What is the earliest piece of postmodern music?
Chris MacLeod
James Whitehead
exploring sound...
if we think of post modern as in part a reaction to the minimalism and
formalism in art of modernity - then i would look at the work of the
minimalists who returned to "opera" - so Adams' Nixon in China - Reich's
Trains - and other "operatic" works where content returns. In the case of
Nixon in China an ironic content? Today even 'modern' sounding works have
lost their ability (or desire?) to say anything new - as after 4'33 there
isn't anywhere else to go...
Within popular music its perhaps more difficult- maybe frank zappa? But
there is certainly a post-modern feel to copying older forms - Oasis /
Beatles - the manufactured boy / girl bands / and the black rap music aimed
at white middle class juveniles..... Punk was perhaps the last sincere form
of popular music- a reaction / critique to the prog rocks complexity in form
and pseudo philosophic importance... though the White Album of 68? is
deeply ironic and playful regarding popular culture... though one may argue
that earlier Beatles - yesterday - ?? which got serious reviews marks the
beginning of the decline in differentiation of high / popular art. And then
that takes us to Eric Morchame's (sp etc et al!) performance with Andre
Previn.... And of course the performances of English artists in the style of
American singers in Las Vegas - Tom Jones & Englebert Humpadink....
sorry no particular date or work - perhaps post-modernity also is signified
by the inability to arrive at simple definitive factual truths - but rather
presents a process of choice and undecidabilty- of loose associations -
rather than specific meanings - if afterall boundaries as to what is / isnt
art / music become ill defined then there isnt a simple answer.
When measuring the longest river does one count all the streams in a river
delta or the shortest ones route to the sea? Surly counting the shortest to
establish the longest is paradoxical.
"Chris MacLeod" <ch...@vwbeetle.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cv2s1s$rc8$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
James Owens
"Chris MacLeod" (ch...@vwbeetle.freeserve.co.uk) writes:
> What is the earliest piece of postmodern music?
>
>
Within the popular vein, possibly "In Held 'Twas In I" by Procol Harum, from
their second album "Shine On Brightly."
Also, Paul McCartney 's solo efforts of the seventies often involved mashing
together scraps of musically unrelated songs into hit singles.
--
"For it is only of the new one grows tired. Of the old one never tires."
-- Kierkegaard, _Repetition_
James Owens, Ottawa, Canada
G*rd*n
> > What is the earliest piece of postmodern music?
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (James Owens):
> Within the popular vein, possibly "In Held 'Twas In I" by Procol Harum, from
> their second album "Shine On Brightly."
>
> Also, Paul McCartney 's solo efforts of the seventies often involved mashing
> together scraps of musically unrelated songs into hit singles.
So collage is your test for "postmodern"? I thought
there was supposed to me more to it. But if so, _musique_
_concrčte_ would seem to fill the bill -- and that
appeared almost as soon as the recording instruments it
reqired had been invented (phonograph, radio, wire and
tape recorder). But wait! Like actual collage in
Modernism, that's the 1920s! Guess it's not "postmodern"
after all.
James Owens
I don't know whether McCartney intended to make an artistic statement, or
was being just lazy, but I don't think his interest was in collage as an
art form. Rather, his music transcended the expectation of cohesion.
Likewise, Procol Harum's early work did not try to make overall sense. This is
mostly true of their lyrics, but for "In Held 'Twas In I" it also holds
for the music.
I don't know whether collage as an art form itself contained the
expectation of cohesion. But I don't think of _musique concrete_ as
collage, any more than I think of orchesral music that way. Was it
postmodern? That may depend on whether you define "postmodern" first, and
see what fits your definition, or collect all things called "postmodern"
and see what they have in common. I thought that "experimental music" was
part of the Modernist project.
Is it fair to characterise the postmodern movement as "transcending
cohesion?" I don't know. Maybe we'd be better off deciding what
postmodern music would look like before naming candidates -- and maybe
not. Perhaps we should take the original question another way: what is the
first music generally acknowledged to be, or explicitly intended to be,
"postmodern"?
G*rd*n
> >> > What is the earliest piece of postmodern music?
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (James Owens):
> >> Within the popular vein, possibly "In Held 'Twas In I" by Procol Harum, from
> >> their second album "Shine On Brightly."
> >>
> >> Also, Paul McCartney 's solo efforts of the seventies often involved mashing
> >> together scraps of musically unrelated songs into hit singles.
G*rd*n (g...@panix.com):
> > So collage is your test for "postmodern"? I thought
> > there was supposed to me more to it. But if so, _musique_
> > _concrčte_ would seem to fill the bill -- and that
> > appeared almost as soon as the recording instruments it
> > reqired had been invented (phonograph, radio, wire and
> > tape recorder). But wait! Like actual collage in
> > Modernism, that's the 1920s! Guess it's not "postmodern"
> > after all.
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (James Owens):
> I don't know whether McCartney intended to make an artistic statement, or
> was being just lazy, but I don't think his interest was in collage as an
> art form. Rather, his music transcended the expectation of cohesion.
> Likewise, Procol Harum's early work did not try to make overall sense. This is
> mostly true of their lyrics, but for "In Held 'Twas In I" it also holds
> for the music.
>
> I don't know whether collage as an art form itself contained the
> expectation of cohesion. But I don't think of _musique concrete_ as
> collage, any more than I think of orchesral music that way. Was it
> postmodern? That may depend on whether you define "postmodern" first, and
> see what fits your definition, or collect all things called "postmodern"
> and see what they have in common. I thought that "experimental music" was
> part of the Modernist project.
>
> Is it fair to characterise the postmodern movement as "transcending
> cohesion?" I don't know. Maybe we'd be better off deciding what
> postmodern music would look like before naming candidates -- and maybe
> not. Perhaps we should take the original question another way: what is the
> first music generally acknowledged to be, or explicitly intended to be,
> "postmodern"?
In the high (pricey) plastic arts, I believe terms like
"Modernism" and "postmodern" have been essentially marketing
tools. The same might be applied to architecture. There is
a production and sale of unique objects costing a lot of money,
and the object needs to be pedigreed or credentialized in
order to enhance its "value" (i.e. its price), so it helps to
join it to others in certain categories whose virtues can be
advertised to collectors _en_masse_.
Music is sold differently. In the case of popular music, the
folk are not much interested in the credentials of the composer,
and only partly in the credentials of the performers, the
genre, and the audience -- they are also very concerned with
how it actually sounds. Moreover, a piece of music does not
exist as a unique, expensive object but in the form of a
potentially infinite number of inexpesnive copies. I know
that several years ago some noise was made about a genre called
"postmodern" to which such as Skinny Puppy were supposed to
belong, but it seems to have been small and marginal and I
never hear about it any more. Thus I don't think one can say
that "postmodern(ist)" applies much to the popular music scene.
This leaves us with "serious" music, that is, music which is
funded by academic institutions and other State bureaucracies.
I have heard the term "postmodern" applied to such as the
works of Taverner and Wuorinen (because they are complicated
and noisy) and Glass (because his later work is sort of dumb
and poppy). But it is unconvincing. It seems to me that
musical nomenclature has taken a different course, and hence
one speaks more of (for example) minimalist and postminimalist
works and still doesn't know what to do with Harry Partch's
or Terry Riley's stuff. There is a lack of a specific
_Modernism_ to play off.
James Owens
G*rd*n (g...@panix.com) writes:
I've heard Larry Zorn described as "postmodern." To find out what it
meant, I bought a Zorn CD. To the extent that I've listened to the CD, it
seems to consist of ironic renditions of standard pop genres. But I don't
listen to it much.
Riley's "Rainbow in Curved Air" strikes me as minimalist.
I disagree with your cynical assessment of "modern" and "postmodern" as
mere marketing terms, but it's probably easier to defend that than any
other definition. As Socrates knew, it's easier to shoot down other
people's definitions than to come up with foolproof ones of your own.
I've ventured in this group that modernism has something to do with
rationalism, or was that rationality, and despite the resulting hail of
abuse I still think along those lines. Modern music was part of the
rational project; serialism would be the outstanding example of music
concocted rationally.
I believe that there was a post-serialist or anti-serialist movement that
turned to emotionally engaging music, and it included an Italian composer
whose name I forget, who was denigrated for his involvement (beginning in
the fifties), but who made a good deal of money on film scores. No one
caled him postmodern, as far as I know.
As for pop culture, one supposes it to express in its own way the
_zeitgeist_. Popular music in the modern era supported the modernist
project of reason ascendant; note for example the displacement of
traditional carols by so-called "secular" Christmas music. Indeed, the
very emergence of "popular" music could be seen as as expression of the
displacement of older social structures with newer, more democratic forms.
But at what point did popular music cave in on itself, so to speak, or
become reflective of itself and even seek to deny itself? I would say in
the mid-sixties, when some popular groups began to play with the form or
idea of the song as traditionally conceived.
G*rd*n
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (James Owens):
> I've heard Larry Zorn described as "postmodern." To find out what it
> meant, I bought a Zorn CD. To the extent that I've listened to the CD, it
> seems to consist of ironic renditions of standard pop genres. But I don't
> listen to it much.
>
> Riley's "Rainbow in Curved Air" strikes me as minimalist.
>
> I disagree with your cynical assessment of "modern" and "postmodern" as
> mere marketing terms, but it's probably easier to defend that than any
> other definition. As Socrates knew, it's easier to shoot down other
> people's definitions than to come up with foolproof ones of your own.
Well, shoot mine down then. But note that because something
is a marketing tool doesn't mean it's devoid of (other) content.
There is a radical and significant difference between Andy
Warhol and the Abstract Expressionists independent of how
they were sold. However, Andy and company were preceded by
thousands of mostly unknown artists who created all those
comic books, Brillo boxes and black velvet paintings the
postmodern artists ramped off, but no one important (rich
or powerful) thought they were worth noticing, much less
worth bestowing such a sobriquet as "postmodern" upon and
buying with accordingly large sums. It was only when the
material was introduced in the right rooms with the right
rap that it went over. That, to me, is marketing.
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (James Owens):
> I've ventured in this group that modernism has something to do with
> rationalism, or was that rationality, and despite the resulting hail of
> abuse I still think along those lines. Modern music was part of the
> rational project; serialism would be the outstanding example of music
> concocted rationally.
>
> I believe that there was a post-serialist or anti-serialist movement that
> turned to emotionally engaging music, and it included an Italian composer
> whose name I forget, who was denigrated for his involvement (beginning in
> the fifties), but who made a good deal of money on film scores. No one
> caled him postmodern, as far as I know.
>
> As for pop culture, one supposes it to express in its own way the
> _zeitgeist_. Popular music in the modern era supported the modernist
> project of reason ascendant; note for example the displacement of
> traditional carols by so-called "secular" Christmas music. Indeed, the
> very emergence of "popular" music could be seen as as expression of the
> displacement of older social structures with newer, more democratic forms.
> But at what point did popular music cave in on itself, so to speak, or
> become reflective of itself and even seek to deny itself? I would say in
> the mid-sixties, when some popular groups began to play with the form or
> idea of the song as traditionally conceived.
I don't think of Modernism as being particularly rational;
after all, in the the plastic and performing arts it included
Dada and Surrealism. These were supposed to be a reaction to
the progressive, liberal 19th-century rationality which led
to World War I (or so some people thought). I would say
rather that Modernism emphasized form (intuitive or
rational) over the emotion of romanticism. In other words
it was a kind of neo-classicism. (Postmodernism, then,
assuming there is such a thing, would be a baroque period,
a formal escape from the severities of formalism.)
I believe the changes which occurred in popular music in the
20th century were the result of the progress of technology
and industrialism. If you listen to the Harry Smith Anthology
of American Folk Music, which consists mainly of recordings made
in the late 1920s of vernacular music, then already a generation
or two out of date, you hear a great variety of styles.
However, the state of industrial technology at the time made
it most efficient to produce many copies of a few standardized
items; in the case of recorded music, this meant instead of
thousands of musicians performing thousands of songs in dozens
of different styles, one wanted a few hit records in readily
recognized genres. These turned out to be mainly White (Country
and Western) and Black (Blues and Jazz) -- very narrow categories
compared to the rich contexts from which they were derived.
If you listen to Jimmie Rodgers after listening to the
aforesaid HSAAFM you'll hear exactly what I mean.
This stage of development had a curious effect -- for middle-
brow, middle-class White Americans, there was but _one_ popular
music. It was a sort of communal enterprise like the Flag
or Social Security.
Forty of fifty years later, in the 1960s, people are getting
richer, the technology has advanced radically, the Boomers
are old enough to have spending money and are eager to reject
their parents' tastes -- the genres begin to both cross and
splay out and completely new material is introduced from the
classical-Western, Indian, and avant-garde worlds (e.g.
"Tomorrow Never Knows" of _Revolver_). Cassette tapes make
it possible for everyone to have their own music, their own
program. We are observing the beginning of the "post-
industrial" age in popular music (as well as many other
things). In a sense popular music is being revernacularized.
But this is not a reaction to formalism -- both the narrow
genres of the mid-20th century and the broad efflorescence
of genres which followed it were simply people taking
advantage of opportunities which their context afforded.
James Whitehead
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cv5n52$7b0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
I remember at art school in the early summer of 1970 i was involved with a
group of musicians performing Riley / Reich minimalist work as well as our
own tape cut up / synthesiser processed etc - after the summer holiday when
i returned the same group of musicians were playing tight baroque chamber
works.... something in July/August 1970 must have happened.... the only
'avant garde' work from that point was John Tilbury's Marxist stuff... (it
was a little like the end of animal farm with the pigs walking and the sheep
bleating 'atonality good...... tonality better.....')
Mounard le Fougueux
I've always associated "Modern Music" with "New Music" as it was called in
university music departments in the 60's and 70's. This sort of music, which
includes composers such as Charles Ives and Carl Ruggles as well as Cage,
etc. has itself as its content - that is, the point of the music was the
music itself : is it was an attempt at exploring new ways of listening to
music, new ways of composing music, new ways of performing music, new ways
of instrumentation, new ways of teaching music, new ways of marketing music
, etc.
These people either has day jobs to support their art (Charle Ives was an
insurance man all his life) or were employees of universities, which
supported them without editorial or artistic control.
This latter "New Music" was contemporaneous with "Video Art" as done by
people such as Steina and Woody Vasulka. They were exploring the "new"
medium of video when the "industry" was still film based (including
television).
Andy Warhol is a good icon for postmodern music as well as "painting":
Warhol made it "OK" to do commerical art. In the case of music, the
industry brought in the various "modern" and "new" video and music artists
from the ouside and made the "modern" idiom of art the commerical cannon.
All commercials are nowdone using the form and techniques of "modern" music
as well as video art - though now harnessed to commerical interests and
forced to carry a commercial message. "Modern" music doesn't carry a
contents other then itself and the artist - in modern music "the medium is
the message" so to speak. This doesn't apply to postmdoern music, though.
When J. Whitehead talks about a return to "Opera" which contains "content"
he is correct - in opera, we have all the fine arts harnessed to a content-
to a text, if you will, which is independant of the music itself. In
commericals it the the product or compulsion being sold, in opera it is the
text of the myth being "sold", be it the Noric/Aryan myths of Wagner, or the
American myths of the American Broadway musicals, or the polical myths of Le
Nozzi di Gigaro, etc.
Postmodernism, for many, signals a return to the medieval, when all arts and
sciences worked for either the church or crown - the myth makers of their
era. Modernism was a rebellion from the rule of the myth makers - art for
its own sake, and not for the sake of glorification of the church or the
crown.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cv5n52$7b0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
James Whitehead
"Mounard le Fougueux" <Mou...@theeventhorizon.com> wrote in message
news:PoydnVkrFP-...@adelphia.com...
Such concordance is scary - but i do agree- art for its own sake also
aligned to the ideas about truth - purity of form - reason and logic - with
post-modernity rhetoric replaces logic - which accounts for its (p.m. art)
similarities to advertising. Modern works were validated by their
(integral) honesty & logic - even if at times it had strong emotional
expressive form - whereas post-modernity is typically trivial - and
amusing - and not to be taken seriously - the whole thing depends on a
double bluff - of a pretence at being shocking when in fact its not. Again
such ambivalence is similar to the rhetoric of advertising - in the past the
adverts aimed at making the customer feel individual and special - (duping
them) and yet the advert itself is produced to appeal to the mass market -
but now this 'individual' is aware of this contradiction- knows the advert
to be a lie - in itself - but likes it - responds to it as its amusing.....
So the likes of Hirst & the Chapmans can produce deliberately 'cheap' &
nasty work which becomes amusing to its audience. As the 'artists' (has
said) wants to get away with doing very little - but the audience is well
aware of this and its popularity it seems must be that in that case there is
little required of them - the audience - re understanding or meaning. Its
form - dead cow - Goya copy - is sufficient to identify it- and that is
all - the so called social comment is in itself a pun - not at all serious -
and so the audience has its status confirmed. So advertising and marketing
people are now dictated to by the consumer....as is the post-modern artist.
So i don't as much see post-modernity as a return - but as the final state
of humanity in which the individual is central and above anything else - any
meta-narrative- be it Marxism or any religion. The internet is a great
example - one is not responsible for what one says... and has complete
freedom to assert whatever - or not - as the case may be. Within the
medieval we had hierarchies - those of post-modernity need to keep an ever
watchful view of the public consensus- thus the politicians have to twist so
to position themselves away from danger - away from having a defined
position. They have to look like politicians - powerful men - but would not
be elected if we thought they were. So whereas in medieval times the king -
priests had actual power (from God) and in modernity the genius - -
philosopher - general - politician - had power by virtue of being
true/right- now we need these figures to be somewhat beneath us - (not
above) - so we know Bush is stupid - Blair a hypocrite - they are 'allowed'
to do what they do- they are not going to change the consensus or our lives.
[..]
G*rd*n
"James Whitehead" <Abx4...@jjh76g7856gh.com>:
> Such concordance is scary - but i do agree- art for its own sake also
> aligned to the ideas about truth - purity of form - reason and logic - with
> post-modernity rhetoric replaces logic - which accounts for its (p.m. art)
> similarities to advertising. Modern works were validated by their
> (integral) honesty & logic - even if at times it had strong emotional
> expressive form - whereas post-modernity is typically trivial - and
> amusing - and not to be taken seriously - the whole thing depends on a
> double bluff - of a pretence at being shocking when in fact its not. ...
So is Man Ray's _Le_cadeau_ Modernist or postmodernist? And
how about the hundreds of copies of it he supposedly made?
James Whitehead
It's modern IMO - as it intends/(does) exposing the bourgeois tendencies of
art and culture its an attempt at exposing hypocrisy is an attempt at
exposing truths - via critique. It would / was greeted not with approval -
. There are also elements of surrealism - or super realism - again an
attempt at arriving at some truth- it was in effect quite ground breaking
then.... I've not all the art books at hand - but compare Picasso's head of
a bull www.dido.uk.net/ head/docs/bull - a similar manipulation of found
objects... with Sarah Lucas Au
naturel -http://post-dogmatist-arts.net/museum/collage/lucas001.htm - we
get the Lucas with a sigh of patronism - there is nothing clever here in the
manipulation of objects to signify something other - as its been said its
schoolboy humour - whereas the Picasso tends to point out - again with
surreal overtones - and was novel.. something about sculpture / form and
signification - but the Lucas is corny and crass - its been done before-
and now many many times - so here her execution is poor.. of something very
obvious. - but of course it has been done before - and its a poor and shoddy
work in idea and execution - and we know this *and she knows this*... we
are both in the loop laughing at who - anyone who takes it seriously*? The
fact that it then makes money in the art market is even more funny - the
dealers know they are dealing in rubbish - but they and the collectors are
all making money. In post modernity its only the sincere who are out of
touch - its why we find the Taliban silly.
*A modernist who takes Art seriously.
Mounard le Fougueux
"Le cadeau", in my own personal opinion, I would classify as "art de poop"
(or for those more inclined to German baroque, "die Kunst die Sheisse )-
rightfully belonging in the MOMS - the Museum of Modern Shit.
Fortunately for us, simple mathematics can be brought to bear in analyzing
Man Ray's art, for in the realm of shit art, SIZE MATTERS!. Man Ray opus is
clearly lesser then Christo's art, but also much greater then the smallerest
of Modernist Shit art - the molecule-size x-ray lithograph of "Mr. Natural"
done on a silicon chip by some bored IBM engineer.
So, to review, to guage the quality of Modernist shit art, simply measure
its volume and place it in the correct volumetric order with other modernist
shit art. The same metric applies to postmodernist shit art. But clearly
modernist shit art is better then pomo shit art, for pomo shit art is, to
date, still limited in size to books, video tapes, and culture theory
conferences.
>
>
G*rd*n
> >> Such concordance is scary - but i do agree- art for its own sake also
> >> aligned to the ideas about truth - purity of form - reason and logic -
> >> with
> >> post-modernity rhetoric replaces logic - which accounts for its (p.m.
> >> art)
> >> similarities to advertising. Modern works were validated by their
> >> (integral) honesty & logic - even if at times it had strong emotional
> >> expressive form - whereas post-modernity is typically trivial - and
> >> amusing - and not to be taken seriously - the whole thing depends on a
> >> double bluff - of a pretence at being shocking when in fact its not. ...
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
> > So is Man Ray's _Le_cadeau_ Modernist or postmodernist? And
> > how about the hundreds of copies of it he supposedly made?
"Mounard le Fougueux" <Mou...@theeventhorizon.com>:
> "Le cadeau", in my own personal opinion, I would classify as "art de poop"
> (or for those more inclined to German baroque, "die Kunst die Sheisse )-
> rightfully belonging in the MOMS - the Museum of Modern Shit.
> ...
Oh no, _Le_cadeau_ is _deep_. MR's father was a tailor, you
know. And regardless of the value of _Le_cadeau_ on the
Great Scale of Ultimate Value, that's my point: although it is
formally elegant and effective, it implies a lot of narrative,
a lot of context, which I was told in the 1950s was contrary
to the tenets of Modernism. And its quality of being a
sacred unique object was violated by copies being made of
it.
But maybe the Surrealists were all proto-postmodernists.
James Whitehead
actual realism as opposed to an illusion. It the theme of the narrative
that matters- in relation to the medium which carries it. There are plenty
of examples of modern art being copyable....
Mounard le Fougueux
"James Whitehead" <x...@yyy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cv9ulp$q2v$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
On the surface it would seem that the "strongly emotionally expressive" and
the "logical" should be at odds, yet in music (at least for me) they always
appear together. Bach (as well as other contrapunctal/polyphonic works) are
always held to be the height of "rationality" in music but does not the
sublimeness of their emotional expression match their structure?.
(incidentally I don't mean to single out "classical" music - I find the
piece "Pharoahs Dance" in Miles Davis's Bitches Brew as complex and
structured as Dante and as emotionally expressive as Beethoven's 9th).
Is the correllation between logic/structure and emotion in music just a
coincidence? Are they really at odds? Or is it as simple as art follows
technique?
> whereas post-modernity is typically trivial - and
> amusing - and not to be taken seriously - the whole thing depends on a
> double bluff - of a pretence at being shocking when in fact its not. Again
> such ambivalence is similar to the rhetoric of advertising - in the past
> the
> adverts aimed at making the customer feel individual and special - (duping
> them) and yet the advert itself is produced to appeal to the mass market -
> but now this 'individual' is aware of this contradiction- knows the
> advert
> to be a lie - in itself - but likes it - responds to it as its
> amusing.....
Is not advertising the modern, decentralized version of ancient forms of
narrative control? People hundreds of years ago made fun of religion and
clergy as much as we now make fun of commercials, yet we have no choice
other then to make a purchase from those brands much like those same people
hundreds of years ago still went to church.
In fudalism, a war lord conquered a territory and thereby all the people in
it. Those vassals paid tithes to the Lord and thought and prayed as the Lord
willed. We had only one lord then.
Now we tithe to many. We tithe with money as well as allegiances. For
operating systems I tithe to Suse (Novell) not to Microsoft. For cars I
tithe to Saab ( oops, I mean General Motors) not to Volvo (oops, I mean
Ford).
1000 years ago Saxon serfs woke up and discovered they were Norman serfs
much like recently Saab automobile "owners" woke up and discovered they were
GM vehicle drivers. My, how times have changed.
> i [..] see post-modernity as [..] the final state
> of humanity in which the individual is central and above anything else -
> any
> meta-narrative- be it Marxism or any religion
How? By the whithering away of meta-narratives much like communists dreamt
of the whithering away of the state?
This seems like a good thing. I'm all for it - always have been, always
will. Its what I teach my children.
Yet, the days of truth with a small 't' (i.e. the enlightenment program) is
fading and the days of Truth with a capital "T" are comming.
In the US, evolution is under attack because is it "only a theory" whereas
Genesis is the "Ultimate Truth". The war between the Truths of Islam and the
Self-evident Truths of Judeo-Christian Freedom is only warming up. In the US
we always mimick our enemies - against the commie rooskies we developed huge
state enterprises - the military industrial complex. Against the infidels we
are mimicing them by turning our schools into neocon judeo-christian
madrasas and making our clerics guardians of our narratives...
>So advertising and marketing \> people are now dictated to by the
>consumer....as is the post->modern artist
The only instance that I am aware of in which the consumer dictated to the
marketer is thsi one: A pharmaceutical company in beta testing a blood
pressure elevator distributed samples to test subjects to guage its
effectiveness in eleviating symptoms of low blood pressure. As normal, at
the end of the test, the company requested that any unused samples be
returned to the manufacturer. Now normally, there are many unused samples at
the end of such a test, but for this one test NO SAMPLES WERE RETURNED -
ZERO!. Since this was a highly unusual event for the people administering
the test, they looked at the written responses of the test subjects to see
if there were any side effects of explain this phenomenon. None were given.
They couple of dropped this and just come to the conclusion that the drug
test was successfull, but they decided to persue this further with personal
interviews. This is how the drug "Viagra" - the scurge of Florida
retirement communities, came to market.
James Whitehead
[...]
> > post-modernity rhetoric replaces logic - which accounts for its (p.m.
art)
> > similarities to advertising. Modern works were validated by their
> > (integral) honesty & logic - even if at times it had strong emotional
> > expressive form -
>
> On the surface it would seem that the "strongly emotionally expressive"
and
> the "logical" should be at odds, yet in music (at least for me) they
always
> appear together. Bach (as well as other contrapunctal/polyphonic works)
are
> always held to be the height of "rationality" in music but does not the
> sublimeness of their emotional expression match their structure?.
> (incidentally I don't mean to single out "classical" music - I find the
> piece "Pharoahs Dance" in Miles Davis's Bitches Brew as complex and
> structured as Dante and as emotionally expressive as Beethoven's 9th).
>
> Is the correllation between logic/structure and emotion in music just a
> coincidence? Are they really at odds? Or is it as simple as art follows
> technique?
The motivation for any rational pursuit can be romantic- and the romantic
can exploit careful skills in crafting their work. A Mahler is conceived -
rationally structured as much or as more than Bach. And to the extent in
the 20th centaury even contra logical and random elements employed - again
as a expressive handle on the truth. This whole programme collapses either
when truth is achieved - or its seen as impossible - arbitrary. (which marks
post-modernity) - Nietzsche's Superman is the emotional ego par
excellence - but predicated on the logic of the eternal return... and this
hero too fails - become ordinary...
Your cynicism is symptomatic of post modernity- there is a fundamental
difference - that is your choice- and how you feel it doesn't really
matter - you don't go to holy war against the heracy of Saab... i think the
current phenomenon of Islam is a good counter example - it has deeply
divided factions - and is cynically manipulated from within by politicians
and war lords - yet to its followers it presents the possibility of a
greater fundamental truth. Such and similar was the attitude of a
consensuses to science in modernity. You have choice between GM and Ford -
so they must court you - not you them - for your favour- a fundamental
reversal of power and power structures. Who would have guessed TWA and Pan
Am would not be around in 2001 - a Pan Am flight appears in the film! Your
GM drivers having rubbed the sleep from their eyes could within minutes
trade their ex Saab for a Toyota on e-bay - times *have* changed.
>
> > i [..] see post-modernity as [..] the final state
> > of humanity in which the individual is central and above anything else -
> > any
> > meta-narrative- be it Marxism or any religion
>
> How? By the whithering away of meta-narratives much like communists dreamt
> of the whithering away of the state?
meta narratives wither and are replaced by individual life histories....
>
> This seems like a good thing. I'm all for it - always have been, always
> will. Its what I teach my children.
which is to be expected - the only meta-narrative then is your DNA - but
like your story - others will not find it particularly interesting.
>
> Yet, the days of truth with a small 't' (i.e. the enlightenment program)
is
> fading and the days of Truth with a capital "T" are comming.
>
> In the US, evolution is under attack because is it "only a theory" whereas
> Genesis is the "Ultimate Truth". The war between the Truths of Islam and
the
> Self-evident Truths of Judeo-Christian Freedom is only warming up. In the
US
> we always mimick our enemies - against the commie rooskies we developed
huge
> state enterprises - the military industrial complex. Against the infidels
we
> are mimicing them by turning our schools into neocon judeo-christian
> madrasas and making our clerics guardians of our narratives...
This is apparent - and so fiction... you are able to map out these
differences- the attack on theory can be sustained only by wishful
thinking - on both sides. Religious fundamentalism has been around for at
least 80 years in the USA- the day i'll take it as being sincere - in Islam
also is when someone says we wont use this technology as its predicated on a
heresy. The ability to sustain a creationist belief is that no body cares
much anyway..... with the exception of a few ... we live our lives given the
truth of DNA - do creationists (that is the majority) refuse its use in
medicine or courts of justice?
>
> >So advertising and marketing \> people are now dictated to by the
> >consumer....as is the post->modern artist
>
> The only instance that I am aware of in which the consumer dictated to the
> marketer is thsi one: A pharmaceutical company in beta testing a blood
> pressure elevator distributed samples to test subjects to guage its
> effectiveness in eleviating symptoms of low blood pressure. As normal, at
> the end of the test, the company requested that any unused samples be
> returned to the manufacturer. Now normally, there are many unused samples
at
> the end of such a test, but for this one test NO SAMPLES WERE RETURNED -
> ZERO!. Since this was a highly unusual event for the people administering
> the test, they looked at the written responses of the test subjects to see
> if there were any side effects of explain this phenomenon. None were
given.
> They couple of dropped this and just come to the conclusion that the drug
> test was successfull, but they decided to persue this further with
personal
> interviews. This is how the drug "Viagra" - the scurge of Florida
> retirement communities, came to market.
>
What about when they tried to change Coke? But a classic in the UK was a
cigarette called "Strand" - the ad showed a lonely figure walking / smoking
with the voice over - 'your never alone with a strand' - the public thinking
him a lonely and sad person - didn't buy. There are others - flying flags
at half mast on Royal Buildings - (the Lady Di saga!) the whole of UK
politics is driven by consensus groups...(not ideology) and i would think
much the same in the USA. "I have a dream..." becomes 'what kind of dream do
*you* want' (Microsoft's jingle).
Jasbird
and postmodern. Part of the jazz tradition has always been
pastiche and homage which it can never get away from. Modern
jazz started in earnest with bebop, moved through modal and
arrived at free-form. After free-form there was no where else to
go. So we get people like Zorn who sometimes seem to draw on
postmodern ideas but who's playing is still (w.r.t. the rest of
music) both intensely modern but using an art form condemned by
the great modernist Adorno as worthless pastiche.
To be technically correct, I suppose you could say the free-form
gave birth to more free-form free (such as the European
improvisors) but that often never sounds like jazz to me and
often seems to have lost it's roots.
James Whitehead
"Jasbird" <Jas...@oberon.com> wrote in message
news:icj8615kv0k4bqfa7...@4ax.com...