Our Children and Music
Richard A. Schulman
Casals, in 1961:
"You want to know what I think of that abomination, rock 'n'
roll? I think it is a disgrace. Poison put to sound! When I
hear it I feel very sad not only for music but for the
people who are addicted to it. I am also very sorry for
America -- that such a great country should have nothing
better to pour into the expectant ear of mankind than this
raucous distillation of the ugliness of our times, performed
by juveniles for juveniles....
"Rock 'n' roll fans befuddle critics by insisting there's no
such thing as <<bad music.>> That's like taking the word of
a color-blind person when he swears that colors never clash.
A person who says there's no such thing as bad music must be
diagnosed as being at least partially deaf.
"America has gone backwards in the popular music field. The
jazz and swing we heard twenty years ago was musically
pioneering, interesting and healthy. The French have a word,
_abrutissant_, for anything that brutalizes man and tends to
turn him into a beast. That's the word for this terrible,
convulsive sound. It is against art, against life. It leads
away from that exaltation and elevation of spirit that
should spring naturally from all good music.
"As long as untrained and sometimes untalented entertainers
can make themselves and record companies millions of dollars
overnight, they will continue to exploit the adolescent's
tendency to choose the tinsel instead of the gold. You can't
expect the people who sell millions of records to have
artistic ideas. Record companies make them. Disc jockeys
play them. Youngsters buy them -- and, in order to be
popular, the disc jockeys continue to feed the hungry, naive
appetites. It's the parents who will have to take action --
not in forbidding children to listen to rock 'n' roll but by
educating them to appreciate better music, by filling their
homes with it. Given the choice, man will strive towards
things of moral and cultural value rather than the
counterfeit...."
[source: Pablo Casals, "A Disgrace to Music," _Music
Journal_, vol. 19 (Jan., 1961), p. 18]
---
Richard Schulman
To email me, remove the "XYZ"
Peter T. Daniels
80 at the time, no?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Joe Ramirez
>The following was written by the world-famous cellist, Pablo
>Casals, in 1961:
>
>"You want to know what I think of that abomination, rock 'n'
>roll? I think it is a disgrace. Poison put to sound! When I
>hear it I feel very sad not only for music but for the
>people who are addicted to it. I am also very sorry for
>America -- that such a great country should have nothing
>better to pour into the expectant ear of mankind than this
>raucous distillation of the ugliness of our times, performed
>by juveniles for juveniles....
[deleted]
Who said the following:
"Noise is what counts in modern music, not harmonious sound ...."
Give up? It was Benedetto Marcello, in 1720.
For more reading pleasure, I give you these comments on Beethoven:
"The fourth movement [of the 9th Symphony] is, in my opinion, so
monstrous and tasteless and, in its grasp of Schiller's *Ode*, so
trivial that I cannot understand how a genius like Beethoven could
have written it. I find in it another proof of what I had already
noted in Vienna, that Beethoven was wanting in aesthetic feeling and
in a sense of the beautiful."
-- Spohr
"But after [Haydn] Cramer and finally Beethoven, with their
compositions lacking in unity and natural flow and full of arbitrary
oddities, corrupted taste in instrumental music completely."
-- Rossini
"That eccentricity [in Beethoven's music] confuses and confounds,
without distinguishing between them, tragic and comic, sacred and
profane, pleasant and unpleasant, heroic strains and mere noise; it
engenders in people not love but madness; it rouses them to scornful
laughter instead of lifting up their thoughts to God."
-- Schubert
Source: *Composers on Music* (J. Fisk ed. 1997).
Joe Ramirez
jbay...@my-deja.com
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Whadya know, he found a screed from a non-right-winger! Who was close
to
> 80 at the time, no?
In my early 20s (NB, not early 80s), I clipped out and saved the
following editorial because Andre Previn's described attempt to
find something in rock and his ultimate reaction to it paralleled
my own exactly. I'd even undergone a similar tutelage by a "rock
authority" (FWIW, Previn is a liberal and so am I):
<quote>
I'd like to share an incident from Martin Bookspan and Ross
Yockey's book, _Andre_Previn,_A_Biography_ (1981). It seems
Previn wanted to be objective [!] in his opinion of rock music,
and underwent a private seminar from a rock authority:
"Andre maintains he did his level best to purge his mind of
all negative predisposition. He posed questions, asked to hear
things several times over, observed nuances in the music, and
even struggled to understand the lyrics. Then, after several
hours of the first evening, he fell apart, rolling with laughter
on the living-room carpet. 'I can't help it,' he groaned,
'because you've helped convince me I've been right all along.
This really _is_ the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.'"
Count me in, Andre!
-James D. Maffett (Lakeland, FL)
in _CD_Review_ 6/90
</quote>
Me too, Andre. ;-)
John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jbay...@my-deja.com
jra...@attglobal.net (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
<snip>
> For more reading pleasure, I give you these comments on Beethoven:
>
> "The fourth movement [of the 9th Symphony] is, in my opinion, so
> monstrous and tasteless and, in its grasp of Schiller's *Ode*, so
> trivial that I cannot understand how a genius like Beethoven could
> have written it. I find in it another proof of what I had already
> noted in Vienna, that Beethoven was wanting in aesthetic feeling and
> in a sense of the beautiful."
> -- Spohr
There are/were other people (e.g., GB Shaw and the pianist Earl
Wild, among many) who would agree with Spohr.
Geron
<jra...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Richard A. Schulman <RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >The following was written by the world-famous cellist, Pablo
> >Casals, in 1961:
> >
> >"You want to know what I think of that abomination, rock 'n'
> >roll? I think it is a disgrace. Poison put to sound! When I
> >hear it I feel very sad not only for music but for the
> >people who are addicted to it. I am also very sorry for
> >America -- that such a great country should have nothing
> >better to pour into the expectant ear of mankind than this
> >raucous distillation of the ugliness of our times, performed
> >by juveniles for juveniles....
>
> [deleted]
>
> Who said the following:
>
> "Noise is what counts in modern music, not harmonious sound ...."
>
> Give up? It was Benedetto Marcello, in 1720.
>
> For more reading pleasure, I give you these comments on Beethoven:
>
> "The fourth movement [of the 9th Symphony] is, in my opinion, so
> monstrous and tasteless and, in its grasp of Schiller's *Ode*, so
> trivial that I cannot understand how a genius like Beethoven could
> have written it. I find in it another proof of what I had already
> noted in Vienna, that Beethoven was wanting in aesthetic feeling and
> in a sense of the beautiful."
> -- Spohr
>
> "But after [Haydn] Cramer and finally Beethoven, with their
> compositions lacking in unity and natural flow and full of arbitrary
> oddities, corrupted taste in instrumental music completely."
> -- Rossini
>
> "That eccentricity [in Beethoven's music] confuses and confounds,
> without distinguishing between them, tragic and comic, sacred and
> profane, pleasant and unpleasant, heroic strains and mere noise; it
> engenders in people not love but madness; it rouses them to scornful
> laughter instead of lifting up their thoughts to God."
> -- Schubert
>
> Source: *Composers on Music* (J. Fisk ed. 1997).
>
> Joe Ramirez
Very good, Joe. Now do you know what they were alluding to? Think
about it.. If you express and explain it -you'll be making my case.
Geron
F.B.
<RichardAS...@att.net> writes:
>
>The following was written by the world-famous cellist, Pablo
>Casals, in 1961:
>
>"You want to know what I think of that abomination, rock 'n'
>roll? I think it is a disgrace. Poison put to sound! When I
>hear it I feel very sad not only for music but for the
>people who are addicted to it. I am also very sorry for
>America -- that such a great country should have nothing
>better to pour into the expectant ear of mankind than this
>raucous distillation of the ugliness of our times, performed
>by juveniles for juveniles....
Rock music didn't rise to the art form that it later became until the
late '60s. This quote was based only on the first 6 years of rock
music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians, and the music was
structurally very different from what it later became, and when the
umbrella of rock music was much smaller than it is today.
The brave, the new, and the innovative has ALWAYS been criticized at
the time of its debut by people too myopic to appreciate it, like Mr.
Casals.
You want a war of quotes? Here's what Balakirev once wrote abuot the
music of Richard Strauss: "This is not music, but a mockery of music."
Here's Debussy on Strauss, "listening to a Strauss tone poem is like
spending an hour in an asylum."
So what does this prove, other than that great composers can make lousy
music critics? Nothing, whatsoever.
Try again.
Matt P
jbay...@my-deja.com
ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
> This quote was based only on the first 6 years of rock
> music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians,
Virtuoso rock musicians....bwahahaha ha ha heh eh ....BWAHAHA HA HA HA
HA HA <snort> HA HA HA HA HA HA heh he heh heh....BWA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! <gasp>
frank
"Joe Ramirez" <jra...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:399db1c9...@news3.attglobal.net...
> "That eccentricity [in Beethoven's music] confuses and confounds,
> without distinguishing between them, tragic and comic, sacred and
> profane, pleasant and unpleasant, heroic strains and mere noise; it
> engenders in people not love but madness; it rouses them to scornful
> laughter instead of lifting up their thoughts to God."
> -- Schubert
>
> Source: *Composers on Music* (J. Fisk ed. 1997).
>
> Joe Ramirez
LOL :-)
May I commend also `The Lexicon of Musical Invective`, a wonderful anthology
by Nicholas Slominsky ? (I mentioned it earlier in the thread but couldn`t
remember the author`s name.) An hour reading criticisms of the past (some of
them, as above, by composers themselves) will be enough to prevent one ever
again taking music critics seriously :-)
Analysis is one thing, criticism quite another.
cheers
frank
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <8nl237$nrj$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
> > music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians,
>
> HA HA <snort> HA HA HA HA HA HA heh he heh heh....BWA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! <gasp>
So much for his powers of observation. Two words: Jimi Hendrix.
BTW, thanks for snipping.
jbay...@my-deja.com
F.B.
>
>In article <8nl237$nrj$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
>> music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians,
>
>HA HA <snort> HA HA HA HA HA HA heh he heh
heh....BWA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! <gasp>
>
This is another example of you persisting in believing a factual
inaccuracy. You belief in many factual inaccuracies, and the fact that
your conclusions are often based on them is why nobody in here can take
your opinions seriously. The are numerous virtuoso rock musicians;
namely: Jimi Hendrix, Keith Emerson, Jimi Page, Tony Banks, Bill
Bruford, Neil Peart, Steve Howe, John McGlaughlin, Gary Lucas, Robert
Fripp, and many, many others. This is not deniable, it is a fact.
Matt P
Taoist
> > music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians,
>
> HA HA <snort> HA HA HA HA HA HA heh he heh heh....BWA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! <gasp>
You don't get out much, do you?
--
Taoist
"Actually I don't much like falafel; I just love saying it. Falafel falafel
falafel. Wow, it's even fun to type. Try typing it over and over again. It's
like a finger dance. Seriously." - Standard Deviation
Joe Ramirez
>In article <8nl237$nrj$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
>> This quote was based only on the first 6 years of rock
>> music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians,
>
>Virtuoso rock musicians....bwahahaha ha ha heh eh ....BWAHAHA HA HA HA
>HA HA <snort> HA HA HA HA HA HA heh he heh heh....BWA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! <gasp>
Tendentious though your principal argument is, you do it no favors by
being so ridiculously unyielding on these minor points. The "rock is
crap" theory does not imply that no rock musician can be a virtuoso,
nor is the latter proposition verifiable by independent means. Some
-- certainly not all, but that's not the point -- rock musicians do
indeed display impressive mastery of their instruments. Some of them
received significant classical training before switching to rock, btw.
Joe Ramirez
frank
<jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nkfe2$21t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I'd like to share an incident from Martin Bookspan and Ross
> Yockey's book, _Andre_Previn,_A_Biography_ (1981). It seems
> Previn wanted to be objective [!] in his opinion of rock music,
> and underwent a private seminar from a rock authority:
>
> This really _is_ the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.'"
Could have been at least in part because his interest lay elsewhere at the
time; how do you rate him as a jazz pianist ?
cheers
frank
F.B.
Ramirez) writes:
>
>jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>In article <8nl237$nrj$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
>>> music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians,
>>
HA
>>HA HA <snort> HA HA HA HA HA HA heh he heh
heh....BWA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! <gasp>
>
>Tendentious though your principal argument is, you do it no favors by
>being so ridiculously unyielding on these minor points. The "rock is
>crap" theory does not imply that no rock musician can be a virtuoso,
>nor is the latter proposition verifiable by independent means. Some
>-- certainly not all, but that's not the point -- rock musicians do
>indeed display impressive mastery of their instruments. Some of them
>received significant classical training before switching to rock, btw.
>
>Joe Ramirez
Especially since he has stated on numerous occasions that he believes
that there is plenty of classical music "crap." Since this "crap" was
presumably either created or played by musicians of excellent technical
ability, it seems to be no big deal to simply admit that there are also
plenty of excellent musicians who don't play classical music.
Arguments like his and Schulman's (who introduced a quotation
denigrating rock music that was made in *1961*) certainly give rise to
the presumption that these guys don't really know much about the genres
that they are attacking. Not that '50s era rock needs anything in the
way of artistic defense, but the genre as a whole has changed
dramatically since then.
Matt P
jbay...@my-deja.com
ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
<snip>
> This is another example of you persisting in believing a factual
Ah, that's better.
jbay...@my-deja.com
jra...@attglobal.net (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
> jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <8nl237$nrj$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
> >> music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians,
> >
> >HA HA <snort> HA HA HA HA HA HA heh he heh heh....BWA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! <gasp>
>
> Tendentious though your principal argument is, you do it no favors by
> being so ridiculously unyielding on these minor points. The "rock is
> crap" theory does not imply that no rock musician can be a virtuoso,
> nor is the latter proposition verifiable by independent means. Some
> -- certainly not all, but that's not the point -- rock musicians do
> indeed display impressive mastery of their instruments. Some of them
> received significant classical training before switching to rock, btw.
Joe, I often listen to a show on NPR called Fresh Air. I love Terry
Gross, and consider her to be one of the most gifted interviewers
ever known, but like some of you, she's a musical relativist, who has
interest in rock (but not in classical), so she interviews quite her
share of rock musicians. It is *common* for rock musicians to proudly
state (guitarists, mostly) that when they entered the biz they "only
knew three chords". It's so common to hear them say this that it
has become almost a cliche. In the few cases where they began their
careers with formal training in classical music, it is nearly as
common to hear them proclaim "I was no good, so I went into rock and
roll". Rock and roll is quite simply a genre for mediocre talent to
make the best of their shortcommings. Anyone who plays an instrument
can improvise to or write to his strengths as a performer. Some very
bad pianists, for example, can play fast scales, and, if they wrote
a piece that employed fast scales (but avoided their weak points), they
could make themselves sound like Horowitz. The funny thing would be
to hear a rock musician who actually tried to play a real piece of
classical music on his "axe". I would have loved to hear Jimi Hendrix
try to play the bach chaconne, for example. Now that would really
have been an occasion for laughter.
jbay...@my-deja.com
I don't rate him as a jazz pianist. He's reportedly very good,
though.
I love that quote.
Jim Curtis
> monstrous and tasteless
Spohr actually said that? I used that exact description for the Ode to Joy
in a post awhile back. I'm really gonna worry that my music is derivative
now. I hear and read stuff and use it without even realizing I'm repeating
it...or perhaps, it's a natural truth and those are the most appropriate
words. I suppose that any noise maker can use these quotes to make their
music seem more legitimate as in " HA, they said the same thing about
Beethoven". All noise is music and it's just people's prejudiced ears that
refuse to hear a particular piece of noise as music. I dunno.
Jim Curtis
are you so fascinated by rock, John? It seems to occupy your every thought.
Don't you realize how strange it looks with your fixation with things that
you don't like? Go listen to some classical and chill out. Life's to short
to dwell on our dislikes.
<jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nn0vs$nsb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
". I would have loved to hear Jimi Hendrix
> try to play the bach chaconne, for example. Now that would really
> have been an occasion for laughter.
>
Geron
<jra...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <8nl237$nrj$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
> >> This quote was based only on the first 6 years of rock
> >> music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians,
> >
> >Virtuoso rock musicians....bwahahaha ha ha heh eh ....BWAHAHA HA HA HA
> >HA HA <snort> HA HA HA HA HA HA heh he heh heh....BWA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! <gasp>
>
> Tendentious though your principal argument is, you do it no favors by
> being so ridiculously unyielding on these minor points. The "rock is
> crap" theory does not imply that no rock musician can be a virtuoso,
> nor is the latter proposition verifiable by independent means. Some
> -- certainly not all, but that's not the point -- rock musicians do
> indeed display impressive mastery of their instruments. Some of them
> received significant classical training before switching to rock, btw.
>
> Joe Ramirez
I think true virtuosity means "the ability to project a
piece fluently, with an artistically convincing profile, and a rich and
well-controlled palette of different sounds: many simultaneous
dimensions at which different listeners can connect and find something
valuable."
Above all, true virtuosity doesn't call attention to itself, but makes
the listener concentrate on the wonder of the musical experience. True
virtuosity in a performance makes a composition sound as great as it
is. And it somehow also transcends the "everything in its proper
place, yet still boring and too predictable" level.
None of this has much to do with any of the general intentions (in
their own words!) of writers of rock (sic). <g>
Geron
Geron
> In article <399ec904...@news3.attglobal.net>,
> jra...@attglobal.net (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
> > jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >In article <8nl237$nrj$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > > ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
> > >> This quote was based only on the first 6 years of rock
> > >> music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians,
> > >
> > >Virtuoso rock musicians....bwahahaha ha ha heh eh ....BWAHAHA HA HA HA
> > >HA HA <snort> HA HA HA HA HA HA heh he heh heh....BWA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> > >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! <gasp>
> >
> > Tendentious though your principal argument is, you do it no favors by
> > being so ridiculously unyielding on these minor points. The "rock is
> > crap" theory does not imply that no rock musician can be a virtuoso,
> > nor is the latter proposition verifiable by independent means. Some
> > -- certainly not all, but that's not the point -- rock musicians do
> > indeed display impressive mastery of their instruments. Some of them
> > received significant classical training before switching to rock, btw.
>
> Joe, I often listen to a show on NPR called Fresh Air. I love Terry
> Gross, and consider her to be one of the most gifted interviewers
> ever known, but like some of you, she's a musical relativist, who has
> interest in rock (but not in classical), so she interviews quite her
> share of rock musicians. It is *common* for rock musicians to proudly
> state (guitarists, mostly) that when they entered the biz they "only
> knew three chords". It's so common to hear them say this that it
> has become almost a cliche. In the few cases where they began their
> careers with formal training in classical music, it is nearly as
> common to hear them proclaim "I was no good, so I went into rock and
> roll". Rock and roll is quite simply a genre for mediocre talent to
> make the best of their shortcommings. Anyone who plays an instrument
> can improvise to or write to his strengths as a performer. Some very
> bad pianists, for example, can play fast scales, and, if they wrote
> a piece that employed fast scales (but avoided their weak points), they
> could make themselves sound like Horowitz. The funny thing would be
> to hear a rock musician who actually tried to play a real piece of
> classical music on his "axe". I would have loved to hear Jimi Hendrix
> try to play the bach chaconne, for example. Now that would really
> have been an occasion for laughter.
>
> John
After playing JSB for forty years I haven't settled on just the right
approach to the Chaconne. It would be 'interesting' to see (hear) a
young rock whippersnapper barf out something that he thought was
definitive. Hah!!
Of course, if he did give me even a little something to think about, I
would have to eat plenty of crow. :-O And I don't like crow!
Geron
Richard A. Schulman
comments):
The fact that some musicians sometimes got things wrong with
respect to their contemporaries or immediate predecessors is
hardly a persuasive argument that the future will regard
rock as being on a par with Bach, Beethoven, etc. Don't
forget that most of the stuff condemned by highly educated
musicians IS junk and is never heard from again. It's just
the obvious misjudgments that resurface in the history
books.
It's no secret, however, that in the various arts the canon
tends to become more reliable in proportion to the distance
its component works recede into the past.
Which brings up another important point -- the one that has
been the most contested in this thread, namely, my claim
that there is an objective basis to aesthetic judgment. The
very existence of a relatively stable canon in the various
arts (literature, music, painting) testifies to the tacit
acknowledgement by professionals in a given field that
objective standards of aesthetic judgment exist.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 22:16:23 GMT, jra...@attglobal.net (Joe
Ramirez) wrote:
>Richard A. Schulman <RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>The following was written by the world-famous cellist, Pablo
>>Casals, in 1961:
>>
>>"You want to know what I think of that abomination, rock 'n'
>>roll? I think it is a disgrace. Poison put to sound! When I
>>hear it I feel very sad not only for music but for the
>>people who are addicted to it. I am also very sorry for
>>America -- that such a great country should have nothing
>>better to pour into the expectant ear of mankind than this
>>raucous distillation of the ugliness of our times, performed
>>by juveniles for juveniles....
>
>[deleted]
>
>Who said the following:
>
>"Noise is what counts in modern music, not harmonious sound ...."
>
>Give up? It was Benedetto Marcello, in 1720.
>
>For more reading pleasure, I give you these comments on Beethoven:
>
>"The fourth movement [of the 9th Symphony] is, in my opinion, so
>monstrous and tasteless and, in its grasp of Schiller's *Ode*, so
>trivial that I cannot understand how a genius like Beethoven could
>have written it. I find in it another proof of what I had already
>noted in Vienna, that Beethoven was wanting in aesthetic feeling and
>in a sense of the beautiful."
>-- Spohr
>
>"But after [Haydn] Cramer and finally Beethoven, with their
>compositions lacking in unity and natural flow and full of arbitrary
>oddities, corrupted taste in instrumental music completely."
>-- Rossini
>
>"That eccentricity [in Beethoven's music] confuses and confounds,
>without distinguishing between them, tragic and comic, sacred and
>profane, pleasant and unpleasant, heroic strains and mere noise; it
>engenders in people not love but madness; it rouses them to scornful
>laughter instead of lifting up their thoughts to God."
>-- Schubert
>
>Source: *Composers on Music* (J. Fisk ed. 1997).
>
>Joe Ramirez
---
Richard A. Schulman
wrote:
>Rock music didn't rise to the art form that it later became until the
>late '60s. This quote was based only on the first 6 years of rock
>music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians, and the music was
>structurally very different from what it later became, and when the
>umbrella of rock music was much smaller than it is today.
Do you consider grunge, rap, and Heavy Metal to be art
forms? Do you think Pablo Casals would have found these more
musically satisfying than what he had heard as of 1961?
(Honest answer please!)
>The brave, the new, and the innovative has ALWAYS been criticized at
>the time of its debut by people too myopic to appreciate it, like Mr.
>Casals.
>
>You want a war of quotes? Here's what Balakirev once wrote abuot the
>music of Richard Strauss: "This is not music, but a mockery of music."
>Here's Debussy on Strauss, "listening to a Strauss tone poem is like
>spending an hour in an asylum."
>
>So what does this prove, other than that great composers can make lousy
>music critics? Nothing, whatsoever.
I already discussed this matter in a separate post. Judgment
improves with historical distance. Composers actually do
make pretty good critics, subject to the preceding caveat.
Virgil Thompson was a good critic. In literature, T.S.
Eliot, Arnold, and Coleridge were outstanding critics.
F.B.
>
>In article <8nmeah$44g$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
><snip>
>> This is another example of you persisting in believing a factual
>> inaccuracy. You belief in many f<snip>
>
>Ah, that's better.
>
>
>John
It is very sad that you choose to ignore the truth. If it is the goal
of intelligent people to attempt to improve themselves and learn from
their errors, and to make decisions based on facts, then you fail as an
enlightened human being. I have shown you the errors of your
reasoning. That you choose to continue to hold your opinions in the
face of objective proof against the presumptions that you make to
justify your opinions is ample evidence of this.
You can make your argument *without* ignoring the truth.
Hell, *I* can make your argument better than you can, and I don't even
believe in it!
Truly sad.
Matt P
F.B.
>
>In article <399ec904...@news3.attglobal.net>,
> jra...@attglobal.net (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
>> jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8nl237$nrj$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> > ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
>> >> music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians,
>> >
HA
>> >HA HA <snort> HA HA HA HA HA HA heh he heh
heh....BWA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>> >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! <gasp>
>>
>> Tendentious though your principal argument is, you do it no favors
by
>> being so ridiculously unyielding on these minor points. The "rock
is
>> crap" theory does not imply that no rock musician can be a virtuoso,
>> nor is the latter proposition verifiable by independent means. Some
>> -- certainly not all, but that's not the point -- rock musicians do
>> indeed display impressive mastery of their instruments. Some of
them
>> received significant classical training before switching to rock,
btw.
>
>Joe, I often listen to a show on NPR called Fresh Air. I love Terry
>Gross, and consider her to be one of the most gifted interviewers
>ever known, but like some of you, she's a musical relativist, who has
>interest in rock (but not in classical), so she interviews quite her
>share of rock musicians. It is *common* for rock musicians to proudly
>state (guitarists, mostly) that when they entered the biz they "only
>knew three chords". It's so common to hear them say this that it
>has become almost a cliche.
You weren't talking about "most." You were talking about "all." Since
I provided numerous examples to the contrary, your argument was blown
out of the water, as being the falsity that it is.
I'm not saying that the average rock musician is as technically skilled
as the average classical musician; they certainly are not. I'm simply
saying that there are many who were, and this is an undeniable fact.
Rock and roll is quite simply a genre for mediocre talent to
>make the best of their shortcommings.
Mediocre *technical* talent. Technical talent isn't everything. Bob
Dylan is a mediocre technical talent with the guitar, but made some of
the greatest music in the 20th century. Satie was a mediocre pianist,
but the music that he wrote was often brilliant -- "making the best of
his shortcomings," in your words.
The funny thing would be
>to hear a rock musician who actually tried to play a real piece of
>classical music on his "axe". I would have loved to hear Jimi Hendrix
>try to play the bach chaconne, for example. Now that would really
>have been an occasion for laughter.
Hendrix could have done it in his sleep, though I agree that the vast
majority of guitarists could not. So what?
I'd love to hear a classical muscian attempt to cover a blues song.
*That* would be an occasion for laughter!
I hope you know that the "technical skill=better" argument is a quick
trip down a dead-end road. The sum of the technical skill required to
write and play a symphony is greater than that required to write and
play a piano sonata, simply because there is only one instrument
involved. Are symphonies de facto "better," then?
I thought not.
Are you getting it now? Different forms of music require different
talents. Muddy Waters would be as out of place and ridiculous
attempting classical music as Schoenberg would be doing a blues album.
Each lacks the talent to successfully do what the other is doing.
Take Emerson Lake and Palmer, brilliant musicians (who I'm not a big
fan of anyway, but that's irrelevant), who did fine work when they were
doing progressive rock, but who failed abysmally when they tried to do
3 1/2 minute "rock n' roll" songs, which they preriodically sprinkled
into their albums which otherwise contained pieces that their fans
consider to be among their best. They were classically trained
musicians, not Chuck Berry, and their shortcomings when they tried
approximate the latter's style were painfully obvious.
I'm sure your reply will be little more than the predictable skip on
the broken record that is your train of thought, but I'm such a
humanitarian that I'm going to keep trying anyway.
Matt P
F.B.
<RichardAS...@att.net> writes:
>
>On 19 Aug 2000 04:23:03 GMT, ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.)
>wrote:
>
>>Rock music didn't rise to the art form that it later became until the
>>late '60s. This quote was based only on the first 6 years of rock
>>music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians, and the music was
>>structurally very different from what it later became, and when the
>>umbrella of rock music was much smaller than it is today.
>
>Do you consider grunge
"Grunge" isn't really a genre at all, but...
Nirvana's "In Utero," yes.
, rap,
The Beastie Boys' "Paul's Boutique," yes.
and Heavy Metal
Led Zeppelin IV? Yes.
to be art
>forms?
I just gave examples of those that are.
Do you think Pablo Casals would have found these more
>musically satisfying than what he had heard as of 1961?
Yes.
>(Honest answer please!)
>
Yes. If not, he lacks the ability to appreciate genres outside the
scope of his experience.
That's not uncommon -- I, for example, surely could not appreciate
Native American music, as I have hardly ever heard any.
>>The brave, the new, and the innovative has ALWAYS been criticized at
>>the time of its debut by people too myopic to appreciate it, like Mr.
>>Casals.
>>
>>You want a war of quotes? Here's what Balakirev once wrote abuot the
>>music of Richard Strauss: "This is not music, but a mockery of
music."
>>Here's Debussy on Strauss, "listening to a Strauss tone poem is like
>>spending an hour in an asylum."
>>
>>So what does this prove, other than that great composers can make
lousy
>>music critics? Nothing, whatsoever.
>
>I already discussed this matter in a separate post. Judgment
>improves with historical distance.
Then why introduce a quote about rock music made in 1961
Anyway, that would explain why there were long stretches of time,
*after* his death, that many of Bach's works were forgotten?
How much distance is necessary? 100 years? 200 years?
Hasn't there been much more of a greater reception among musicologists
to embrace rock and jazz over the last 20 years? Hasn't this happened
some time *after* these forms initially became popular? Isn't this an
example of "historical distance" bearing out the validity of these
forms?
Aren't your opinions *right now* roughly similar to Casal's in 1961?
Isn't this roughly similar to the opinions of nearly all musicologists
in 1961?
Isn't it fair to say, then, that your opinions are equivalent to the
primitive opinions of rock and jazz that existed in 1961, and are
contrary to the majority opinion that has arisen only after historical
distance?
And didn't you just say that historical distance improves judgment.
I rest my case.
Matt P
Michael Haslam
> In reply to Mr. Ramirez (his post is appended to my
> comments):
>
> The fact that some musicians sometimes got things wrong with
> respect to their contemporaries or immediate predecessors
What about Britten's views on Brahms?
> is
> hardly a persuasive argument that the future will regard
> rock as being on a par with Bach, Beethoven, etc. Don't
> forget that most of the stuff condemned by highly educated
> musicians IS junk and is never heard from again. It's just
> the obvious misjudgments that resurface in the history
> books.
>
> It's no secret, however, that in the various arts the canon
> tends to become more reliable in proportion to the distance
> its component works recede into the past.
>
> Which brings up another important point -- the one that has
> been the most contested in this thread, namely, my claim
> that there is an objective basis to aesthetic judgment. The
> very existence of a relatively stable canon in the various
> arts (literature, music, painting) testifies to the tacit
> acknowledgement by professionals in a given field that
> objective standards of aesthetic judgment exist.
Have you not noticed how even in recent times composers of the past have
lurched in and out of fashion, even amongst the cognoscenti?
MJHaslam
Peter T. Daniels
>
> It's no secret, however, that in the various arts the canon
> tends to become more reliable in proportion to the distance
> its component works recede into the past.
>
> Which brings up another important point -- the one that has
> been the most contested in this thread, namely, my claim
> that there is an objective basis to aesthetic judgment. The
> very existence of a relatively stable canon in the various
> arts (literature, music, painting) testifies to the tacit
> acknowledgement by professionals in a given field that
> objective standards of aesthetic judgment exist.
Have you learned *nothing* from the critics of Bloom, Hirsch, Bennett,
D'Souza, and the other defenders of the status quo as it happened to
exist at the moment they became aware of a status quo? "The canon" has
certainly not remained "stable," even "relatively" so, through the ages.
Or do you not even bother to read the refutations of your idols?
frank
"Geron" <Ge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:190820002209273623%Ge...@aol.com...
> Above all, true virtuosity doesn't call attention to itself, but makes
> the listener concentrate on the wonder of the musical experience.
Paganini ? Liszt ? These surely were players/composers (in the past,
granted, but their successors continue to play their music) who enjoyed
showing off their high level of technical expertise, and whom audiences
enjoyed watching - as one would a high-wire act. No shame attaching to that;
most performers have a party piece or two up their sleeve to dazzle an
audience as an encore. But to make claims for the `wonder of the musical
experience` in connection with Paganini (and with quite a bit of Liszt)
seems to be skating on rather thin ice.
Unless perhaps they were not in your opinion true virtuosos ?
cheers
frank
jbay...@my-deja.com
ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
> It is very sad that you choose to ignore the t<snip>
Ahhhhhhh....
jbay...@my-deja.com
Geron <Ge...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <8nn0vs$nsb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> After playing JSB for forty years I haven't settled on just the right
> approach to the Chaconne. It would be 'interesting' to see (hear) a
> young rock whippersnapper barf out something that he thought was
> definitive. Hah!!
>
> Of course, if he did give me even a little something to think about, I
> would have to eat plenty of crow. :-O And I don't like crow!
You'd have lots of room for desert.
Most rock guitarists could not even play the notes, and it's not even
that difficult of a piece, technically. A very sad commentary on an
allegedly "valid" genre.
Taoist
> > approach to the Chaconne. It would be 'interesting' to see (hear) a
> > young rock whippersnapper barf out something that he thought was
> > definitive. Hah!!
> >
> > Of course, if he did give me even a little something to think about, I
> > would have to eat plenty of crow. :-O And I don't like crow!
>
> You'd have lots of room for desert.
>
> Most rock guitarists could not even play the notes, and it's not even
> that difficult of a piece, technically. A very sad commentary on an
> allegedly "valid" genre.
Wow. Your head is almost as far up your butt as Schulman's is up his. Or
is that your head up Schulman's butt, and yours up his? Hard to tell, as
one asshole looks very much like the next...
--
Taoist
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once."
jbay...@my-deja.com
"frank" <poj...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> "Geron" <Ge...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:190820002209273623%Ge...@aol.com...
>
> > Above all, true virtuosity doesn't call attention to itself, but makes
> > the listener concentrate on the wonder of the musical experience.
>
> Paganini ? Liszt ? These surely were players/composers (in the past,
> granted, but their successors continue to play their music) who enjoyed
> showing off their high level of technical expertise, and whom audiences
> enjoyed watching - as one would a high-wire act. No shame attaching to that;
Who says? There have been some wags who have called Liszt and Paganini
the "first rock stars". That's ridiculous, but they certainly were
exemplars of the sort of cults of stupidity that surround rock stars
today.
> most performers have a party piece or two up their sleeve to dazzle an
> audience as an encore. But to make claims for the `wonder of the musical
> experience` in connection with Paganini (and with quite a bit of Liszt)
> seems to be skating on rather thin ice.
This may be hard for you to believe, but there are actually quite a
lot of people in the classical world who think Liszt and Paganini
were ridiculous as composers, though no one could deny their technique.
The idea that there is an analogy to be drawn between them and rock
stars is, except in the most metaphorical sense, absurd.
>
> Unless perhaps they were not in your opinion true virtuosos ?
There is no rock "musician" that could come *close* to the technical
ability of Liszt and Paganini. It's like alleging that a fry cook
at McDonald's is somehow "just the same thing" as a great chef trained
at the Sorbonne. To a culinary ignoramus, maybe.
Where are the rock pieces on the scale of difficulty of, say, the
trancendental etudes or the sonata in b minor? They don't exist.
Not because rock might not be suited to technical difficulty, but
because it must be dumbed down for the sorts of people who perform
it.
Joe Ramirez
>In article <399ec904...@news3.attglobal.net>,
> jra...@attglobal.net (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
>> jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8nl237$nrj$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> > ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
>> >> This quote was based only on the first 6 years of rock
>> >> music, in which there were no virtuoso musicians,
>> >
>> >Virtuoso rock musicians....bwahahaha ha ha heh eh ....BWAHAHA HA HA HA
>> >HA HA <snort> HA HA HA HA HA HA heh he heh heh....BWA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>> >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! <gasp>
>>
>> Tendentious though your principal argument is, you do it no favors by
>> being so ridiculously unyielding on these minor points. The "rock is
>> crap" theory does not imply that no rock musician can be a virtuoso,
>> nor is the latter proposition verifiable by independent means. Some
>> -- certainly not all, but that's not the point -- rock musicians do
>> indeed display impressive mastery of their instruments. Some of them
>> received significant classical training before switching to rock, btw.
>
>Joe, I often listen to a show on NPR called Fresh Air. I love Terry
>Gross, and consider her to be one of the most gifted interviewers
>ever known, but like some of you, she's a musical relativist, who has
>interest in rock (but not in classical), so she interviews quite her
>share of rock musicians. It is *common* for rock musicians to proudly
>state (guitarists, mostly) that when they entered the biz they "only
>knew three chords". It's so common to hear them say this that it
>has become almost a cliche. In the few cases where they began their
>careers with formal training in classical music, it is nearly as
>common to hear them proclaim "I was no good, so I went into rock and
>roll". Rock and roll is quite simply a genre for mediocre talent to
>make the best of their shortcommings. Anyone who plays an instrument
>can improvise to or write to his strengths as a performer. Some very
>bad pianists, for example, can play fast scales, and, if they wrote
>a piece that employed fast scales (but avoided their weak points), they
>could make themselves sound like Horowitz. The funny thing would be
>to hear a rock musician who actually tried to play a real piece of
>classical music on his "axe". I would have loved to hear Jimi Hendrix
>try to play the bach chaconne, for example. Now that would really
>have been an occasion for laughter.
Please tell me that you understand your argument is completely
illogical, and that you are making it only to be provocative.
Otherwise, I have little hope for you. If we grant your premise that
many, or even most, rockers are mediocre or inept musicians, does it
follow that there are *no* rock virtuosos? It does not. I'm well
aware that it's possible to become a rock star with limited
instrumental skills (I'm sure I've listened to a lot more rock than
you have, in a variety of genres); certainly the rock idiom in general
does not depend on virtuosity the way classical music does. But many
thousands of rock musicians have come and gone over the decades, and
there certainly have been some highly skilled instrumentalists among
them. And it's not just a matter of faking out the rubes by playing
fast solos -- that's the same canard that's sometimes applied to jazz
musicians.
If you state, "Generally, rock musicians are far less accomplished
technically than classical musicans," you're right. If you state,
"There are NO rock virtuosos," you're simply wrong. Why fight for the
second proposition instead of the first?
Joe Ramirez
jbay...@my-deja.com
> Which brings up another important point -- the one that has
> been the most contested in this thread, namely, my claim
> that there is an objective basis to aesthetic judgment. The
> very existence of a relatively stable canon in the various
> arts (literature, music, painting) testifies to the tacit
> acknowledgement by professionals in a given field that
> objective standards of aesthetic judgment exist.
I remain unconvinced, Richard, that aesthetic and moral standards
are objective. But I do know one thing, you don't need an objective
standard to realize that rock is crap.
Joe Ramirez
>In reply to Mr. Ramirez (his post is appended to my
>comments):
>
>The fact that some musicians sometimes got things wrong with
>respect to their contemporaries or immediate predecessors is
>hardly a persuasive argument that the future will regard
>rock as being on a par with Bach, Beethoven, etc. Don't
>forget that most of the stuff condemned by highly educated
>musicians IS junk and is never heard from again. It's just
>the obvious misjudgments that resurface in the history
>books.
[deleted]
Who's arguing that rock in general is on a par with Bach or Beethoven?
Not I; perhaps someone else. What I am opposing is the myopic notion
-- which, frankly, I'd thought we were past 30 years ago -- that *all*
rock music is "crap," or "garbage," or whatever other juicy epithet
you might like to extract from the ravings of a prominent cellist.
It's true that much music condemned as junk deserves to be condemned;
on the other hand, some music that's condemned turns out, in the view
of later generations, to be quite fine after all. If you wish to
avoid "obvious misjudgments," one helpful tactic would seem to be *not
to condemn music you haven't even heard*! Dismissing an entire genre
-- all rock is crap -- is the worst kind aesthetic bigotry, especially
when the genre is as diverse as rock.
Joe Ramirez
Geron
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Richard A. Schulman wrote:
>
> >
> > It's no secret, however, that in the various arts the canon
> > tends to become more reliable in proportion to the distance
> > its component works recede into the past.
> >
> > Which brings up another important point -- the one that has
> > been the most contested in this thread, namely, my claim
> > that there is an objective basis to aesthetic judgment. The
> > very existence of a relatively stable canon in the various
> > arts (literature, music, painting) testifies to the tacit
> > acknowledgement by professionals in a given field that
> > objective standards of aesthetic judgment exist.
>
> Have you learned *nothing* from the critics of Bloom, Hirsch, Bennett,
> D'Souza, and the other defenders of the status quo as it happened to
> exist at the moment they became aware of a status quo? "The canon" has
> certainly not remained "stable," even "relatively" so, through the ages.
>
> Or do you not even bother to read the refutations of your idols?
Peter, you might find the old book "Greatness in Music" by Alfred
Einstein, 1941 Oxford U. Press, interesting. His comments about many
minor composers who were held highly by his generation, seem downright
funny today.
It's a quick read, the chapters are;
Questionable Greatness
Unquestionable Greatness
Esoteric Conditions for Greatness
Historical Conditions for Greatness
Geron
"We begin life in a state of dwarfishness, incoherence, and perplexity.
Greatness is what lies beyond us."
'Wish I had said that.. ;) That was Burkhardt from "Observations on
World History".
Geron
> "Geron" <Ge...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:190820002209273623%Ge...@aol.com...
>
> > Above all, true virtuosity doesn't call attention to itself, but makes
> > the listener concentrate on the wonder of the musical experience.
>
> Paganini ? Liszt ? These surely were players/composers (in the past,
> granted, but their successors continue to play their music) who enjoyed
> showing off their high level of technical expertise, and whom audiences
> enjoyed watching - as one would a high-wire act. No shame attaching to that;
> most performers have a party piece or two up their sleeve to dazzle an
> audience as an encore. But to make claims for the `wonder of the musical
> experience` in connection with Paganini (and with quite a bit of Liszt)
> seems to be skating on rather thin ice.
>
> Unless perhaps they were not in your opinion true virtuosos ?
>
> cheers
>
> frank
unless I'm missing your point, i think you missed mine,
Geron
Geron
> In article <190820002232528109%Ge...@aol.com>,
> Geron <Ge...@aol.com> wrote:
> > In article <8nn0vs$nsb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <399ec904...@news3.attglobal.net>,
> > > jra...@attglobal.net (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
> <snip>
> > After playing JSB for forty years I haven't settled on just the right
> > approach to the Chaconne. It would be 'interesting' to see (hear) a
> > young rock whippersnapper barf out something that he thought was
> > definitive. Hah!!
> >
> > Of course, if he did give me even a little something to think about, I
> > would have to eat plenty of crow. :-O And I don't like crow!
>
> You'd have lots of room for desert.
I hope you meant dessert. heh
>
> Most rock guitarists could not even play the notes, and it's not even
> that difficult of a piece, technically.
You sure know how to hurt a guy... but it is true, the Study #5 1879
is one of the easiest, yet substantial works by Brahms for a player of
my limitations. It was scored mainly for the strengthening the left
hand, so I can 'cheat' a great deal! ;)
> A very sad commentary on an
> allegedly "valid" genre.
Well, it's 'valid' as an entertainment genre. <g>
> John
I have many old pop recordings, which I occasionally pull out and play
for their nostalgic and 'entertainment' value. Maybe that's all most
humans want from their music dollar. That's also a sad commentary,
when there's so much more to music.
The telling point for me though, is that I'm chuckling at the music,
not with it...
My, my, am I allowed to be pretentious? Well, sorry... it's what
happens... heh
Geron
Geron
<akhe...@spamrcn.com> wrote:
> > > After playing JSB for forty years I haven't settled on just the right
> > > approach to the Chaconne. It would be 'interesting' to see (hear) a
> > > young rock whippersnapper barf out something that he thought was
> > > definitive. Hah!!
> > >
> > > Of course, if he did give me even a little something to think about, I
> > > would have to eat plenty of crow. :-O And I don't like crow!
> >
> > You'd have lots of room for desert.
> >
> > Most rock guitarists could not even play the notes, and it's not even
> > that difficult of a piece, technically. A very sad commentary on an
> > allegedly "valid" genre.
>
> Wow. Your head is almost as far up your butt as Schulman's is up his. Or
> is that your head up Schulman's butt, and yours up his? Hard to tell, as
> one asshole looks very much like the next...
>
> --
> Taoist
Wow, if I was that clever, I wouldn't be wasting it here! :(
Are those powerful images for you, Taoist? My grandchildren think they
are!, but I never hear them talk like that... they have more restraint,
I guess..
Geron
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter, you might find the old book "Greatness in Music" by Alfred
> Einstein, 1941 Oxford U. Press, interesting. His comments about many
> minor composers who were held highly by his generation, seem downright
> funny today.
>
> It's a quick read, the chapters are;
>
> Questionable Greatness
>
> Unquestionable Greatness
>
> Esoteric Conditions for Greatness
>
> Historical Conditions for Greatness
I *think* you were offering this in support of my position that the
"canon" is mutable ...
Einstein is remembered today primarily as the recipient of Albert
Einstein's bon mot, that if they played their violins together, they
would not be Einsteins, but Zweisteins.
In my college years, the standard works of music history was the series
from Norton -- culminating in W. W. Austin's 20th Century volume --
except that Einstein's volume on the 19th century was generally
disparaged. (The series from Prentice-Hall, with Palisca on the Baroque
IIRC, was just starting to appear.)
Joe Ramirez
>> A very sad commentary on an
>> allegedly "valid" genre.
>
>Well, it's 'valid' as an entertainment genre. <g>
>I have many old pop recordings, which I occasionally pull out and play
>for their nostalgic and 'entertainment' value. Maybe that's all most
>humans want from their music dollar. That's also a sad commentary,
>when there's so much more to music.
>
>The telling point for me though, is that I'm chuckling at the music,
>not with it...
What's wrong with entertainment? There is certainly an important
place in our culture for music that contemplates profundities and
explores great complexity within itself, but not all music need be of
that sort. Other types of music can provide: sheer entertainment;
something lively for dancing; a sense of community or group identity;
a "voice" for the inarticulate; an accompaniment for ritual or
solemnity; powerful storytelling; fun for children; catharsis; etc.
Music does not become "invalid" simply because it does not aspire to
be high art.
I, too, think it unfortunate that many people never experience (or
understand, perhaps) music *as* art, but such deprivation still does
not invalidate their appreciation of the types of music they do enjoy.
Music is a language; like all languages, it has many roles to play,
since the forms and purposes of human communiation are endlessly
diverse.
Joe Ramirez
Taoist
right
> > > > approach to the Chaconne. It would be 'interesting' to see (hear) a
> > > > young rock whippersnapper barf out something that he thought was
> > > > definitive. Hah!!
> > > >
> > > > Of course, if he did give me even a little something to think about,
I
> > > > would have to eat plenty of crow. :-O And I don't like crow!
> > >
> > > You'd have lots of room for desert.
> > >
> > > Most rock guitarists could not even play the notes, and it's not even
> > > allegedly "valid" genre.
> >
> > Wow. Your head is almost as far up your butt as Schulman's is up his.
Or
> > is that your head up Schulman's butt, and yours up his? Hard to tell,
as
> > one asshole looks very much like the next...
> >
>
> Are those powerful images for you, Taoist? My grandchildren think they
> are!, but I never hear them talk like that... they have more restraint,
> I guess..
*yawn*
Shush.
--
Taoist
"I like your quotes. You gotta book of these things lying about or what?"
~Lisa
Michael Haslam
> > After playing JSB for forty years I haven't settled on just the right
> > approach to the Chaconne. It would be 'interesting' to see (hear) a
> > young rock whippersnapper barf out something that he thought was
> > definitive. Hah!!
> >
>
> Most rock guitarists could not even play the notes, and it's not even
> that difficult of a piece, technically. A very sad commentary on an
> allegedly "valid" genre.
Can *you* play it? On an instrument it wasn't composed for? Post the wav.
file for us.
MJHaslam
jbay...@my-deja.com
> illogical, and that you are making it only to be provocative.
> Otherwise, I have little hope for you. If we grant your premise that
> many, or even most, rockers are mediocre or inept musicians, does it
> follow that there are *no* rock virtuosos?
No but it shows that the pool of rock musicians is so poor that
those musicians among rockers whom you call "virtuosos", i.e.
those who are so far above their colleagues as to be remarkable,
are not remarkable at all compared with real virtuosos.
He who stands on a foot stool is high compared to those who don't.
But compared to someone who stands on a mountain? Fugetaboudit.
> It does not. I'm well
> aware that it's possible to become a rock star with limited
> instrumental skills
It's not only "possible"; the vast majority do. These people actually
proudly state that they "only knew three chords" when they began their
careers. Punk, an offshoot of rock, is actually a form of "music"
that is based on incompetence as a guiding aesthetic principle. To
sing off-key is punk music is a "good" thing! The rest of rock is
almost as bad.
> (I'm sure I've listened to a lot more rock than
> you have, in a variety of genres);
It's possible, but hardly a surety.
> certainly the rock idiom in general
> does not depend on virtuosity the way classical music does.
There's a good reason for this. If it did, there would be no
rock musicians who could play it. There is nothing comparable
in rock to, say, the transcendental etudes, to pick a notorious
example.
> But many
> thousands of rock musicians have come and gone over the decades, and
> there certainly have been some highly skilled instrumentalists among
> them. And it's not just a matter of faking out the rubes by playing
> fast solos -- that's the same canard that's sometimes applied to jazz
> musicians.
>
> If you state, "Generally, rock musicians are far less accomplished
> technically than classical musicans," you're right. If you state,
> "There are NO rock virtuosos," you're simply wrong. Why fight for the
> second proposition instead of the first?
If you are drawing from a crowd of inferiors (which you've already
admitted), it stands to reason that the peaks from that sample are
not going to be as high as the peaks from a sample of real musicians.
I will grant that some rock musicians could get jobs in symphony
orchestras, although not in principal positions. But that there
are rock musicians that deserve to be classed with Horowitz, Rubinstein,
Richter, Heifetz, Szeryng, Kagan, etc. is just absurd. C'mon.
You're just saying that "only to be provocative", right?
Geron
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
You are contivo!, my dear Daniels.. ;)
But my larger point was, that the "canon" is mutable only to a degree.
Most of the opinions in the book about the major composers are
mainstream today, and therefore a quick review of the book supports 'my
position'. I believe that, as in the sciences, consensus in the arts
eventually narrows done to near 'immutability' (in this sense of the
root). This is another way of saying that intelligent people of today
are no more naturally intelligent than people of the last few
centuries.
Geron
jbay...@my-deja.com
>
> > > > After playing JSB for forty years I haven't settled on just the right
> > > > approach to the Chaconne. It would be 'interesting' to see (hear) a
> > > > young rock whippersnapper barf out something that he thought was
> > > > definitive. Hah!!
> > > >
> > > > would have to eat plenty of crow. :-O And I don't like crow!
> > >
> > > You'd have lots of room for desert.
> > >
> > > that difficult of a piece, technically. A very sad commentary on an
> > > allegedly "valid" genre.
> >
> > is that your head up Schulman's butt, and yours up his? Hard to tell, as
> > one asshole looks very much like the next...
> >
> > Taoist
>
> Wow, if I was that clever, I wouldn't be wasting it here! :(
>
> Are those powerful images for you, Taoist? My grandchildren think they
> are!, but I never hear them talk like that... they have more restraint,
> I guess..
<stuping to the rock "music" level>
Taoist is a poo poo head.
</getting up>
jbay...@my-deja.com
Geron <Ge...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <8noqrk$jmr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Most rock guitarists could not even play the notes, and it's not even
> > that difficult of a piece, technically.
>
> is one of the easiest, yet substantial works by Brahms for a player of
> my limitations. It was scored mainly for the strengthening the left
> hand, so I can 'cheat' a great deal! ;)
I'm not a guitarist, but I figure the chaconne is somewhere in the
mid-to-high level of difficulty. To a virtuoso, though, it's probably
an easy piece to play, at least technically.
jbay...@my-deja.com
mike...@dircon.co.uk wrote:
> jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
> > Most rock guitarists could not even play the notes, and it's not even
> > allegedly "valid" genre.
>
> file for us.
Yes, I can play it, but not on the instrument it was composed for.
If you are saying that I have to do better in order to say what I
like and dislike, fooey on you. I'm not going to lead a miserable
life reading bad fiction, going to bad movies, living in architecturally
ugly buildings simply because I cannot write/direct/build better.
And I doubt you'd be willing to either.
Geron
<jra...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Geron <Ge...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> A very sad commentary on an
> >> allegedly "valid" genre.
> >
> >Well, it's 'valid' as an entertainment genre. <g>
>
> >I have many old pop recordings, which I occasionally pull out and play
> >for their nostalgic and 'entertainment' value. Maybe that's all most
> >humans want from their music dollar. That's also a sad commentary,
> >when there's so much more to music.
> >
> >The telling point for me though, is that I'm chuckling at the music,
> >not with it...
>
> What's wrong with entertainment? There is certainly an important
> place in our culture for music that contemplates profundities and
> explores great complexity within itself, but not all music need be of
> that sort.
Some people here still hold to the sixties' notion that Rock and its
derivatives "contemplate profundities and explore great complexity".
This must be challenged, before a whole generation lazily accepts it.
(It's probably too late)
> Other types of music can provide: sheer entertainment;
> something lively for dancing; a sense of community or group identity;
> a "voice" for the inarticulate; an accompaniment for ritual or
> solemnity; powerful storytelling; fun for children; catharsis; etc.
> Music does not become "invalid" simply because it does not aspire to
> be high art.
We agree. Rock is categorically not high art, its purpose is so-called
'entertainment'.
> I, too, think it unfortunate that many people never experience (or
> understand, perhaps) music *as* art, but such deprivation still does
> not invalidate their appreciation of the types of music they do enjoy.
...that depends upon how you define 'appreciation', doesn't it.. Most
people are so daunted by the centuries of class(y) music which is out
there, that they need help. That's why evaluations of composers and
their bodies of work are so important. A little bit of education
doesn't hurt either, but most music-seekers have no time for it.
> Music is a language; like all languages, it has many roles to play,
> since the forms and purposes of human communiation are endlessly
> diverse.
To people who play and study music, Rock is more noise, a sound that is
loud, unpleasant, or undesired, than music.
Boy!, now I really sound like the early naysayers of rock and roll!,
who were mostly just afraid of its effects on their youth...
I remember a time when I was more interested in the ambiguities of
Jagger's voice and his attitudes, than the depth of his musical
'content', but that isn't the argument that the worshippers of Rock are
making. Or is it? I can't quite tell, through the volleys of, 'you're
too old to know what I'm talking about!' and 'you're too young to know
enough yet'.
I doubt whether Rock can measure up, but I'm willing to listen to any
proponent's evaluation.
I wonder why we haven't heard that 'all Classical is crap!". heh I
don't know exactly how I would respond to that...
Thanks guys,
Geron
> Joe Ramirez
frank
<jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nottd$mrn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "Geron" <Ge...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:190820002209273623%Ge...@aol.com...
> >
> > > Above all, true virtuosity doesn't call attention to itself, but makes
> > > the listener concentrate on the wonder of the musical experience.
> >
> > Paganini ? Liszt ? These surely were players/composers (in the past,
> > granted, but their successors continue to play their music) who enjoyed
> > showing off their high level of technical expertise, and whom audiences
> > enjoyed watching - as one would a high-wire act.
> Who says? There have been some wags who have called Liszt and Paganini
> the "first rock stars". That's ridiculous, but they certainly were
> exemplars of the sort of cults of stupidity that surround rock stars
> today.
Hang on, I thought they were generally regarded as Classical composers /
performers ? Have the goal posts suddenly shifted ?
I was actually attempting to disagree with Geron, who claimed that `true
virtuosity` was subservient to musicality.
> This may be hard for you to believe, but there are actually quite a
> lot of people in the classical world who think Liszt and Paganini
> were ridiculous as composers, though no one could deny their technique.
So do I, at least in part - which is why I mentioned them in this strange
`All Classics Are Good, All Rock Is Crap` debate. Should obviously have
spelt that one
out.
> The idea that there is an analogy to be drawn between them and rock
> stars is, except in the most metaphorical sense, absurd.
See above - where you`ve drawn it, not me.
> Where are the rock pieces on the scale of difficulty of, say, the
> trancendental etudes or the sonata in b minor? They don't exist.
Have you actually seen any of the more difficult rock-guitar solos written
down ? Tried to play them ? Know anyone who`s tried and succeeded to their
own satisfaction ? I would have called them a pretty tough assignment; and
to try to give a *convincing performance* of them - on stage, without, as
they say, the dots - tougher still. (Talking of transcriptions, tried
playing any Art Tatum solos recently, if you`re a pianist ?) I don`t think
much is gained by trying to compare precise levels of difficulty, but
there`s a lot of technically pretty difficult stuff around, if you haven`t
noticed.
> Not because rock might not be suited to technical difficulty, but
> because it must be dumbed down for the sorts of people who perform
> it.
Some sheet-music versions are `dumbed down` transcriptions, some aren`t; the
same is true of cl;assical music nowadays. If you want a challenge (and if
you play an instrument) I would suggest you try some of the un-dumbed-down
sort before sounding off about a lack of technical ability among
rock-musicians in general. It may not all be your cup of tea - or mine ! -
but, (as I tell my students when they tell me they don`t like a piece I`ve
set them :-) don`t dismiss it before you can play it. `Any idiot can
play a guitar ?` Suck it and see :-)
(Apologies if you`re a listener rather than a player - it won`t be much use
looking at a Hendrix transcription anyway. In that case we had better
discontinue
the whole discussion forthwith !)
cheers
frank
frank
<jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8np831$1jj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> But that there
> are rock musicians that deserve to be classed with Horowitz, Rubinstein,
> Richter, Heifetz, Szeryng, Kagan, etc. is just absurd. C'mon.
> You're just saying that "only to be provocative", right?
To chip in - what makes the group above distinctive is that they have all
developed *their own instrument* in a remarkable way; technically and
musically. Some them (whisper it) may have actually written some tiny amount
of the music they have played and recorded. (Not all of them do a great deal
for me personally - I`d prefer Oistrakh to Heifetz any day, and happily
leave out Richter and Kagan. Rubinstein and Horowitz, yes !)
In the case of rock musicians, certainly there are those who have developed
their instruments in a remarkable way, technically and musically. Unlike the
above, all of them have moreover played their own music virtually
exclusively. Whether you like that music or not is your business; we`re just
talking about the `criteria` applicable for inclusion in a list of `greats`
on particular instruments, for want of a better word.
Or is there some other set of criteria by which you have chosen your list ?
cheers
frank
Taoist
right
> > > > > approach to the Chaconne. It would be 'interesting' to see (hear)
a
> > > > > young rock whippersnapper barf out something that he thought was
> > > > > definitive. Hah!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, if he did give me even a little something to think
about, I
> > > > > would have to eat plenty of crow. :-O And I don't like crow!
> > > >
> > > > You'd have lots of room for desert.
> > > >
even
> > > > allegedly "valid" genre.
> > >
> > > Wow. Your head is almost as far up your butt as Schulman's is up his.
Or
> > > is that your head up Schulman's butt, and yours up his? Hard to tell,
as
> > > one asshole looks very much like the next...
> > >
> >
> > Are those powerful images for you, Taoist? My grandchildren think they
> > are!, but I never hear them talk like that... they have more restraint,
> > I guess..
>
> <stuping to the rock "music" level>
> Taoist is a poo poo head.
> </getting up>
That's "stooping", and you don't seem to be doing so. You're merely
blathering on at the same level as always.
Peter T. Daniels
> > certainly the rock idiom in general
> > does not depend on virtuosity the way classical music does.
>
> There's a good reason for this. If it did, there would be no
> rock musicians who could play it. There is nothing comparable
> in rock to, say, the transcendental etudes, to pick a notorious
> example.
According to Leslie Howard's notes, Lizst kept revising the
Transcendental Etudes in the direction of easiness.
F.B.
>
>In article <399ff50...@news3.attglobal.net>,
> jra...@attglobal.net (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
><snip>
>> Please tell me that you understand your argument is completely
>> illogical, and that you are making it only to be provocative.
>> Otherwise, I have little hope for you. If we grant your premise
that
>> many, or even most, rockers are mediocre or inept musicians, does it
>> follow that there are *no* rock virtuosos?
>
>No but it shows that the pool of rock musicians is so poor that
>those musicians among rockers whom you call "virtuosos", i.e.
>those who are so far above their colleagues as to be remarkable,
>are not remarkable at all compared with real virtuosos.
We're not talking comparatively -- there are many bona-fide virtuosos
in rock music, even when compared to classical musicians. This is
simply a fact. That you choose to deny it is further evidence of your
stupidity.
>It's not only "possible"; the vast majority do. These people actually
>proudly state that they "only knew three chords" when they began their
>careers. Punk, an offshoot of rock, is actually a form of "music"
>that is based on incompetence as a guiding aesthetic principle. To
>sing off-key is punk music is a "good" thing! The rest of rock is
>almost as bad.
Punk music has elements all it's own that make it an art form.
Technical skill is not one of them. So what? It's just as valid as a
symphony.
>
>> (I'm sure I've listened to a lot more rock than
>> you have, in a variety of genres);
>
>It's possible, but hardly a surety.
I sure as hell have. I'm sure I've forgotten more music than you've
ever heard, classical included.
Grow up.
Matt P
F.B.
>
>In article <39a008ac...@news3.attglobal.net>, Joe Ramirez
><jra...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Geron <Ge...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> allegedly "valid" genre.
>> >
>>
>> >I have many old pop recordings, which I occasionally pull out and
play
>> >for their nostalgic and 'entertainment' value. Maybe that's all
most
>> >humans want from their music dollar. That's also a sad commentary,
>> >when there's so much more to music.
>> >
>> >The telling point for me though, is that I'm chuckling at the
music,
>> >not with it...
>>
>> What's wrong with entertainment? There is certainly an important
>> place in our culture for music that contemplates profundities and
>> explores great complexity within itself, but not all music need be
of
>> that sort.
>
>Some people here still hold to the sixties' notion that Rock and its
>derivatives "contemplate profundities and explore great complexity".
>This must be challenged, before a whole generation lazily accepts it.
>(It's probably too late)
You certainly are incapable of challenging it. Your are almost as much
of a simpleton as Harrington, and far less funny -- meaning that
although your posts can't serve a utilitarian function, they don't
usually provide much in the way of entertainment, either.
Go back to the old folks home.
Matt P
Geron
<ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.)> wrote:
Would you care to know what I think of you, Matt?
Geron
Richard A. Schulman
<akhe...@spamrcn.com> wrote:
>Wow. Your head is almost as far up your butt as Schulman's is up his. Or
>is that your head up Schulman's butt, and yours up his? Hard to tell, as
>one asshole looks very much like the next...
Where are all the decriers of scatology who were so eager to
denounce me for far more humorous posts in that vein?
Clearly we have a double standard in operation here. The
failure of my critics to denounce posts like the above only
underlines what contemptible hypocrites they are.
The anonymous "Taoist" for his part reveals himself to be,
in every sense of the phrase, a "bottom feeder."
---
Richard Schulman
To email me, remove the "XYZ"
Richard A. Schulman
Ramirez) wrote:
>Who's arguing that rock in general is on a par with Bach or Beethoven?
>Not I; perhaps someone else.
Thank you for this note of sanity, but similar notes of
sanity have been conspicuously absent from a number of other
posters. Should I name names?
>What I am opposing is the myopic notion
>-- which, frankly, I'd thought we were past 30 years ago -- that *all*
>rock music is "crap," or "garbage," or whatever other juicy epithet
>you might like to extract from the ravings of a prominent cellist.
Those were not my epithets. Nevertheless, so much of Rock is
musically negligible that a blanket condemnation is not that
far off the mark. The prominent cellist was not raving;
indeed his proposed remedy was not for censorship of Rock,
FCC decertification of the offending radio stations, etc.,
but rather the providing of classical music instruction to
youth so that they would have a standard to measure Rock and
its cousins against. Could any sane person object to that?
>Dismissing an entire genre
>-- all rock is crap -- is the worst kind aesthetic bigotry, especially
>when the genre is as diverse as rock.
I will concede the theoretical possibility that there may be
a few Rock pieces that could attain an honored status as
middlebrow classics, if sufficiently ironic. Alternatively,
there may be gifted classical composers, functioning much as
Gottschalk, Ives, Thompson, and Bernstein did in former
days, that is, by excelling at turning unpolished popular
music into refulgent classical gold.
But Rock, for all the diversity, is a genre defined by
characteristics that intrinsically make it of limited
musical value: (1) a monotonous, overwhelmingly strong beat,
(2) loud, electronically amplified sheets of sound.
Richard A. Schulman
Ramirez) wrote:
>What's wrong with entertainment? There is certainly an important
>place in our culture for music that contemplates profundities and
>explores great complexity within itself, but not all music need be of
>that sort. Other types of music can provide: sheer entertainment;
>something lively for dancing; a sense of community or group identity;
>a "voice" for the inarticulate; an accompaniment for ritual or
>solemnity; powerful storytelling; fun for children; catharsis; etc.
>Music does not become "invalid" simply because it does not aspire to
>be high art.
I think what you are referring to here is that broad
category of "middlebrow" art. I agree with you that it does
have an important place in life, the arts, and of course
music. Musicals, jazz, hymns, and folk songs are examples.
One could only wish such art replaced the low brow stuff
(Rock and its descendents) in the affections of so many
youth and adults.
F.B.
Richard A. Schulman
wrote:
>Punk music has elements all it's own that make it an art form.
>Technical skill is not one of them. So what? It's just as valid as a
>symphony.
This should be interesting. Please describe
1) the elements of punk music that "make it an art form;"
2) why punk music is commensurate in musical excellence to
the symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven.
Richard A. Schulman
wrote:
>Shakespeare was "just" entertainment.
Not so! Middlebrow literary works -- a Tom Clancy novel, for
example -- are works one reads through with enjoyment and
perhaps even a degree of learning -- and then one moves on
to other things, usually never to return.
Shakespeare's poems and plays one returns to again and
again, on stage or in the reading chair, with enriched
understanding of their beauties and complexities. They are
entertaining but far more than just that.
jbay...@my-deja.com
Geron <Ge...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Some people here still hold to the sixties' notion that Rock and its
> derivatives "contemplate profundities and explore great complexity".
> This must be challenged, before a whole generation lazily accepts it.
> (It's probably too late)
It's far too late. We're occupying a kind of aesthetic dark age.
<snip>
> Boy!, now I really sound like the early naysayers of rock and roll!,
> who were mostly just afraid of its effects on their youth...
Have you noticed that the most wild prognostications of those early
naysayers not only came true, they came true beyond the wildest
nightmares of said prognosticators? There are subcultures of rock
music where the teens now worship serial killers.
<snip>
> I wonder why we haven't heard that 'all Classical is crap!". heh I
> don't know exactly how I would respond to that...
Just ignore it. Part of the amusing thing about these rock lovers
is their endless need to defend their genre. A classic case of
"protesting too much".
jbay...@my-deja.com
Yes, good taste, which I and only I get to define. The other side
has already admitted that the pool of rock musicians is far inferior
to that of classical, so it only stands to reason that the peaks
will be lower.
jbay...@my-deja.com
I'm convinced the other side of this debate has not yet experienced
that special, quiet, meditative experience that is beyond mere
visceral "entertainment", and which is at the heart of all profound
aesthetic experiences. To them, everything is just on a continuum
of "stuff to amuse me", from comic books to the Iliad, from the
gurgle of a toilet flush to the chromatic density of Strauss'
Metamorphosen. It's all just the same, like decorative sugar that
can take the form of a snow flake or a rosette, but in the end
all tastes the same and goes to the same place. To them, the
only reason to return to a Shakespeare poem is if there's nothing
better on TV, and there rarely is, in their opinion, I'm sure.
jbay...@my-deja.com
Undoubtedly because few others besides him could play them.
J
jbay...@my-deja.com
> wrote:
>
> >Punk music has elements all it's own that make it an art form.
> >Technical skill is not one of them. So what? It's just as valid as a
> >symphony.
>
> This should be interesting. Please describe
>
> 1) the elements of punk music that "make it an art form;"
>
> 2) why punk music is commensurate in musical excellence to
> the symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven.
It would be more interesting and instructive (for him) if he
told us why the sound of a fart is not "just as valid" as
a symphony.
Of course, he probably believes that it is.
John
jbay...@my-deja.com
"frank" <poj...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> <jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nottd$mrn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > "Geron" <Ge...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:190820002209273623%Ge...@aol.com...
> > >
> > > > Above all, true virtuosity doesn't call attention to itself, but makes
> > > > the listener concentrate on the wonder of the musical experience.
> > >
>
> > > Paganini ? Liszt ? These surely were players/composers (in the past,
> > > granted, but their successors continue to play their music) who enjoyed
> > > showing off their high level of technical expertise, and whom audiences
> > > enjoyed watching - as one would a high-wire act.
>
> > Who says? There have been some wags who have called Liszt and Paganini
> > the "first rock stars". That's ridiculous, but they certainly were
> > exemplars of the sort of cults of stupidity that surround rock stars
> > today.
>
> Hang on, I thought they were generally regarded as Classical composers /
> performers ? Have the goal posts suddenly shifted ?
Do the words "that's ridiculous" mean ANYTHING to you??
>
> I was actually attempting to disagree with Geron, who claimed that `true
> virtuosity` was subservient to musicality.
>
> > This may be hard for you to believe, but there are actually quite a
> > lot of people in the classical world who think Liszt and Paganini
> > were ridiculous as composers, though no one could deny their technique.
>
> So do I, at least in part - which is why I mentioned them in this strange
> `All Classics Are Good, All Rock Is Crap` debate.
You've apparently strayed from an "all classics are good, all
rock crap" debate on another newsgroup. There is no such
debate going on here.
> Should obviously have
> spelt that one
> out.
I guess a cite of a post in this group where someone said "all
classics are great" would be a good first step in such a spelling
lesson.
<snip>
> Have you actually seen any of the more difficult rock-guitar solos written
> down ? Tried to play them ? Know anyone who`s tried and succeeded to their
> own satisfaction ?
Yes. But I could hire out a chimp to bang on a piano and then
transcribe his banging and that would be pretty hard to play
back too.
Josh Kortbein
: I'm convinced the other side of this debate has not yet experienced
: that special, quiet, meditative experience that is beyond mere
: visceral "entertainment", and which is at the heart of all profound
: aesthetic experiences. To them, everything is just on a continuum
I've had profound aesthetic experiences from plenty of different
kinds of music. But my just saying so isn't good enough for you,
is it?
Josh
--
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
Josh Kortbein
: On 20 Aug 2000 22:23:23 GMT, ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.)
: wrote:
: >Punk music has elements all it's own that make it an art form.
: >Technical skill is not one of them. So what? It's just as valid as a
: >symphony.
: This should be interesting. Please describe
: 1) the elements of punk music that "make it an art form;"
: 2) why punk music is commensurate in musical excellence to
: the symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven.
You seem to love appeals to authority - so why don't you go read
Greil Marcus's _Lipstick Traces_?
frank
<jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nqci6$995$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > So do I, at least in part - which is why I mentioned them in this
strange
> > `All Classics Are Good, All Rock Is Crap` debate.
>
> You've apparently strayed from an "all classics are good, all
> rock crap" debate on another newsgroup. There is no such
> debate going on here.
A quick glance back at the last few days` posts throws up -
."................you don't need an objective
standard to realize that rock is crap." Quote from yourself
"......rather the providing of classical music instruction to
youth so that they would have a standard to measure Rock and
its cousins against. " R. Schulman - passim
I am happy to admit that my addition of `all` in both cases goes beyond what
has strictly been said.
You perhaps only meant "Some rock" and Richard "Some classical music" ?
> I could hire out a chimp to bang on a piano and then
> transcribe his banging and that would be pretty hard to play
> back too.
Thank you - at least I take it that`s a grudging admission of the
considerable technical difficulty of some Rock music, which is what was
under discussion.
We`ve shifted rapidly (in any order and back again) from `rock is immoral`
to `rock is anti-intellectual` to `rock is transitory` to `rock is ugly` to
`rock is easy`; and that classical music is better because it`s the opposite
of all these. It really would be simpler to admit that, (like me most of the
time), you just don`t like Rock, leave it to those who do, and be done with
all these specious arguments.
cheers
frank
Joe Ramirez
Not exactly. *Some* of what I listed could be described that way.
Much music, however, doesn't really function as "art" at all, if by
art (in the modern world) we mean a free-standing intellectual or
aesthetic expression. Ritual music is not middlebrow art. Dance
music is not middlebrow art. Music that expresses community beliefs,
mores, or grievances is not middlebrow art. Such music in integrated
into the lives of the listeners in a way that art, which must always
adopt a partially independent position, is not (and probably shouldn't
be).
Joe Ramirez
Joe Ramirez
[deleted]
>But Rock, for all the diversity, is a genre defined by
>characteristics that intrinsically make it of limited
>musical value: (1) a monotonous, overwhelmingly strong beat,
>(2) loud, electronically amplified sheets of sound.
At last someone has the sense and guts to post a *specific* complaint
about rock music. Still, I must say that if you think all rock has
(1) and (2) as you list them, you're wrong. You haven't heard enough
of the music. Plenty of music in the rock category isn't amplified at
all, using acoustic guitar or piano, for example.
I think you, and certainly John Harrington, have a sort of caricature
in mind when you think of "rock." You take the worst, loudest, most
unpleasant rock song you've even been exposed to, and then imagine all
the music (from thousands of artists over five decades!) is the same.
It isn't.
Joe Ramirez
jbay...@my-deja.com
"frank" <poj...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>
> <jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nqci6$995$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > So do I, at least in part - which is why I mentioned them in this
> strange
> > > `All Classics Are Good, All Rock Is Crap` debate.
> >
> > You've apparently strayed from an "all classics are good, all
> > rock crap" debate on another newsgroup. There is no such
> > debate going on here.
>
> A quick glance back at the last few days` posts throws up -
> ."................you don't need an objective
> standard to realize that rock is crap." Quote from yourself
>
> "......rather the providing of classical music instruction to
> youth so that they would have a standard to measure Rock and
> its cousins against. " R. Schulman - passim
>
> I am happy to admit that my addition of `all` in both cases goes beyond what
> has strictly been said.
> You perhaps only meant "Some rock" and Richard "Some classical music" ?
I still don't see any quote that says "all classics are good".
I certainly don't rubber stamp all classical music, and I very
much doubt that Richard does either.
>
> > I could hire out a chimp to bang on a piano and then
> > transcribe his banging and that would be pretty hard to play
> > back too.
>
> Thank you - at least I take it that`s a grudging admission of the
> considerable technical difficulty of some Rock music, which is what was
> under discussion.
It's a grudging admission of nothing. All it means is transcribing
and playing back someone's playing, even a chimp's, is difficult. There
are taped improvisations that I did when I was 17 (in my second year
of playing the piano) that I later attempted to transcribe and play
back. They were *very* difficult, even for me, the guy who originally
played them. I certainly was no virtuoso!
> It really would be simpler to admit that, (like me most of the
> time), you just don`t like Rock, leave it to those who do, and be done with
> all these specious arguments.
What specious argument have I made?
F.B.
<RichardAS...@att.net> writes:
>
>On 20 Aug 2000 22:23:23 GMT, ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.)
>wrote:
>
>>Punk music has elements all it's own that make it an art form.
>>Technical skill is not one of them. So what? It's just as valid as
a
>>symphony.
>
>This should be interesting. Please describe
>
>1) the elements of punk music that "make it an art form;"
It's music within it's own identifiable boundaries.
>
>2) why punk music is commensurate in musical excellence to
>the symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven.
The best punk music is the equal of the best symphonic music. (just as
the best of any genre is equal to the best of any other genre).
Anybody who's heard a Clash album can attest to this.
Matt P
F.B.
Sorry -- they're "just entertainment." That was what they were written
for. See? The line between what is entertainment and what is
"serious" is not able to ever be drawn with much accuracy.
Matt P
F.B.
>
>In article <8npm09$rli$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, F.B.
><ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.)> wrote:
>
>> In <200820001254165472%Ge...@aol.com> Geron <Ge...@aol.com> writes:
>> >
>> >In article <39a008ac...@news3.attglobal.net>, Joe Ramirez
>> ><jra...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Geron <Ge...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> A very sad commentary on an
>> >> >> allegedly "valid" genre.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, it's 'valid' as an entertainment genre. <g>
>> >>
>> >> >I have many old pop recordings, which I occasionally pull out
and
>> play
>> >> >for their nostalgic and 'entertainment' value. Maybe that's all
>> most
>> >> >humans want from their music dollar. That's also a sad
commentary,
>> >> >when there's so much more to music.
>> >> >
>> >> >The telling point for me though, is that I'm chuckling at the
>> music,
>> >> >not with it...
>> >>
>> >> place in our culture for music that contemplates profundities and
>> >> explores great complexity within itself, but not all music need
be
>> of
>> >> that sort.
>> >
its
>> >derivatives "contemplate profundities and explore great
complexity".
>> >This must be challenged, before a whole generation lazily accepts
it.
>> >(It's probably too late)
>>
much
>> of a simpleton as Harrington, and far less funny -- meaning that
>> although your posts can't serve a utilitarian function, they don't
>> usually provide much in the way of entertainment, either.
>> Go back to the old folks home.
>>
>> Matt P
>
>Would you care to know what I think of you, Matt?
>
>Geron
Not really -- because the opinion of an aged, slack-jawed yokel such as
youself is irrelevant beyond its humor factor, and you're not very
funny.
Matt P
F.B.
Of course it isn't. A fart isn't music, and it's not intended to be
art. Kind of like your thoughts -- they aren't logical and couldn't
possibly be intended to be taken seriously. You are the intellectual
equivalent of a fart!
Matt P
Joe Ramirez
[deleted]
>The best punk music is the equal of the best symphonic music. (just as
>the best of any genre is equal to the best of any other genre).
>
>Anybody who's heard a Clash album can attest to this.
>
>Matt P
Hmm ... I don't agree. Not about the Clash, but about the best of any
genre being equal to the best of any other genre. Here's part of what
I said in my opening salvo to Mr. Harrington, those many weeks ago:
__________________
Honestly, I've found great music in every major genre to which I
listen regularly. Not just "well, it's great for rock (or jazz, or
bluegrass, or whatever)", but great, period. *The Mountain* by Steve
Earle and the Del McCoury Band is great music, period. *Three
Quartets* by Chick Corea is great music, period. And so are
*Loveless* by My Bloody Valentine, *OK Computer* by Radiohead,
*Porcupine* by Echo and the Bunnymen, *London Calling* by The Clash,
*Vs.* by Mission of Burma, not to mention many releases by The Fall,
Talking Heads, Midnight Oil, Nirvana, Steely Dan, R.E.M, the Beatles,
X, Joy Division, etc., etc. My appreciation of all this great music
does not diminish, but rather enhances, my appreciation of all the
great classical music I love.
__________________
I stand by that statement -- and notice the Clash reference <g> -- but
there's also the matter of ambition and scope to consider. The best
punk assuredly is great music, but it doesn't strive for the same
degree of depth and complexity as the best symphonies do. A larger
ambition, if fulfilled, can yield greater music. On the other hand,
the best punk is better than weaker symphonies, the ambitions of which
may be unfulfilled.
It might be more realistic to argue that, though most genres of music
are capable of yielding truly great music, they aren't commensurate
because the differences in style, technique, and form are too
significant. If the genres *are* commensurate, I don't see any basis
for concluding that the best of each are equally great.
Joe Ramirez
frank
<jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nrg3g$gig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> What specious argument have I made?
Ok, ok - let`s be generous and just call them prejudices, shall we ? Then we
can all stop chasing our tails and go home.
The thread, if I may remind you, began by investigating the question of
objective criteria for music, whether classical, rock or didgeridoo. Score
so far to the objectivists; nil. I notice that you now have modified your
`rock is crap` statement to `rock is crap for me`.
Well, it`s the virtually the same thing, isn`t it ......... ?
cheers
frank
David
You haven't been listening to the right stuff. Heard any Motörhead?
David
Oisk17
>youself is irrelevant beyond its humor factor, and you're not very
>funny.
>
>Matt P
I guess you think YOU are funny, Matt. In consecutive posts, you call Geron an
aged, slack-jawed yokel, and John "the intellectual equivalent of a fart." If
you think that this constitutes humor, then I am suspicious as to your views as
to what constitutes music. I suggest that you reread Mr. Ramirez's posts. He
argues for nearly the same position as you do, without insults.
Not even Mr. Ramirez can buy your argument that the best of any genre is equal
to the best of any other. The best grafitti = Renoir, right Matt?
Paul
F.B.
Ramirez) writes:
>
>ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
>
>[deleted]
>>The best punk music is the equal of the best symphonic music. (just
as
>>the best of any genre is equal to the best of any other genre).
>>
>>Anybody who's heard a Clash album can attest to this.
>>
>>Matt P
>
>Hmm ... I don't agree. Not about the Clash, but about the best of any
>genre being equal to the best of any other genre. Here's part of what
>I said in my opening salvo to Mr. Harrington, those many weeks ago:
>__________________
>
>Honestly, I've found great music in every major genre to which I
>listen regularly. Not just "well, it's great for rock (or jazz, or
>bluegrass, or whatever)", but great, period. *The Mountain* by Steve
>Earle and the Del McCoury Band is great music, period.
I remember being completely blown away by this one last year. I kept
looking at the liner notes to see who he was covering... but they were
all originals!
>I stand by that statement -- and notice the Clash reference <g> -- but
>there's also the matter of ambition and scope to consider. The best
>punk assuredly is great music, but it doesn't strive for the same
>degree of depth and complexity as the best symphonies do. A larger
>ambition, if fulfilled, can yield greater music. On the other hand,
>the best punk is better than weaker symphonies, the ambitions of which
>may be unfulfilled.
I think this generally may hold true, but isn't a symphony by
definition a "larger" ambition than a piano sonata? So are the best
piano sonatas *necessarily* less "good" than the best symhonies? I
don't think so. While I agree that large amibitions, when fulfilled,
are great moments in art, I think there is a problem with 1) great
things of "lesser" ambitions, necessarily being "worse" and 2) how
exactly to define a "lesser" ambition. Is an opera a greater or lesser
ambition than a symphony? Than a ballet?
As far as punk is concerned, I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's
one of the least technically demanding forms of music. It's so basic
that most of the great punk albums are great because display one bands
particularly good *take* on this style. But the limitations of punk
were such that I'd argue 95% of all the good punk albums came out
between 1977 and 1980. The best bands released one or two great albums
that displayed their signature style; after that, it was either a case
of repeating past successes, or branching out -- in which the music
ceased to be punk.
Like many of the subgenres of rock music, punk was initially important
because of what it represented: it was music of the people; a
grass-roots, DIY movement against the big studio production and
ambitions of the first half of the '70s. A kind of folk music, really,
and the British version was heavily steeped thematically in class
struggle. A critic of the Marxist school, I'm sure, could argue that
punk albums were among the greatest music ever made, and although I'm
not a Marxist critic by any means, I don't see why great punk albums
have to occupy a level "below" greatness in any other genre.
No, nobody is ever going to use a punk record to teach music
composition; however, artists of many genres return to punk records to
hear the *sounds* of punk, and to challenge themselves to produce music
that can capture that kind of energy, aggression, and humor, even,
within a different context.
One of the reasons why it may sound silly to say that a great punk
record is as great as a Beethoven symphony, is that they are so
completely different things. In the case of punk, anyway, Harrington's
blanket statements about rock being "diametrically opposed" to
classical more or less fits. You didn't go to a punk show in the '70s
to "listen" to what they were doing, you went to be a part of what they
were doing. But their differences also highlight their relative
strengths: because of their differences, you would never use one to do
what the other can do. Punk can't satisfy what one loves about the
symphony, and orchestral music is just as impotent to capture what punk
can do. I *don't* think that this crosses over into all other areas of
rock music -- and certainly not jazz -- but it works here.
Matt P
jbay...@my-deja.com
jra...@attglobal.net (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
> ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
>
> [deleted]
> >The best punk music is the equal of the best symphonic music.
Guffaw...
> (just
as
> >the best of any genre is equal to the best of any other genre).
> >
> >Anybody who's heard a Clash album can attest to this.
> >
> >Matt P
>
> Hmm ... I don't agree...about the best of any
> genre being equal to the best of any other genre.
You're right. Now imagine the two genres, classical and rock,
lying as bell curves along an x axis of "musical greatness".
The extreme right end of the rock bell curve overlaps the extreme
left end of the classical bell curve. The extremem left end of
the classical bell curve includes all classical not worth listening
to (i.e., worthless music, i.e. crap). ALL of the rock bell
curve exists withing that area or below it.
The only difference between us is that you place the two curves
closer than I do.
F.B.
(Oisk17) writes:
>
>(snip)>Not really -- because the opinion of an aged, slack-jawed yokel
such as
>>youself is irrelevant beyond its humor factor, and you're not very
>>funny.
>>
>>Matt P
>
>I guess you think YOU are funny, Matt. In consecutive posts, you call
Geron an
>aged, slack-jawed yokel, and John "the intellectual equivalent of a
fart."
That it is the truth is not my problem.
If
>you think that this constitutes humor, then I am suspicious as to your
views as
>to what constitutes music. I suggest that you reread Mr. Ramirez's
posts. He
>argues for nearly the same position as you do, without insults.
He is the absolute model of patience, I agree.
>Not even Mr. Ramirez can buy your argument that the best of any genre
is equal
>to the best of any other. The best grafitti = Renoir, right Matt?
Absolutely. Or, to say the same thing 70 years ago, the best Mirot and
Picasso = Renoir.
Our notions of what constitutes "graffiti" have just changed a little.
Matt P
>
>Paul
jbay...@my-deja.com
ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
Why not?
> and it's not intended to be
> art.
So if you found someone who intended his farts to be art, then
it would be music?
> Kind of like your t<snip>
Ahhhhh.....
J
jbay...@my-deja.com
>
> > What specious argument have I made?
>
> Ok, ok - let`s be generous and just call them prejudices, shall we ?
Then we
> can all stop chasing our tails and go home.
Let's just call what prejudices?
>
> The thread, if I may remind you, began by investigating the question
of
> objective criteria for music, whether classical, rock or didgeridoo.
Score
> so far to the objectivists; nil.
Agreed. But so what? Do you have an "objective" argument that
murder is wrong?
> I notice that you now have modified
your
> `rock is crap` statement to `rock is crap for me`.
I haven't modified anything, and would you care to cite *one*
*single* post in which I claimed anything else?
> Well, it`s the virtually the same thing, isn`t it ......... ?
What's "the virtually the same thing"?
jbay...@my-deja.com
ois...@aol.com (Oisk17) wrote:
> (snip)>Not really -- because the opinion of an aged, slack-jawed yokel
such as
> >youself is irrelevant beyond its humor factor, and you're not very
> >funny.
> >
> >Matt P
>
> I guess you think YOU are funny, Matt. In consecutive posts, you call
Geron an
> aged, slack-jawed yokel, and John "the intellectual equivalent of a
> you think that this constitutes humor, then I am suspicious as to your
views as
> to what constitutes music. I suggest that you reread Mr. Ramirez's
posts. He
> argues for nearly the same position as you do, without insults.
>
is equal
> to the best of any other. The best grafitti = Renoir, right Matt?
Paul, let Matt P. be Matt P.! ;-)
regards,
jbay...@my-deja.com
> <akhe...@spamrcn.com> wrote:
>
> >Wow. Your head is almost as far up your butt as Schulman's is up
his. Or
> >is that your head up Schulman's butt, and yours up his? Hard to
tell, as
> >one asshole looks very much like the next...
>
> Where are all the decriers of scatology who were so eager to
> denounce me for far more humorous posts in that vein?
>
> Clearly we have a double standard in operation here. The
> failure of my critics to denounce posts like the above only
> underlines what contemptible hypocrites they are.
I agree. Similarly, there were several posts in rmc that
said things like "Mahler is pretentious crap" and "Mozart is
boring" and "Brahms crawled into the coffin with the rest of
the classical tradition and died" that failed to generate
1/1000th of the outrage that "rock is crap" has.
> The anonymous "Taoist" for his part reveals himself to be,
> in every sense of the phrase, a "bottom feeder."
There are a lot of bottom feeders on the other side of the
issue. My advice is to concentrate on the top feeders
and allow the bottom feeders to hang themselves with
their own rope. ;-)
Nothing infuriates them more than ignoring them...
frank
<jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ns8kh$fcm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Oh what jolly japes !
> > I notice that you now have modified
> your
> > `rock is crap` statement to `rock is crap for me`.
>
> I haven't modified anything, and would you care to cite *one*
> *single* post in which I claimed anything else?
I`ve already posted the first back to you,(."................you don't need
an objective
standard to realize that rock is crap." Quote from yourself, in case you`ve
forgotten;) and the second appeared today - (to Joe Ramirez) ;- "I never
said rock was crap for everybody. I said over and over that it was crap
for me". I can only assume that you *do* regard these as meaning the same
thing. Fine; no doubt according to the Constitution everyone is entitled to
his own prejudices. They don`t mean the same thing to me.
We`ve come an awful long way from Plato, bless his cotton socks :-)
cheers
frank
Oisk17
(snip)> So are the best
>piano sonatas *necessarily* less "good" than the best symhonies? I
>don't think so. While I agree that large amibitions, when fulfilled,
>are great moments in art, I think there is a problem with 1) great
>things of "lesser" ambitions, necessarily being "worse" and 2) how
>exactly to define a "lesser" ambition. Is an opera a greater or lesser
>ambition than a symphony? Than a ballet?
>
(informative synopsis of punk history snipped)
Very well done, Matt. While I disagree with you entirely about the value of
punk, you make a convincing case here. I can't argue back, because my only
acquaintance with punk occurred during the few seconds it took me to run out of
the room where it was being played.
I can argue with your equality of genres assertion, which included
"grafitti=Renoir." One measure of the relative value of art for me is "Can I do
that?" I can scribble grafitti, but I cannot produce a magnificent oil
painting. My singing voice is as good as Mick Jagger's or Bob Dylan's. And I
can write better lyrics than Mick can. (but not as good as Dylan can, which is
why as a song writer, not a singer, I consider him a worthy artist.)
Regards,
Paul
Richard A. Schulman
>: >Punk music has elements all it's own that make it an art form.
>: >Technical skill is not one of them. So what? It's just as valid as a
>: >symphony.
Richard Schulman:
>: This should be interesting. Please describe
>
>: 1) the elements of punk music that "make it an art form;"
>
>: 2) why punk music is commensurate in musical excellence to
>: the symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven.
Josh Kortbein:
>You seem to love appeals to authority - so why don't you go read
>Greil Marcus's _Lipstick Traces_?
Mr. Kortbein, are your neurons prone to misfire or is it
just past your bedtime? A request to an opponent to explain
himself is not an appeal to authority.
Richard A. Schulman
>>I think what you are referring to here is that broad
>>category of "middlebrow" art. I agree with you that it does
>>have an important place in life, the arts, and of course
>>music. Musicals, jazz, hymns, and folk songs are examples.
>>One could only wish such art replaced the low brow stuff
>>(Rock and its descendents) in the affections of so many
>>youth and adults.
Joe Ramirez:
>Not exactly. *Some* of what I listed could be described that way.
>Much music, however, doesn't really function as "art" at all, if by
>art (in the modern world) we mean a free-standing intellectual or
>aesthetic expression.
"Middlebrow" in the sense I am using the term (and I believe
this usage is shared by most other critics) is art which
uses some of the techniques of high art but not consistently
or intensively. It's more accessible but not as
aesthetically rewarding as high art. It may be very
powerful, nevertheless, symbolically and emotionally,
because of extrinsic associations. I am always deeply moved
by The Battle Hymn of the Republic, for example, because of
its association with the ideals for which the Civil War was
fought and won.
> Ritual music is not middlebrow art.
I'm not sure what your referent here is. Music that
cannibals sing while gnawing on the femur of a captured
enemy?
> Dance
>music is not middlebrow art.
Waltzes, fox trots, rhumbas, etc. certainly are.
> Music that expresses community beliefs,
>mores, or grievances is not middlebrow art.
Again, I'm not sure what your referent is here.
> Such music in integrated
>into the lives of the listeners in a way that art, which must always
>adopt a partially independent position, is not (and probably shouldn't
>be).
I'm not comfortable with your attempt to like the middlebrow
/ highbrow distinction to the social role of music. The
distinction is really inherent in the music itself. There is
a great deal of middlebrow music that isn't in any way
integrated into the lives of listeners (think of a Broadway
musical that closes after a few nights, for example).
Conversely, there is also highbrow music that is very much
integrated into the lives of its listeners. The Beethoven /
Schiller "Ode to Joy," for example, is as profoundly
integrated into the lives of those for whom the collapse of
"The Wall" dividing East and West Germany was a defining
historical event, as the Battle Hymn of the Republic was for
Yankee soldiers and Northerners during the Civil War.
Richard A. Schulman
>>But Rock, for all the diversity, is a genre defined by
>>characteristics that intrinsically make it of limited
>>musical value: (1) a monotonous, overwhelmingly strong beat,
>>(2) loud, electronically amplified sheets of sound.
Joe Ramirez:
>At last someone has the sense and guts to post a *specific* complaint
>about rock music.
I said this early in the thread (perhaps it went unnoticed).
But it's not just a complaint; it's also an intended
definition.
> Still, I must say that if you think all rock has
>(1) and (2) as you list them, you're wrong. You haven't heard enough
>of the music. Plenty of music in the rock category isn't amplified at
>all, using acoustic guitar or piano, for example.
O.K., so you have a different definition of Rock. Please
tell us your definition.
>I think you, and certainly John Harrington, have a sort of caricature
>in mind when you think of "rock." You take the worst, loudest, most
>unpleasant rock song you've even been exposed to, and then imagine all
>the music (from thousands of artists over five decades!) is the same.
>It isn't.
If you have any examples of Rock pieces that you believe are
comparable to the best music of the greatest classical
composers, please list them for our consideration.
Richard A. Schulman
>>>Punk music has elements all it's own that make it an art form.
>>>Technical skill is not one of them. So what? It's just as valid as
>>>a symphony.
Richard Schulman:
>>This should be interesting. Please describe
>>
>>1) the elements of punk music that "make it an art form;"
Matt:
>It's music within it's [sic] own identifiable boundaries.
Yes, but what are those boundaries? Could you please
identify them? Also, do you really believe that merely
having identifiable boundaries makes something an art form?
Suppose a musician claims he has invented a new art form
comprised of burps spaced five minutes apart, the only
variation allowed being that between the home pitch and a
second pitch a tritone higher. This Burpmusik would have its
own identifiable boundaries. Would that make it an art form?
Schulman:
>>2) why punk music is commensurate in musical excellence to
>>the symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven.
Matt:
>The best punk music is the equal of the best symphonic music. (just as
>the best of any genre is equal to the best of any other genre).
I see. So the best Burpmusik would automatically equate,
say, to the best classical opera or symphony?
Matt:
>Anybody who's heard a Clash album can attest to this.
I haven't had the pleasure, but I would expect the music to
be in line with the quality of your argument above.
F.B.
It's tempting to go that route, although I think there are cracks in it
when you subject it to some scrutiny. In the case of painting, anyway,
it would be more difficult to do a painting that almost perfectly
resembles a real scene, in all it's detail, color, and proportion, than
it would be to do a surrealist painting, or something
abstract-expressionist. For example, there are lots of Picasso
paintings that a person of average sketching/painting skill could
duplicate closely just by looking at. It would be nearly impossible
for a person of average sketching/painting skill to duplicate a
painting from, say, the early 19th century, when the trend was to try
to paint things that "look just like they do in real life." Does this
make the earlier paintings "better?"
A trend of 20th century art was NOT to paint things that "look like
they do in real life" but to distort it somehow, to add a perspective
to the scene that one would not get just by looking at the real thing.
Some of these paintings -- some by very famous artists like Picasso or
Mirot, look like things that are much easier to draw technically than
pieces of earlier eras; sometimes they look like things *anybody* could
draw. Yet paintings that "look like real life," and which takes great
talent to do, aren't looked upon right now as being particularly
artistic.
This is evidence that there is something going on in the
paintings/drawings that we consider "great" that goes beyond technical
skill, and into "conceptual" skill, if you will. Some of Picasso's
work may be technically easier to draw, but just as difficult, I'd
argue, to conceive of in the first place.
But arguing about relative difficulties is a fruitless exercise,
anyway. If enough people find artistry, genius, or inspiration in a
painting, why does it matter if it also looks like "you could do it
too?" My advice to people who look down on modern art, modern music,
minimalism, or any other forms that implicitly say "greater technical
profieciency does not equal better" and often find themselves thinking
that they can "do it too," is to *do it,* already. Maybe they think
that way because they have genuine talent, not because other people
don't. And maybe they'd find that doing something original and
inspirational to others is very difficult, even when employing the
crudest of materials.
I can scribble grafitti, but I cannot produce a magnificent oil
>painting.
I said the *best* grafitti, not any old grafitti. Why is the best
grafitti (which, by definition, has more to do with the surface of the
"canvas" and the paints used than the content of the art itself)
*necessarily* not as good as the best oil paintings? Grafitti is urban
folk art. Rural folk art is currently fetching quite large prices at
the New York galleries, and is created by people of no greater formal
training than grafitti artists. Why should the rural folk artists
recognized but the urban ones dismissed?
My singing voice is as good as Mick Jagger's or Bob Dylan's.
Is it? "Good" as in how? Techincally, it probably is. But
expressively? Dylan's voice is incredibly expressive and because of
that I think he, along with Neil Young, are two of rock's best
vocalists, despite the fact that technically, they're poor singers.
Matt P
Richard A. Schulman
<poj...@lineone.net> wrote:
>The thread, if I may remind you, began by investigating the question of
>objective criteria for music, whether classical, rock or didgeridoo. Score
>so far to the objectivists; nil.
To the contrary, it is the relativists who are down in the
fifth inning. They can't explain the fact that canons exist
in the various arts with considerable stability. The
relativists have tried to counter this by pointing to
instability in judgments regarding recent artists and
relatively minor shifts over the ages in the rankings of
older artists by critics. The fact of the matter is that
education in the arts would be pointless if canons didn't
exist. For if there were no difference in quality between
one work and other, what works and skills one chose to teach
had as well become entirely arbitary.
Objective knowledge is knowledge for which reasons can be
given which make one explanation more plausible than
another. Science, contrary to at least one interpretation of
Thomas Kuhn, is objective. So are ethics and law, contrary
the school of legal criticism. So is criticism and
evaluation in the arts. But as the latter has been the last
to mature, so its objective basis is the least well
understood.