20th Century Opera/Music
Richard
I recently saw "The Great Gatsby", an Opera written in the "20th
Century" style. Is "style" the right word? Anyway, it's an opera, and
it was written recently.
It was awful. The lines were all straight from the book, so the story
was fabulous. The set was great, the costumes great, the singers great.
However, the music, wasn't....music. It has absolutely no melody
whatsoever. While not quite atonal, it certainly wasn't enjoyable in
any sense of the word. The whole thing consisted of just random notes
being sung. It was just plain boring. The damn opera was four hours
longgggg. Toward the end, one woman made a break for it. It certainly
appeared that she actually crawled up the stairs leading out, with
(seriously) a bag held in her teeth. Rather than being horrified, we
were all jealous.
So, here's the question...what the hell is up with 20th century music?
Does anyone actually LIKE the stuff? Why is/was melody suddenly
something to be avoided?
My take on this is that it's just simply pretentious. Since there's
nothing aesthetically pleasing about the music, everyone assumes that
they are just "missing the point" and stay quiet. I listened carefully
at the intermission and not a single soul mentioned that they actually
enjoyed the opera.
Is 20th century music a very modern-day version of the Emperor's New
Clothes? Where everybody is just scared to admit that it sucks?
-Richard
GrapeApe
a term.. I am sure you have hearsd musical theater from the 20th century you
would find hummable.
Perhaps it was like some post modernist minimalist 'opera' such as Einstein on
the Beach. People like Philip Glass, for example, and he can even be said to
have melody, depending on the pieces you choose, He was one of modern
classicals golden boys, in that he could have some pop crossover (much like
"the 3 Tenors" served as omsbudsmen for more trad opera; record companies like
their pop crossovers in their classical departments for the sales traffic)
I don't think music of the minimalist style would be terribly appropriate for
Gatsby era storytelling, but thats modern opera for you. One of the few places
for high brow experimental forms is opera, partly due to its dependance on
fewer and wealthier patrons that you dont have to lift a folk tune to bring in
the masses.
--cut and paste to adopt this sig file---
Make Deja a useful Usenet Archive again!
Lalbert1
writes:
>Well, this is definitely one for this newsgroup.
>
>I recently saw "The Great Gatsby", an Opera written in the "20th
>Century" style. Is "style" the right word? Anyway, it's an opera, and
>it was written recently.
>
>It was awful. The lines were all straight from the book, so the story
>was fabulous. The set was great, the costumes great, the singers great.
>
>However, the music, wasn't....music. It has absolutely no melody
>whatsoever. While not quite atonal, it certainly wasn't enjoyable in
>any sense of the word. The whole thing consisted of just random notes
>being sung. It was just plain boring. The damn opera was four hours
>longgggg. Toward the end, one woman made a break for it. It certainly
>appeared that she actually crawled up the stairs leading out, with
>(seriously) a bag held in her teeth. Rather than being horrified, we
>were all jealous.
>
>So, here's the question...what the hell is up with 20th century music?
>Does anyone actually LIKE the stuff? Why is/was melody suddenly
>something to be avoided?
What you heard was Henry Orient music. "The World of Henry Orient" is a great
movie with Peter Sellers playing the part of a concert pianist who plays
unmelodious music (although the movie is not about him).
The counterpart to Henry Orient music is Bob and Ray "song saying". It has no
music at all, just words.
Les
(won't you say a song today?)
Dana Carpender
GrapeApe wrote:
>
> I can guess as to how it sounded- however "20th Century music' is far too broad
> a term.. I am sure you have hearsd musical theater from the 20th century you
> would find hummable.
>
> Perhaps it was like some post modernist minimalist 'opera' such as Einstein on
> the Beach. People like Philip Glass, for example, and he can even be said to
> have melody, depending on the pieces you choose, He was one of modern
> classicals golden boys, in that he could have some pop crossover (much like
> "the 3 Tenors" served as omsbudsmen for more trad opera; record companies like
> their pop crossovers in their classical departments for the sales traffic)
>
> I don't think music of the minimalist style would be terribly appropriate for
> Gatsby era storytelling, but thats modern opera for you. One of the few places
> for high brow experimental forms is opera, partly due to its dependance on
> fewer and wealthier patrons that you dont have to lift a folk tune to bring in
> the masses.
>
Hmm. Never saw the beginning of this thread. But two points: The only
opera I've ever seen, The Rake's Progress, was composed in 1951. Quite
classical in sound.
Sondheim writes musicals/pop operas that have hummable tunes. Adore
Sweeney Todd and A Little Night Music!
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Randy Poe
wrote:
>Well, this is definitely one for this newsgroup.
>
>I recently saw "The Great Gatsby", an Opera written in the "20th
>Century" style. Is "style" the right word? Anyway, it's an opera, and
>it was written recently.
I heard some excerpts from it while it was in development. The music
didn't grab me.
[snip]
>So, here's the question...what the hell is up with 20th century music?
>Does anyone actually LIKE the stuff? Why is/was melody suddenly
>something to be avoided?
Cause every composer feels they've gotta do something new I guess.
Same thing that happened in art. Ever see some of Picasso's early
stuff, when people looked like people?
There's some very good stuff though. You don't want to generalize and
say that it's all empty.
>My take on this is that it's just simply pretentious. Since there's
>nothing aesthetically pleasing about the music, everyone assumes that
>they are just "missing the point" and stay quiet. I listened carefully
>at the intermission and not a single soul mentioned that they actually
>enjoyed the opera.
>
>Is 20th century music a very modern-day version of the Emperor's New
>Clothes? Where everybody is just scared to admit that it sucks?
I think a lot of it is Emperor's New Clothes, but there are composers
who (1) write tuneful stuff and others who (2) use jarring harmonies
effectively.
Notice how much airplay Aaron Copeland gets. There's a 20th composer
who was unashamed to use melody in his work. Also Vaughan Williams and
Rachmaninoff. I have quoted from a review circa the 30s where
Rachmaninoff's music is being sneered at for its old fashioned style
and saying that it is "not destined to have any lasting popularity".
I think the Russians have really shone in the 20th century as far as
taking new harmonies and doing wonderfully effective stuff with it.
Khachaturian and Stravinsky come to mind. Our ears are used to "Rites
of Spring" so we think of it as tuneful, but take a closer listen to
it. Stravinsky was pretty experimental.
Same thing with insurance salesman/composer Charles Ives. A couple of
his pieces get a lot of play so we're used to them, but he was very
"modern" in his harmonies.
There's a lot of high-quality composing in movie scores too, much of
it very modern. Again, you don't notice how jarring the harmonies are
when they work well with the movie.
- Randy
Richard
GrapeApe wrote:
> Perhaps it was like some post modernist minimalist 'opera' such as Einstein on
> the Beach. People like Philip Glass, for example, and he can even be said to
> have melody, depending on the pieces you choose, He was one of modern
> classicals golden boys, in that he could have some pop crossover (much like
> "the 3 Tenors" served as omsbudsmen for more trad opera; record companies like
> their pop crossovers in their classical departments for the sales traffic)
Nope. Nothing like Phil Glass, who's operas I love. Glass actually has good music
and melody.
This opera had no melody whatsoever. Just almost random notes being sung...for
four hours.
The weird part was that I looked up reviews on the Internet, expecting to see the
opera get blasted, and they were universally great reviews! What's up with that?
It wasn't even enjoyable!
Doug Yanega
> So, here's the question...what the hell is up with 20th century music?
> Does anyone actually LIKE the stuff? Why is/was melody suddenly
> something to be avoided?
I have raised this question among friends many, many times, in exactly the
same wording. I *AM* careful, however, not to stereotype ALL the music in
this past century as bad, but it certainly is true of the majority of
music from the latter 50 years. It is, in general, simply a perceived need
to be abstract and experimental in order to set one's self apart. Jackson
Pollack with music as the medium. It often *IS* random notes, simply to be
different. I do not honestly believe that a single human being enjoys
listening to it EXCEPT as an exercise in abstraction. Folks here mention
Philip Glass, and he - to me - is pretty much right at that borderline,
but still enjoyable. I thought Koyaanisqatsi was awesome when I first saw
it, and I was surprised, given how piss-poor most "avant-garde" music is.
> My take on this is that it's just simply pretentious. Since there's
> nothing aesthetically pleasing about the music, everyone assumes that
> they are just "missing the point" and stay quiet. I listened carefully
> at the intermission and not a single soul mentioned that they actually
> enjoyed the opera.
>
> Is 20th century music a very modern-day version of the Emperor's New
> Clothes? Where everybody is just scared to admit that it sucks?
Yes, and yes, I'd say. It's Performance Art, where you can't distinguish
someone who is truly a profound creative genius and someone who is running
a total scam and laughing secretly at their admirers. If the critics
admitted to hating it, they'd be out of a job in no time, since there's
almost nothing composed these days that would merit a positive review. If
orchestras actually performed music based on ballots submitted by their
patrons, all this rubbish would vanish from the face of the earth forever,
and every piece on the program would have a melody...and composers would
soon learn that, and return to the business of making music again.
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology
Entomology Research Museum Univ. of California
Riverside, CA 92521 909-787-4315 (opinions are mine, not UCR's)
http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is
the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick
The Uncanny Dutch Courage
>In article <3A018E4E...@notme.com>, Richard
><invalid...@notme.com> wrote:
>
>> So, here's the question...what the hell is up with 20th century music?
>> Does anyone actually LIKE the stuff? Why is/was melody suddenly
>> something to be avoided?
>
>I have raised this question among friends many, many times, in exactly the
>same wording. I *AM* careful, however, not to stereotype ALL the music in
>this past century as bad, but it certainly is true of the majority of
>music from the latter 50 years.
What, like cool jazz and be-bop and funk and soul and rock-a-billy and the
tail end of tin pan alley and gangsta rap and electric folk and surf music and
punk rock?
> It is, in general, simply a perceived need
>to be abstract and experimental in order to set one's self apart. Jackson
>Pollack with music as the medium. It often *IS* random notes, simply to be
>different.
What exactly do you mean by "the majority of music from the latter 50 years"?
> I do not honestly believe that a single human being enjoys
>listening to it EXCEPT as an exercise in abstraction. Folks here mention
>Philip Glass, and he - to me - is pretty much right at that borderline,
>but still enjoyable.
He's really pretty accessible, still very melody and movement oriented. A bit
repitious, obviously, and some of his phrases are probably simplistic, so, no,
it's not Bach.
> I thought Koyaanisqatsi was awesome when I first saw
>it, and I was surprised, given how piss-poor most "avant-garde" music is.
I like the soundtrack to Kundun and his Bowie collaborations.
But, like, the Beatles? you don't like the Beatles?
>
>> My take on this is that it's just simply pretentious. Since there's
>> nothing aesthetically pleasing about the music, everyone assumes that
>> they are just "missing the point" and stay quiet. I listened carefully
>> at the intermission and not a single soul mentioned that they actually
>> enjoyed the opera.
>>
>> Is 20th century music a very modern-day version of the Emperor's New
>> Clothes? Where everybody is just scared to admit that it sucks?
>
>Yes, and yes, I'd say.
>It's Performance Art, where you can't distinguish
>someone who is truly a profound creative genius and someone who is running
>a total scam and laughing secretly at their admirers.
Admittedly, some of John Cage's work is probably just as amusing to have
described or think about as to actually sit through, but well, that's okay. And
David Byrne rights really hooky pop music.
> If
>orchestras actually performed music based on ballots submitted by their
>patrons, all this rubbish would vanish from the face of the earth forever,
>and every piece on the program would have a melody...and composers would
>soon learn that, and return to the business of making music again.
It's funny how work that seemed avant garde and even dangerous several years
ago now seems normal, even passe. Impressionism, Cubism (which Doug probably
doesn't approve of, either) Stravinsky. I am sure I can find someone saying
rude things about Baroque music.
la la
"My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same
opportunity as the strongest. " -Freidrich Von Hayek
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>Well, this is definitely one for this newsgroup.
>
>I recently saw "The Great Gatsby", an Opera written in the "20th
>Century" style. Is "style" the right word? Anyway, it's an opera, and
>it was written recently.
>
>It was awful. The lines were all straight from the book, so the story
>was fabulous. The set was great, the costumes great, the singers great.
>
>However, the music, wasn't....music. It has absolutely no melody
>whatsoever. While not quite atonal, it certainly wasn't enjoyable in
>any sense of the word. The whole thing consisted of just random notes
>being sung. It was just plain boring. The damn opera was four hours
>longgggg. Toward the end, one woman made a break for it. It certainly
>appeared that she actually crawled up the stairs leading out, with
>(seriously) a bag held in her teeth. Rather than being horrified, we
>were all jealous.
Hmm...doesn't sound like John Harbison heard the same thing in his
mind as he wrote it. Impressive little fella...he did the libretto,
too. Writing an opera libretto is very difficult work, even when you
have an excellent source.
"In the composer’s words:
'The characters in Gatsby live in a world of the sounds of their time
-- radio music, dance bands, car horns, fog horns on Long Island
Sound, the beat of the popular music of the mid-20s....' "
I guess there were more of the horns & less of the radio & bands than
you wanted. I have not heard the score, myself.
>So, here's the question...what the hell is up with 20th century music?
>Does anyone actually LIKE the stuff? Why is/was melody suddenly
>something to be avoided?
I wouldn't call all 20th century composers unmelodic. That's a large
modern pantheon to say that about, but, yes, I agree, there is a chunk
o'stuff out there that I cannot sing along with. And yes, that is a
major criterion for me.
If you limit yourself to contemporary composers, you find a lot more
of this, I feel. Take someone like Corigilano...some of his stuff I
find sweepingly melodic, other of it I have to leave the room.
>
>My take on this is that it's just simply pretentious. Since there's
>nothing aesthetically pleasing about the music, everyone assumes that
>they are just "missing the point" and stay quiet. I listened carefully
>at the intermission and not a single soul mentioned that they actually
>enjoyed the opera.
>
>Is 20th century music a very modern-day version of the Emperor's New
>Clothes? Where everybody is just scared to admit that it sucks?
A lot of people like it. My ex & I would fight over it. His tastes
were much "broader" than mine.
Boron
GrapeApe
>see the
>opera get blasted, and they were universally great reviews! What's up with
>that?
>It wasn't even enjoyable!
Perhaps they thought atonal bleating was just what "The Great Gatsby"
deserved.. It does sort of fit in, i think. No need to romanticize the ugly
self absoprtion in the story due to the good intentions of a character or two.
If I knew some of those people in real life, I'm sure I would consider their
conversations and concerns to be akin to the braying of donkeys and the honking
of Geese.
Doug Yanega
mutigho...@aol.comscoob (The Uncanny Dutch Courage) wrote:
> dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) writes:
>
> >In article <3A018E4E...@notme.com>, Richard
> ><invalid...@notme.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So, here's the question...what the hell is up with 20th century music?
> >> Does anyone actually LIKE the stuff? Why is/was melody suddenly
> >> something to be avoided?
> >
> >I have raised this question among friends many, many times, in exactly the
> >same wording. I *AM* careful, however, not to stereotype ALL the music in
> >this past century as bad, but it certainly is true of the majority of
> >music from the latter 50 years.
>
> What, like cool jazz and be-bop and funk and soul and rock-a-billy and the
> tail end of tin pan alley and gangsta rap and electric folk and surf music and
> punk rock?
Okay, sorry, I forgot a crucial word... "ORCHESTRAL music from the latter
50 years", which covers opera.
> It's funny how work that seemed avant garde and even dangerous several years
> ago now seems normal, even passe. Impressionism, Cubism (which Doug probably
> doesn't approve of, either) Stravinsky.
Cubism was okay...if there's an intelligent pattern to it, then fine. It's
something a chimp or elephant or blindfolded guy couldn't do. On the other
hand, how hard would it be for Joe Schlock to fake a Mondrian? Again, when
you can't distinguish a genius from a joke, things have gone too far.
Stravinsky, Copeland, Debussy, all fine. Heck, even Keith Emerson wrote a
decent symphony. But show me a living composer who can make music as
complex, creative and enjoyable as Mozart's, and indistinguishable from
it, and THEN I'll be impressed. That's the kind of genius you can't fake,
and I don't think there's anyone alive with that kind of genius - and if
there is, then they're wasting their talents, because there's nothing
*that* universally enjoyable being produced by *anyone* any more.
Barry Nos Sher
wrote:
>Well, this is definitely one for this newsgroup.
Based on the reviews at
http://www.schirmer.com/composers/harbison_gatsby_press.html it sounds
like _de gustibus non est disputandem_.
Callison
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:58:17 GMT, Richard <invalid...@notme.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >I recently saw "The Great Gatsby", an Opera written in the "20th
> >Century" style. Is "style" the right word? Anyway, it's an opera, and
> >it was written recently.
I too saw this opera last weekend.
> >
> >It was awful. The lines were all straight from the book, so the story
> >was fabulous. The set was great, the costumes great, the singers great.
I found the story tedious as well. Taking the lines straight from the
book made it sound as if it should have been a musical, not an opera.
Perhaps it would have sounded better in Italian, as if you literally
translate some Italian opera, you basically have great sounding music to
some guy going, "Life sucks, she doesn't love me".
> > > >However, the music, wasn't....music. It has absolutely no melody
> >whatsoever. While not quite atonal, it certainly wasn't enjoyable in
> >any sense of the word. The whole thing consisted of just random notes
> >being sung. It was just plain boring. The damn opera was four hours
I have to agree. After the opera was over, i couldn't remember a single
passage of music. Not one. And I was a music major.
> >longgggg. Toward the end, one woman made a break for it. It certainly
> >appeared that she actually crawled up the stairs leading out, with
> >(seriously) a bag held in her teeth. Rather than being horrified, we
> >were all jealous.
What, no intermission? Half of our audience left at intermission
(including one of the group I was with). The rest of us just made fun of
it at the end. The costumes _were_ lovely.
>
> I guess there were more of the horns & less of the radio & bands than
> you wanted. I have not heard the score, myself.
There was more of self-gratifying "note..note..note..note". One song was
basically "It's hot. It's hot. It's really hot." Again, I have to bet
it would have been better in Italian.
>
> >So, here's the question...what the hell is up with 20th century music?
> >Does anyone actually LIKE the stuff? Why is/was melody suddenly
> >something to be avoided?
I do like some 20th C. music -- glass is one, corigliano is another
(although he does sort of sneak up on you -- all of the orchestra *hated*
it when we started rehearsing it, but by the end the melodies had stuck in
your head and wouldn't get out. I guess that's like liking it)
> >My take on this is that it's just simply pretentious. Since there's
> >nothing aesthetically pleasing about the music, everyone assumes that
> >they are just "missing the point" and stay quiet. I listened carefully
> >at the intermission and not a single soul mentioned that they actually
> >enjoyed the opera.
You certainly weren't at the same performance I was at. Although no-one
literally booed (they saved that for "Raunchy Rigoletto"), there was
plenty of open discussion along the lines of "this sucks".
It's not something I'd ever go see again, but it was fun in its own way.
Tracey
rob...@bestweb.net
>I recently saw "The Great Gatsby", an Opera written in the "20th
>Century" style. Is "style" the right word? Anyway, it's an opera,
>and it was written recently.
>It was awful. The lines were all straight from the book, so the
>story was fabulous. The set was great, the costumes great, the
>singers great.
>However, the music, wasn't....music. It has absolutely no melody
>whatsoever. While not quite atonal, it certainly wasn't enjoyable
>in any sense of the word. The whole thing consisted of just
>random notes being sung.
I'd guess it was in sprechstimme -- "speak voice". Not if it was really
RANDOM notes, however.
Music is different from speech, so singing has to be a compromise. Either
you distort the speaking to fit the music, or you distort the music to fit
the words. The style you're used to distorts the speech to fit the music;
sprechstimme distorts the music to fit the speech.
That's not to say great vocalists can't have their cake & eat it too. Frank
Sinatra managed to sing stuff that sounded simultaneously like good music
and good diction. However, a large measure of how he did that was to do it
slowly. That's OK for a musical segment of a performance, but for a whole
opera of performers doing that, it might get tedious.
If it was really random notes, then why do you say "not quite atonal"? Are
you sure it wasn't atonal music? Was there an orchestra playing atonal
instrumentals, or did instrumental stretches (even just a few bars when
nobody was singing) sound more musical to you? Is it possible the music in
a capella segments (i.e., no band playing) was improvised? Maybe it wasn't
scored.
When I read lyric sheets of punk rock music, I sing it slowly with atonal
improvised notes, which is funny considering how thrashy the actual
performance (in which I usually can't hear the words) is. When young
children sing solo, they tend toward sprechstimme.
Robert
Net-Tamer V 1.11 - Registered
rob...@bestweb.net
>Jackson Pollack with
>music as the medium. It often *IS* random notes, simply to be
>different. I do not honestly believe that a single human being
>enjoys listening to it EXCEPT as an exercise in abstraction. Folks
>here mention Philip Glass, and he - to me - is pretty much right at
>that borderline, but still enjoyable.
A Philip Glass recording is canned headache. At least I can listen to
Jackson Pollack without THAT effect. Come to think of it, they DID use
Philip Glass music for a TV commercial for some headache pill!
>I thought Koyaanisqatsi was awesome when I first saw it
But the only good thing the music does is provide the basis for Peter
Schickele to do "Coy Hotsy-Totsy".
JmG
>But show me a living composer who can make music as
>complex, creative and enjoyable as Mozart's, and indistinguishable from
>it, and THEN I'll be impressed.
Why would I want to copy Mozart?
John Adams. Eliot Carter. (might be living still), but allow me some death in
the past years and I'll add Paul Hindemith, Bernstein, Copeland and the list
goes on. Stravinsky!
J
--
Make Deja a useful Usenet Archive again!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
mje
melody, and that without. There may be a parallel in the visual arts ;-)
Now "melodic" is relative to the listener; I remember playing Ornette
Coleman's "Science Fiction for a friend of mine twenty years ago, and it
wasn't five minutes before she was screaming "TURN IT OFF!!!" whereas I
thought is was rather melodic.
And there was a time when Stravinsky- who is terribly melodic- was looked
on as being horribly discordant and atonal. Today he's mainstream.
Even Phillip Glass has melodies, though they're very tiny and you have to
look for them. He himself is a big proponant of melody and I recall him
saying he wanted to go back to a time when people sang opera meolodies on
the street.
The most atonal of "modern" music often strikes me as being a misturn on
the evolutionary road. Having exhausted the Romantic tradition- or
perhaps just not being able to produce another Chopin- the modernists
took a left turn and said okay, we'll do something you can't criticize,
becasue we're making up new rules, too.
Has there really been any memorable music produced in the "classical"
tradition in the twentieth century that wasn't rooted in the nineteenth?
Stravinsky is the last of the Russian Romantics. Copeland is..well,
boring.
I think the great music of the 20th century that will be remembered will
be the jazz and show tunes of the 1930s through 1960s. The great names
will be Gershwin, Mingus, Sondheim, Bernstein (for West Side Story),
Oliver Nelson and their contemporaries. The second tier will be the peopl
they inspired- Lennon and McCartney and their musical offspring.
>
--
Michael Edelman
http://www.foldingkayaks.com
http://www.findascope.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tim Carrigan
>Has there really been any memorable music produced in the "classical"
>tradition in the twentieth century that wasn't rooted in the nineteenth?
Do Cage, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc count as "classical," or are they "outsiders"
that get clumped in for lack of a better genre?
Come to think of it, I doubt most people would consider their works to be
memorable in any way.
Alec Horgan
> Cubism was okay...if there's an intelligent pattern to it, then fine. It's
> something a chimp or elephant or blindfolded guy couldn't do.
Why is that a meaningful standard? Is there
some intrinsic reason a piece of art must
reflect or be a product of great skill?
> On the other
> hand, how hard would it be for Joe Schlock to fake a Mondrian?
Probably not as hard as it would be to come
up with one.
> Again, when
> you can't distinguish a genius from a joke, things have gone too far.
Some jokes are genius.
> Stravinsky, Copeland, Debussy, all fine. Heck, even Keith Emerson wrote a
> decent symphony. But show me a living composer who can make music as
> complex, creative and enjoyable as Mozart's, and indistinguishable from
> it, and THEN I'll be impressed.
Why would that be impressive? It sounds
rekarkably boring.
> That's the kind of genius you can't fake,
> and I don't think there's anyone alive with that kind of genius - and if
> there is, then they're wasting their talents, because there's nothing
> *that* universally enjoyable being produced by *anyone* any more.
Speaking of jokes, "universally enjoyable"?
I don't know what universe you live in, but
the one I inhabit doesn't have anything
universally enjoyable in it, although Madonna
and Garth Brooks seem to come close. Wolfy's
not even in the running, though.
Alec
Opus the Penguin
>Doug Yanega writes:
>>Stravinsky, Copeland, Debussy, all fine. Heck, even Keith Emerson wrote a
>>decent symphony. But show me a living composer who can make music as
>>complex, creative and enjoyable as Mozart's, and indistinguishable from
>>it, and THEN I'll be impressed.
>
>Why would that be impressive? It sounds
>rekarkably boring.
Is that because you find Mozart remarkably boring? Or is it that you believe
if Mozart had lived past 35 all his music would have been remarkably boring?
If not, then it would seem there's theoretically more to say in Mozart's
style.
For my part, I think the man who wrote symphonies 39, 40, and 41 and Don
Giovanni and The Magic Flute in the last 5 years of his life was not running
out of things to say.
--
Opus the Penguin
The Uncanny Dutch Courage
>Alec Horgan wrote::
>>Doug Yanega writes:
>>>Stravinsky, Copeland, Debussy, all fine. Heck, even Keith Emerson wrote a
>>>decent symphony. But show me a living composer who can make music as
>>>complex, creative and enjoyable as Mozart's, and indistinguishable from
>>>it, and THEN I'll be impressed.
>>
>>Why would that be impressive? It sounds
>>rekarkably boring.
>
>Is that because you find Mozart remarkably boring?
I think it's because he admires creativity, originality, that kinda thing.
Thus "sounds like Mozart" isn't necessarily the hallmark of interesting or
entertaining music.
GrapeApe
>Thus "sounds like Mozart" isn't necessarily the hallmark of interesting
>or
>entertaining music.
There is a difference between "sounds like"and "sounds as good as", and
Classical music is peppered with examples of the former, while the latter
rarely sound similar to the former.
--cut and paste to adopt this sig file---
Make Deja a useful Usenet Archive again!
wol...@canine.net
> I don't know what universe you live in, but
> the one I inhabit doesn't have anything
> universally enjoyable in it, although Madonna
> and Garth Brooks seem to come close. Wolfy's
> not even in the running, though.
How did I miss out? Oh, WolfY! I thought you meant me.
Wolfie
StarChaser_Tyger
>dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) writes:
>
>> Cubism was okay...if there's an intelligent pattern to it, then fine. It's
>> something a chimp or elephant or blindfolded guy couldn't do.
>
>Why is that a meaningful standard? Is there
>some intrinsic reason a piece of art must
>reflect or be a product of great skill?
Because if any random crack monkey can produce the same thing, what's
the point?
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information,
and information on which artists do and do not want their
work posted! http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
Justin Coffey
dicebat:
>
>This opera had no melody whatsoever. Just almost random notes being sung...for
>four hours.
>
>The weird part was that I looked up reviews on the Internet, expecting to see the
>opera get blasted, and they were universally great reviews! What's up with that?
>It wasn't even enjoyable!
I know nothing about this staging of _Gatsby_, but I would bet you my
little finger that the singers were performing their parts as written,
not "randomly" choosing notes to sing.
Justin
Doug Yanega
grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:
> > I think it's because he admires creativity, originality, that kinda thing.
> >Thus "sounds like Mozart" isn't necessarily the hallmark of interesting
> >or
> >entertaining music.
>
> There is a difference between "sounds like"and "sounds as good as", and
> Classical music is peppered with examples of the former, while the latter
> rarely sound similar to the former.
BINGO. Dutch seems to suffer a double standard - if someone uncovered a
lost piece of Mozart's, and it sounded wonderful, he would call it
brilliant. If it were later revealed to be a fraud of modern vintage, he
would then call it boring, regardless of its intrinsic merit. That sounds
like elitist art-critic nonsense, like caring only about whose signature
is on a painting, rather than whether it pleases and stimulates you. I use
a different standard, thanks.
Sean Houtman
>Speaking of jokes, "universally enjoyable"?
>I don't know what universe you live in, but
>the one I inhabit doesn't have anything
>universally enjoyable in it, although Madonna
>and Garth Brooks seem to come close. Wolfy's
>not even in the running, though.
>
Ack, Retch!
Sean
Glurp
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
GrapeApe
>>I don't know what universe you live in, but
>>the one I inhabit doesn't have anything
>>universally enjoyable in it, although Madonna
>>and Garth Brooks seem to come close. Wolfy's
>>not even in the running, though.
>>
>
>Ack, Retch!
Seconded.
Alec Horgan
> That sounds
> like elitist art-critic nonsense, like caring only about whose signature
> is on a painting, rather than whether it pleases and stimulates you. I use
> a different standard, thanks.
One that's equally dismissive of pleasure and
stimulation.
Alec
Alec Horgan
> Alec Horgan wrote::
> >Doug Yanega writes:
> >>Stravinsky, Copeland, Debussy, all fine. Heck, even Keith Emerson wrote a
> >>decent symphony. But show me a living composer who can make music as
> >>complex, creative and enjoyable as Mozart's, and indistinguishable from
> >>it, and THEN I'll be impressed.
> >
> >Why would that be impressive? It sounds
> >rekarkably boring.
>
> Is that because you find Mozart remarkably boring?
No.
> Or is it that you believe
> if Mozart had lived past 35 all his music would have been remarkably boring?
No, quite the contrary.
> If not, then it would seem there's theoretically more to say in Mozart's
> style.
I don't think "Mozart's style" has much of
anything to do with Mozart's genius. If you
want to speak in hypotheticals, stick Mozart
in some other time period and culture: his
style would have been completely different,
and could easily bear no resemblance
whatsoever to the canon we all know and love;
it still would have been good.
> For my part, I think the man who wrote symphonies 39, 40, and 41 and Don
> Giovanni and The Magic Flute in the last 5 years of his life was not running
> out of things to say.
The reason I would find it remarkably boring
is because I recognize the difference between
"Mozart" and "in Mozart's style." Indeed,
your clever little argument underscores
exactly the problem: Mozart, had he lived
longer, would not have been rehashing his
previous works. He certainly wouldn't have
been sitting around entertaining thoughts
like, "Okay, how I can tweak this bit here to
make it sound more like me?" As you note, he
was hardly in decline, and since neither we
nor our imaginary "in-the-style-of"-composer
knows where Mozart was headed, the only way
this person could convince us is by sounding
like the Mozart that was, not the Mozart that
would have been. So to suggest that that
would somehow fill the gap left by his
untimely departure seems rather silly.
If Miles Davis had died in 1950 (right after
the "Birth of the Cool" recordings), do you
really think some imitator, however convincing,
would then have gone on to produce "Kind of
Blue," "Sketches of Spain," "In a Silent Way,"
and "Bitches Brew"? Or would we hear "In the
Style of Birth of the Cool" over and over
again?
Alec
The Uncanny Dutch Courage
>In article <20001104132236...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
>grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:
>
>> > I think it's because he admires creativity, originality, that kinda
>thing.
>> >Thus "sounds like Mozart" isn't necessarily the hallmark of interesting
>> >or
>> >entertaining music.
>>
>> There is a difference between "sounds like"and "sounds as good as", and
>> Classical music is peppered with examples of the former, while the latter
>> rarely sound similar to the former.
>
>BINGO.
Yahtzee!
> Dutch seems to suffer a double standard
Oh, I do not, either.
>- if someone uncovered a
>lost piece of Mozart's, and it sounded wonderful, he would call it
>brilliant. If it were later revealed to be a fraud of modern vintage, he
>would then call it boring, regardless of its intrinsic merit.
If as a musician, your whole shtick was "sounding like X," you'd be relegated
to a certain tier.
> That sounds
>like elitist art-critic nonsense,
It sounds like a strawman.
> like caring only about whose signature
>is on a painting, rather than whether it pleases and stimulates you.
I don't really know that many serious art critics do this, although perhaps it
is true of collectors.
> I use
>a different standard, thanks.
Why do you even hold forth, Yanega?
Margaret Kane Schoen
> In article <20001103005918...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
> mutigho...@aol.comscoob (The Uncanny Dutch Courage) wrote:
>
> > dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) writes:
> >
> > >In article <3A018E4E...@notme.com>, Richard
> > ><invalid...@notme.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> Cubism was okay...if there's an intelligent pattern to it, then fine. It's
> something a chimp or elephant or blindfolded guy couldn't do. On the other
> hand, how hard would it be for Joe Schlock to fake a Mondrian? Again, when
> you can't distinguish a genius from a joke, things have gone too far.
Well, if Joe has a time machine to go back and come up with the painting before
Mondrian did, then I guess it's easy.
Actually, much of what's cool about Mondrian is his use of color, which doesn't show
up as well in reproductions. It's not just "this block is red" it's a specific red,
to go with the specific blue and the specific whit used in the other squares.
And it's not just blocks of squares -- they balance in a certain way. You or I could
go up and make an exact duplicate of one of the paintings, but most fairly decent
artists could make a duplicate of other paintings, and really good forgers can make
duplicates of any painting (and have).
Coming up with your own painting in a particular artists' style is harder, and just
because you think you could do a Mondrian, doesn't mean you could -- especially his
later works, I take it from your comments you've never seen, oh say, Broadway Boogie
Woogie?
Or is this just one of those "i don't get it/like it therefore the creator is
talentless?" If I use that criteria, I find that Joyce is talentless ("Ulysses"),
J.D. Salinger is talentless ("Catcher in the Rye"), Steinbeck is talentless ("The
Pearl"), and Tolkein was talentless ("The Hobbit"). I don't care for any of those
works. I can make up nonsense words and string them together without punctuation,
does that make me Joyce?
Margaret
mje
That's a major characteristic of "insider" modern art. It's a
combination of elitism- are you sophisticated enough to appreciate
this?- with more than a little of the Emperor's New Clothes thrown in.
Like many things in life, art can only really be judged by history. Or,
to put it another way, would you buy a piece of Op Art today?
GrapeApe
>to put it another way, would you buy a piece of Op Art today?
Although much of that stuff could be and was done with machines, some was done
by hand and does show some interesting draftmanship (one possible aesthetic
hook) others are simply the design, etc...
I think particularly with Modern and abstract art, it depends on the piece
itself - reproductions often make something look better or worse. Paintings
simply look different in person. You might not ever appreciate a Jackson
Pollock unless you saw it in person. Vincent Van UvularAspirate works beg to be
seen in person, although you can get a pretty good idea about them in
reproductions the real thing is like a grey fog has been lifted (Kurosawa did a
fairly good job of photographing them in Dreams, I though(
Rick Howard
mje wrote
> In article <cr770tgsnseudgu64...@4ax.com>,
> Like many things in life, art can only really be judged by history. Or,
> to put it another way, would you buy a piece of Op Art today?
Well, since you ask, yes, I own two signed prints by
Victor Vasarely.
Dr H
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, StarChaser_Tyger wrote:
}Quoth Alec Horgan <al...@reservoirtips.com> :
}
}>dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) writes:
}>
}>> Cubism was okay...if there's an intelligent pattern to it, then fine. It's
}>> something a chimp or elephant or blindfolded guy couldn't do.
}>
}>Why is that a meaningful standard? Is there
}>some intrinsic reason a piece of art must
}>reflect or be a product of great skill?
}
}Because if any random crack monkey can produce the same thing, what's
}the point?
Why does there have to be a point?
Dr H
Dr H
[attributions were a little hard to reconstruct in this post;
apologies in advance if I have mis-attributed...]
Tim Carrigan <adjus...@autovan.sunshade> wrote:
}> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 05:07:33 GMT, mje <kaya...@my-deja.com> wrote:
}>
}> >Has there really been any memorable music produced in the "classical"
}> >tradition in the twentieth century that wasn't rooted in the
}> >nineteenth?
}>
} Do Cage, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc count as "classical," or are they
}"outsiders" that get clumped in for lack of a better genre?
How these questions get answered depends a lot on how you choose to
define terms like "classical" and "rooted". Many of the movements in 20th
century music are/were about breaking down the distinctions between
categories like "classical," "popular", "serious", etc.
The musical philosophies of Stockhausen and Xenakis draw heavily on
19th century musical ideas. Cage less so, but one can argue that
a calculated and deliberate rejection of a particluar style or
philosophy owes a certain debt to the stule or philosophy being
rejected. Few, if any artists create in a total vacuum; there's
always some continuity with the art of past eras.
} Come to think of it, I doubt most people would consider their works to
} be memorable in any way.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "most people." If you are
speaking of the musically erudite, I think you would be wrong. If
you refer to the average Joe/Jane on the street, I daresay most of
them probably don't consider Mosart memorable in any way, either.
Dr H
Opus the Penguin
Whoa! That came out of left field. Since when do we discuss non-election
stuff around here?
--
Opus the Penguin
GrapeApe
>stuff around here?
Hopefully before the end of the week.
Opus the Penguin
>Quoth "Opus the Penguin"
Hey, how come you never quoth the raven?
>>Whoa! That came out of left field. Since when do we discuss non-election
>>stuff around here?
>
>I don't know, but my killfile is getting fat...
You wouldn't killfile a kindly old penguin, would ya, Tyger?
--
Opus the Penguin
StarChaser_Tyger
>
>On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, StarChaser_Tyger wrote:
>
>}Quoth Alec Horgan <al...@reservoirtips.com> :
>}
>}>dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) writes:
>}>
>}>> Cubism was okay...if there's an intelligent pattern to it, then fine. It's
>}>> something a chimp or elephant or blindfolded guy couldn't do.
>}>
>}>Why is that a meaningful standard? Is there
>}>some intrinsic reason a piece of art must
>}>reflect or be a product of great skill?
>}
>}Because if any random crack monkey can produce the same thing, what's
>}the point?
>
> Why does there have to be a point?
Because then how do you tell 'art' from 'soda spilled in keyboard'?
StarChaser_Tyger
>Dr H wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, StarChaser_Tyger wrote:
>> }Quoth Alec Horgan <al...@reservoirtips.com> :
>> }
>> }>dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) writes:
>> }>
>>}>>Cubism was okay...if there's an intelligent pattern to it, then fine.
>>}>>It's something a chimp or elephant or blindfolded guy couldn't do.
>>}>
>> }>Why is that a meaningful standard? Is there
>> }>some intrinsic reason a piece of art must
>> }>reflect or be a product of great skill?
>> }
>> }Because if any random crack monkey can produce the same thing, what's
>> }the point?
>>
>> Why does there have to be a point?
>
>Whoa! That came out of left field. Since when do we discuss non-election
>stuff around here?
I don't know, but my killfile is getting fat...
StarChaser_Tyger
>StarChaser_Tyger wrote:
>>Quoth "Opus the Penguin"
>
>Hey, how come you never quoth the raven?
>
>>>Whoa! That came out of left field. Since when do we discuss non-election
>>>stuff around here?
>>
>>I don't know, but my killfile is getting fat...
>
>You wouldn't killfile a kindly old penguin, would ya, Tyger?
No, no...Not individuals. I'm killfiling threads. I'm heartily sick of
hearing about the election, and have 10-day killfiled at least 10
threads on it...
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Hey, how come you never quoth the raven?
Starchaser has, but it comes out as Quoth "ra...@westnet.poe.com" which is
not quite as pithy as one would like.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Boron Elgar
>Opus the Penguin <opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>> StarChaser_Tyger wrote:
>>>Quoth "Opus the Penguin"
>
>> Hey, how come you never quoth the raven?
>
>Starchaser has, but it comes out as Quoth "ra...@westnet.poe.com" which is
>not quite as pithy as one would like.
I didn't know you had a lisp.
Boron