Review: "Fear of Music - Why People Get Rothko But Don't Get Stockhausen" by David Stubbs
Dave U. Random
as old as �Rock Around the Clock,� have not been assimilated into the
classical canon in the way that Ravel and Stravinsky have. When
someone like Joe Queenan has earnestly tried and failed to appreciate
this �new� music http://xrl.us/Queenan , it�s fair to ask what the
problem is.
David Stubbs considers this important question in "Fear of Music"
(Amazon.com: http://xrl.us/FearMusic ), but doesn�t come close to
answering it. His speculative suggestion � that musical performance
lacks an �original object� that, in the case of visual art, may become
the subject of veneration or trade � clearly has little force, given
that it applies equally to Beethoven and Birtwistle. Indeed, Stubbs�s
analysis is part of the problem rather than the solution. Like
economists trying to understand market crashes, he wants to place all
the motive forces outside the system: his gaze never fixes on the
music itself..
Continued: http://xrl.us/FearMusicReview
Dave U. Random
Ravel and Stravinsky have. When someone like Joe Queenan
music http://xrl.us/Queenan , it�s fair to ask what the
problem is.
David Stubbs considers this important question in "Fear of
Music" (Amazon.com: http://xrl.us/FearMusic ), but doesn�t
come close to answering it. His speculative suggestion�that
musical performance lacks an �original object� that, in the
case of visual art, may become the subject of veneration or
trade�clearly has little force, given that it applies
equally to Beethoven and Birtwistle. Indeed, Stubbs�s
analysis is part of the problem rather than the solution.
Like economists trying to understand market crashes, he
wants to place all the motive forces outside the system:
his gaze never fixes on the music itself. To Stubbs, our
responses to music are determined by our context and
perspective, not by what we actually hear. His comparison
of visual and musical art takes no account of how the two
are processed in cognitive terms..
Continued: http://xrl.us/FearMusicReview
Fragments@ech.co.uk Skill Fragments
> (Prospect Magazine) - Stockhausen and Penderecki, whose
> works are now as old as "Rock Around the Clock," have not
> been assimilated into the classical canon in the way that
> Ravel and Stravinsky have.
Idiot. Most Stravinsky is absolutely nowhere near 'the classical canon':
when the hell did you last hear a music-lover say they were dying to hear
another performance of anything by him except for the early ballets? "Oooh,
I really hope they put 'Oedipus Rex' on this season! Or 'Jeu des Cartes'! Or
'Requiem Canticles'! Or 'Threni'! Or 'Abraham and Isaac' -- I just *love
it*! Or that incredible piece for flute, clarinet and harp that takes 53
seconds!"
And maybe Stockhausen and Penderecki are just *shit composers* -- with
nothing to say, and not much of a language to say it in...
SF.
Charles H. Sampson
I agree with most of this but why did you feel the need for the
first word? People whom you disagree with are not necessarily idiots.
People who are flat-out wrong are not necessarily idiots.
Amazing.
Charlie
--
All the world's a stage, and most
of us are desperately unrehearsed. Sean O'Casey
Gary Goldberg
gospel music. I said I didn't care for it. He said, "You don't
understand it."
It was clear to me then that understand=like and if you didn't
like something it was not because it sounded bad but because you didn't
understand it.
In article
<ca6ca7c70910280655w28b...@mail.gmail.com>,
"Dave U. Random" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> (Prospect Magazine) - Stockhausen and Penderecki, whose works are now
> as old as �Rock Around the Clock,� have not been assimilated into the
> classical canon in the way that Ravel and Stravinsky have. When
> someone like Joe Queenan has earnestly tried and failed to appreciate
> this �new� music http://xrl.us/Queenan , it�s fair to ask what the
> problem is.
>
> David Stubbs considers this important question in "Fear of Music"
> (Amazon.com: http://xrl.us/FearMusic ), but doesn�t come close to
> answering it. His speculative suggestion � that musical performance
> lacks an �original object� that, in the case of visual art, may become
> the subject of veneration or trade � clearly has little force, given
> that it applies equally to Beethoven and Birtwistle. Indeed, Stubbs�s
Jack Campin - bogus address
> "Skill Fragments" <Skill Frag...@ech.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dave U. Random wrote:
>> Idiot. [...]
> I agree with most of this but why did you feel the need for the
> first word? People whom you disagree with are not necessarily idiots.
In this instance, "malicious hacker" would be nearer the mark.
The posting was from an anonymized account and it linked to a
shortened URL - no way for anyone clicking on it to know if it
did in fact lead to something on Prospect Magazine's site, and
no way to identify the poster.
I suspect you'd hit a malware download if you followed that.
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
****** I killfile Google posts - email me if you want to be whitelisted ******
Peter T. Daniels
> Many years ago I had a friendly discussion with a black colleague about
> gospel music. I said I didn't care for it. He said, "You don't
> understand it."
>
> It was clear to me then that understand=like and if you didn't
> like something it was not because it sounded bad but because you didn't
> understand it.
Not liking X doesn't mean X is bad.
Not infrequently, it _does_ mean you don't understand X.
Joachim Pense
> Many years ago I had a friendly discussion with a black colleague about
> gospel music. I said I didn't care for it. He said, "You don't
> understand it."
>
> It was clear to me then that understand=like and if you didn't
> like something it was not because it sounded bad but because you didn't
> understand it.
>
Is care=like for you? If you don't care for gospel music, are you just
indifferent to it, or do you avoid listening to it?
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
"I don't care for X" is an idiom for 'I don't like X'. There's no non-
negative equivalent; "I care for X" means only 'I am a caretaker for
X', e.g. a nanny or a nurse. Except perhaps as a contrastive -- "You
don't care for Stravinsky?" "I _do_ care for Stravinsky!"
[followup fixed. I hope GG isn't in "alt.music.classical"]
Joachim Pense
OK. Well, I remember that in Arizona, a waiter offered me something
saying "do you care for another drink?". Wouldn't this be close to a
non-negative equivalent?
(perhaps we should follow-up this to aue, but I think you don't read that
group)
Joachim
laraine
Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> (Prospect Magazine) - Stockhausen and Penderecki, whose works are now
> classical canon in the way that Ravel and Stravinsky have. When
> someone like Joe Queenan has earnestly tried and failed to appreciate
> problem is.
>
> David Stubbs considers this important question in "Fear of Music"
> answering it. His speculative suggestion — that musical performance
> lacks an “original object” that, in the case of visual art, may become
> the subject of veneration or trade — clearly has little force, given
> that it applies equally to Beethoven and Birtwistle. Indeed, Stubbs’s
> analysis is part of the problem rather than the solution. Like
> economists trying to understand market crashes, he wants to place all
> the motive forces outside the system: his gaze never fixes on the
> music itself..
>
> Continued:http://xrl.us/FearMusicReview
I thought there were plenty of people playing
Penderecki.... and Berio... and others
mentioned. What's to fear?
This Helicopter String Quartet is hilarious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13D1YY_BvWU&feature=related
C.
Chris S/Z
interesting article with the title "Zu schr�g f�r unser Gehirn" (Too weird
for our brain) about the perception of XXth century and contemporary music.
Interesting because it is an attempt to find answers to that question in the
fields of sociology, musicology, esthetics and neurology.
http://www.zeit.de/2009/43/N-Musik-und-Hirn
By the way, sorry for my English. I'm not a native speaker.
S/Z
"Dave U. Random" <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:0e90d3a8fcda17f7...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net...
> (Prospect Magazine) - Stockhausen and Penderecki, whose
> works are now as old as "Rock Around the Clock," have not
> been assimilated into the classical canon in the way that
> Ravel and Stravinsky have. When someone like Joe Queenan
> has earnestly tried and failed to appreciate this "new"
> music http://xrl.us/Queenan , it's fair to ask what the
> problem is.
>
> David Stubbs considers this important question in "Fear of
> Music" (Amazon.com: http://xrl.us/FearMusic ), but doesn't
> come close to answering it. His speculative suggestion-that
> musical performance lacks an "original object" that, in the
> case of visual art, may become the subject of veneration or
> trade-clearly has little force, given that it applies
Joachim Pense
> Two weeks ago the german weekly magazin "Die Zeit" has published a very
> interesting article with the title "Zu schr�g f�r unser Gehirn" (Too
> weird for our brain) about the perception of XXth century and contemporary
> music. Interesting because it is an attempt to find answers to that
> question in the fields of sociology, musicology, esthetics and neurology.
>
> http://www.zeit.de/2009/43/N-Musik-und-Hirn
It is an old misunderstanding that the listener is supposed to recognize the
twelve-tone-series or other construction techniques on which e.g. a serial
piece (twelve-tone or total-serial) is based. Compare this e.g. to
Schumann's Träumerei. It uses complicated harmonies and rhythms, but none
of those is exposed; instead, my listening experience is that of an
unadorned, simple flow, and that's how Schumanns compositional techniques
work.
The basic intention of Schönberg's twelve-tone technique is avoiding tonal
centers, and looking at the listeners' reactions missing the centers, it is
generally successful. This applies to overall uniformity that early total
serialism ("Punctualism") achieves. So the aspect to challenge is not the
lacking recognizability of the construction techniques, but the uniformity
the composers were aiming at. (Of course you get only that far on that
basis, but, hold on:)
Then, there is another level of experience constructivism or highly
technical compositions. Listening to Beethoven's harmonic progressions or
the rhythmic delicacies of the Jazz drummers Max Roach or Tony Williams, I
enjoy the playful manipulation of the fairly complicated musical
techniques, even if (being an untrained listener), I only _recognize_ the
most basic aspects of them. Compare that with cubist paintings by Braque or
drawings of Kandinsky: I don't understand how they are designed, but I also
don't need to: I enjoy the obvious presence of a design, and it affects me
even though I dont _understand_ most of it.
This is how the best "modern music" works, and the playful handling of the
listener experience I just tried to describe is very present in the work of
the best composers like Stockhausen and Xenakis, to name two.
And then, there are modern composers that transcend this question of lacking
recognizability of the design principles: Stockhausens work since the early
1970s is still constructed using techniques of total serialism, but now he
intends to make these structures recognizable, often in a "didactic" way.
This works without any tonality, and it attracts a large audience. Or think
of Morton Feldman, who composed intuitively without any underlying system
but was successful in creating the listening experiences I described just
by the way he controlled his intuition.
Joachim
Samuel Vriezen
the end. Actually Stubbs doesn't give any serious analysis of the question in
the title at all; he gives you lots of snippets of interesting stuff from music
and art history, which is somewhat entertaining to read. Only in the last
chapter do you find an attempt at analysis, but it's pretty basic.