going to stop me from saying > >that Lionel Ritchie's music sucks. No way! > This isn't true, and is, furtherfore, a cop-out. Not all judgement >is based entirely on personal "taste", :>oug. There are, as IED's >brief consideration of some aspects of _Reaching_Out_ showed, a great >many things to be considered in judging the effectiveness of a piece >of music. Now, perhaps in some ultimate sense all of these things >can be traced back to subjective values, but that's hardly relevant >for practical purposes. This is true, and it is the very heart of the matter that has been wasting so much space on Love-Hounds of late. It is IED's considered OPINION that Kate's music is so perfect that the flaws become part of the perfection (if there are any flaws to begin with, and given such a circular definition, it seems patently unreasonable to even use the term.) This is part of the religious outlook that I find so offensive. IED came up with a great analogy when he mentioned how relgious zealots rationalize the presence of evil in the world. It's just part of the divine mystery that we cannot fathom. This whole concept is so inherently loathesome to myself, that words utterly fail me when I try to express my hatred of that view. |>oug and I are philosophers, dreamers, dilettantes perhaps, but we are at least actively seeking a world that makes some sort of sense to us, not predicated on the whims of an incomprehensible "higher power." >By saying that all judgements are equally >subjective, you are not being "objective"--you are just giving yourself >an excuse for failing to offer any intelligent _reasons_ for your _own_ >judgement. This is a lie. We are trying to say that there is no such thing as an intelligent reason. Indeed, we are trying to say that seeking an intelligent reason is a futile gesture. Why don't you try to extract sunbeams from cucumbers instead, IED? > Drukman recently wrote the following: > > >discussion of the classical roots of "Reaching Out" left me in the > >dark. It still has no bearing on my opinions. > > Evidently, therefore, Drukman's _reasons_ for disliking _Reaching_ >_Out_ are unrelated to and impervious to IED's highly specific reasons >for considering it a success. Your so-called "reasons" are no more valid than my "opinions." It is not laziness, it is not stupidity. I'm quite capable of articulating what I don't like about "Reaching Out" but what's the point? Do you care that I find the kick drum's timbre to be gutless? Do you care that I think the string arrangement is MOR-ish and smacks of histrionics best left to the arrangers of Barbara Streisand songs? I'm sure you do not. Neither do I care about the classical ballad roots of the compositional technique, nor am I interested in the "pre choral refrain" (which in my day we used to call a "lead-in" or a "bridge" and we never credited Kate with having "invented" it.) The style in which the song is performed might best be described as "anthemic" and the anthem form just causes certain neurotransmitters in my cranium responsible for nausea and loathing to be triggered in prodigious quantities. >We are all, nevertheless (if >we are to accept Doug's or Drukman's lazy attitude), supposed to >give the same attention, respect and credit to their judgements--unex- >plained or supported by reasons as they were--as we do to IED's. Does >that make sense? Yes it makes perfect sense. You cannot talk about music, which I maintain steadfastly to be an abstract, non-representational art form in concrete terms. > > Of course I'm detached. It's only music, after all. > > IED mind reels to find that anyone who professes to understand and >respond to the music of Kate Bush can say something as baldly Philistine >and meaningless as the above. (And any comparison of Drukman's >statement with similar recent remarks by Kate to the effect that >_TSW_ is "just an album" is inapplicable in IED's opinion, not >only because Kate is clearly trying for therapeutic purposes of >her own to convince _herself_ that such is the case, but also >because Kate's view of her own work is just not something which >we are any of us in a position to understand.) Let's take this in reverse order. First of all, you are being terribly unfair to Kate in judging what she may or may not have been thinking when she made those comments. Second, my original comment was meant as tongue-in-cheek, due to the incredible significance of music in my life. Constant record shopping, a weekly column about music, my own musical efforts, not mentioning countless hours spent poring over love-hounds and other musical related writings. Clearly I should've stuck a smiley face on the comment. > So let's see you try, Jon: apply Julian's standards to >_Reaching_Out_, and tell us all what you would change, add >or subtract from its components in order to bring it up to _your_ >high standards--different though they must be from IED's, whose >remarks about the song simply left you in the dark--? Why bother? You're not going to trap me that easily. If I were to have my wicked way with "Reaching Out" and attempt to stick some claws on it, it wouldn't be the same song, so it's hardly a topic fit for discussion. I was "in the dark" about your comments because they involved attempting to graft a noble heritage onto a song that is, to my ears, marred by a rather different parentage. I do not know enough about the history of music to hear the allusions you mention. I've told you what lineage I can trace in it, and you've told me what you hear, so who's right? Are you right because your remarks have a more scholarly tone to them? All the research in the world isn't gonna tell you what was in Kate's head when she sat down at the piano and plunked out the chord changes. She's admitted that all it took was "a walk in the park." What happened to her during that walk? Did she spot an arrangement of leaves on the ground that reminded her of Barbara Streisand or classical ballads? And lastly, who cares? +---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? ----------------------+ | | |\ | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu | "Suck on this, | | \|on |/rukman | jsd@umass.bitnet | planet of noise bimbo!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Alan) (12/14/89)
> [IUD:] Now, perhaps in some ultimate sense all of these things can > be traced back to subjective values, but that's hardly relevant for > practical purposes. It's damn important! It's pretty darn easy for you to sweep a glaring and fundamentally intractable philosophical problem under the rug with a sweep of your pen, isn't it? But, gee that's a darn huge lump you've got under your rug, Mr. Marvick. > By saying that all judgements are equally subjective, you are not > being "objective"--you are just giving yourself an excuse for > failing to offer any intelligent _reasons_ for your _own_ judgement. I've given you plenty of intelligent "reasons" for many of my judgments. I never said that in a discussion you shouldn't offer intelligent reasoning. What's the point of discussion otherwise? But you are never going to be able to offer proof for a judgement, nor does your judgement, no matter how well argued, represent any sort of higher reality. Ultimately, art criticism is only a political act -- not anything really having to do with the real quality or lack there of in the art itself. The purpose of art criticism to be either to make the critic more money and fame -- or if that's not what is desired, it is an attempt to promote the type of art that the critic enjoys or thinks is better, or what have you, so that there will be more of it and the world (in the the critic's model of the world) will be a better place. |>oug "O is for OLIVE run through with an awl"