Pop music is equal to classical?
get...@my-deja.com
not as stuffy or pristene. Classical is usually reserved for the blue
blood set, and the blue to lower classes are socially shunned from most
symphonic get togethers. There is also an elitist air to classical fans
that really turns most normal people off. They shun symphonic music, not
out of art phobia, but they see the music and the people who listen to
said art as stuck up and a bit pithy. It doesnt help that classical
listener's have such a low opinion that they love to broadcast, of rock
and pop styles as compared to their hallowed old dead white european
hero's.
Rock is the music of the blue collar struggle against the upper class
and the blue bloods who controll the culture. When I say pop I dont mean
Spice Girl or other such nonsense but true pop art, that is hummed on
car radios for the last several decades. Such masters of style as The
Beatles and Jimi Hendrix make music that is both exiting and spiritually
redeeming. Prince and other artists use complex horn charts and string
charts as skillfully as any so called master. Rock may be loud and it
may be simple, but its beauty is in its simplism sounding so damned
complex. The simple rock riff to the STones "Satisfacion" has yet to be
duplicated because rock, even in its most primitive state, has the
complexity of a deeper meaning then a flurry of notes played by a violin
or cello. I quite like symphony, but I have found that alot of pop
artists do symphony ideas even better then some overrated punter like
Mozart. History was wrong, Salieri was a better writer. I think of the
muted, mournfull violin in the Beatles, "Elenore Rigby" and it sends
shivers down my spine. Im sure this may start a rancorous discussion,
but whats life without a little fire in the belly to make everything a
bit more interesting.
Rock will never die, cant say the same for classical..lol
Rock on..paul blue
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Subotin
>
> get...@my-deja.com:
>
> >Im sure this may start a rancorous discussion,
>
Maybe he's gone listening to Ferneyhough and the artist formerly known
as Ockenghem like you told him to. Or maybe it's trolling as usual. See
dejanews.
Michael
--
mvsst3+@pitt{DOT}edu Replace {DOT} with a dot
Franklin Howell
CONSTANTIN MARCOU wrote:
> And people have the nerve to assert that rock isn't pretentious and
> opportunistic.... Pah!
Notwithstanding the mind of the original poster of this thing, it seems pretty
clear that most people do indeed agree that a lot of rock and other pop music is
designed for just such purposes. I think the issue is based more on arguments
supporting rock musicians reputable for avoiding shallow pretentious stunts, or
that which we might consider the "norm" of the industry. I think it is true that
a good number of these musicians dislike the system as much as you or me. Some of
them voice it in their products.
On the other hand, there are those who openly recognize that the music is designed
as a commode. . . I mean a commodity, and hold that this is perfectly okay. I
think the "reasoning" is something along the line of, "All we are doing is giving
society what they ask for. Blame society." They further point out that
professional music of the past was also composed for commercial purposes, and
somehow fail to see any difference at all between the way it was done then
compared to that of today other than its "style." That amazes me.
You know, I understand that theory and counterpoint were standard curriculums in
European schools during the 18th and 19th centuries. I am reminded of the
circumstances presented in Mr. Holland's Opus with the perpetual decline in music
funding in US schools over the period of this one man's career. I'm not exactly
sure what will ultimately result as we continue to distance our children farther
and farther from the fine arts, but I can't imagine it will result in much good
for anything. It's no wonder we see posts like this one.
Franklin
When I wake up in the morning, I just can't get started until I've had that first,
piping hot pot of coffee. . .
Oh, I've tried other enemas. . . -- Emo Phillips
Samuel Vriezen
>Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>>
>> get...@my-deja.com:
>>
>> >Im sure this may start a rancorous discussion,
>>
>> Without your participation it would seem.
>
>Maybe he's gone listening to Ferneyhough and the artist formerly known
>as Ockenghem like you told him to.
I never know the effect I have on people until it's too late...
(Last thing I heard it's now hip to write Okeghem)
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
Franklin Howell wrote:
> CONSTANTIN MARCOU wrote:
>
> On the other hand, there are those who openly recognize that the music is designed
> as a commode. . . I mean a commodity, and hold that this is perfectly okay. I
> think the "reasoning" is something along the line of, "All we are doing is giving
> society what they ask for. Blame society." They further point out that
> professional music of the past was also composed for commercial purposes, and
> somehow fail to see any difference at all between the way it was done then
> compared to that of today other than its "style." That amazes me.
Well, oddly enough (and it is odd because it would seem to be at variance with the
sentiments expressed in my earlier posting), I have never begrudged an entertainer the
profits gleaned from capitalizing on the public's execrable taste. It is the public I
begrudge for having the execrable taste to begin with, and for having the misplaced
value system that rewards the schlockmeister. And that public is exemplified by the
original poster who confuses socio-economic class resentment with art (and who seems
to have disappeared entirely, supporting the theory that he was trolling to begin
with.)
What is not rewarded (in our current society of 30-second attention spans) is
virtuosity in any artistic endeavor, or the time it takes to develop it (and
especially in composition). I agree that there are, of course, numerous exceptions,
and numerous artists who place personal integrity over commercial advantage. I do not
believe, however, that they are representative of their genres. Of course, I may just
be restating a common verity that is unchanged over the ages. However, I think that
past generations and societies have at least paid vice's tribute to virtue by mouthing
the usual platitudes about pursuing integrity and virtuosity. My complaint with our
current artistic values is that they are so blatantly and overtly slapdash, shoddy,
opportunistic and venal, no one even pays lip service anymore.
--
Best regards,
Con
--
To reply, please remove anti-spam asterisk from return address
**************************************************************
"Mozart is too easy for beginners and too difficult for artists"
-- Artur Schnabel
**************************************************************
jerry and judy
> I saw in the paper some time back that rock music had lost its dominant
> monetary position in the industry. It seems now that non-melodic pop is
> taking over. We are getting closer to a time I envisioned some years
> back, when instead of carrying radios around, young people will have
> rhythm generators instead. Like updated versions of the beat generators
> in most inexpensive keyboards. For a while, I thought I was wrong on
> this prediction, but now I think we're going back in that direction
> again.
>
> --
> --Kip (Williams)
heh heh Now that's entertainment! heh heh
That's a riot, Kip! but it's very sad too. Are kids unable to appreciate
the simple pop melodies that I grew up with in the early sixties? What
has happened? It's over their heads? or they're far beyond that?
Sixties pop music made a huge impact on my life, and my later classical
music appreciation. It was the gateway! after much reflection.
Jerry
Michael Subotin
<...>
> That's a riot, Kip! but it's very sad too. Are kids unable to appreciate
> the simple pop melodies that I grew up with in the early sixties? What
> has happened? It's over their heads? or they're far beyond that?
<...>
No, no. What's wrong with YOUR generation, mister? Where was your
appreciation of the tunes from the 1930s? Melody in pop music goes
downhill from there.
Actually, have you considered the Nostradamian value of your music
evolution theory? The kids go nuts for harmonic ambiguity these days.
We just had an effectively atonal top ten hit, didn't we? Melodies
simply got in the way of progress!
John Grabowski
>
> I think at it best pop music is as complex as classical, and obviously
> not as stuffy or pristene.
How "obviously"? Can we get ten people do agree on what "stuffy music"
is? Is it Mozart? Many used to think so, till they saw Amadeus, then
suddenly, based on that portrayal, he suddenly rocked!
> Classical is usually reserved for the blue
> blood set,
Says who? I know dozens of classical music fans and none of them are
"blue bloods." I know a couple of "blue bloods" too and they don't like
classical music.
> and the blue to lower classes are socially shunned from most
> symphonic get togethers.
How are they shunned. Do iron gates come down if they attempt to enter
a concert hall? Does someone demand to see their bank book or stock
portfolio before letting them buy a CD at Tower?
> There is also an elitist air to classical fans
> that really turns most normal people off.
What a "normal" person? Boy you're using a lot of loaded words here.
> They shun symphonic music, not
> out of art phobia, but they see the music and the people who listen to
> said art as stuck up and a bit pithy.
Who does? Besides you and your high school buddies? :-)
> It doesnt help that classical
> listener's have such a low opinion that they love to broadcast, of rock
> and pop styles as compared to their hallowed old dead white european
> hero's.
And the average rocker embraces classical music, right? If I were to go
to some gathering of pop fans and say, "Hey, let's watch Evening At
Symphony" they'd all say "COOL! We don't know enough about this music.
We should grow." Right?
> Rock is the music of the blue collar struggle against the upper class
> and the blue bloods who controll the culture.
Maybe it was in 1955, but since when are rockers blue collar today? And
since when do blue bloods control culture? Do you know who's in charges
at companies like Sony, RCA, Virgin Records, etc? Do you know their
ages and tastes? They aren't "blue bloods," whatever the hell they are.
> When I say pop I dont mean
> Spice Girl or other such nonsense but true pop art
And everyone can agree on what that is, right? (Well, if they don't and
they disagree with you, I guess that makes them a blue blood and a
stuck-up, eh?)
> that is hummed on
> car radios for the last several decades. Such masters of style as The
> Beatles and Jimi Hendrix make music that is both exiting and spiritually
> redeeming.
So did Beethoven. Ever listen to it?
> Prince and other artists use complex horn charts and string
> charts as skillfully as any so called master.
How do you know. Could we see your comparative analysis, bar-by-bar,
with say, Stravinsky?
> Rock may be loud and it
> may be simple
So is much classical.
> but its beauty is in its simplism sounding so damned
> complex.
See above.
> The simple rock riff to the STones "Satisfacion" has yet to be
> duplicated because rock, even in its most primitive state, has the
> complexity of a deeper meaning then a flurry of notes played by a violin
> or cello.
How do you know what notes played by a violin or cello mean. And if we
played the Stones on a cello would they suddenly lose their deep
meaning.
> I quite like symphony
Yeah, I'll bet you have season tickets.
> but I have found that alot of pop
> artists do symphony ideas even better then some overrated punter like
> Mozart.
His punting was not overrated. Just his tackling.
> History was wrong, Salieri was a better writer. I think of the
> muted, mournfull violin in the Beatles, "Elenore Rigby" and it sends
> shivers down my spine. Im sure this may start a rancorous discussion,
> but whats life without a little fire in the belly
Oh, is that what it was? I thought it was gas in your -----. :-)
> Rock will never die, cant say the same for classical..lol
Of the two, classical's passed the test of survival a lot longer than
rock.
John
--
Inuring us to lies lays the groundwork for many other evils. -Thomas
Paine
Spammers: I don't need Viagra, a work-at-home business or a ground-floor
investment opportunity, thank you.
John Grabowski
>
> Actually, after having watched the MTV awards at the Metropolitan Opera
> House in NY, it is clear that there is far more pretense, hype, and
> artifice in the popular music world than in the classical!!
I've been saying this for years. Every time someone accuses classical
artists of being elitists and then goes back to MTV and Entertainment
Tonight and their world of prima-donnas, I wonder how they can be so
blind.
John Grabowski
>
> On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:17:56 GMT, s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel Vriezen)
> wrote:
>
> >Of course, not only the original poster should go out and listen some
> >more, most of us should. (including me)
> ======================
> Better still. Take two years of Music Theory. He'll be able to answer
> his own questions, quite quickly.
To do that he'd have to PASS two years of music theory, and I don't
think this guy could get a GED.
Franklin E Howell
John Grabowski wrote in message <380CD841...@earthlink.net>...
>get...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> I think at it best pop music is as complex as classical, and obviously
>> not as stuffy or pristene.
>
>How "obviously"? Can we get ten people do agree on what "stuffy music"
>is? Is it Mozart?
It's a new multi media work by Portfolio Greaseneck called "Oxygen is a Nice
Thing." It calls for one pound of pipe tobacco burned in a 10 X 10 room
with no windows. The audience is required to wear suits of armor. The
program contains a disclaimer for claustrophobics.
But boy does it rock!
--
Franklin
"Mr. Wagner has beautiful moments. . .
and bad quarters of an hour." -- Gioacchino Rossini
jerry and judy
> jerry and judy wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > That's a riot, Kip! but it's very sad too. Are kids unable to appreciate
> > the simple pop melodies that I grew up with in the early sixties? What
> > has happened? It's over their heads? or they're far beyond that?
> <...>
>
> No, no. What's wrong with YOUR generation, mister?
Many things.
>Where was your
> appreciation of the tunes from the 1930s?
I never heard them enough times to appreciate them, until I grew up.
> Melody in pop music goes
> downhill from there.
Maybe late thirties. But the quality of pop music started really going
downhill in the 50's, with the hillbilly/rock-a-billy influence.
> Actually, have you considered the Nostradamian value of your music
> evolution theory?
Do you mean its power to forecast?
> The kids go nuts for harmonic ambiguity these days.
> We just had an effectively atonal top ten hit, didn't we?
'Dunno.
> Melodies
> simply got in the way of progress!
Yeah, I'm starting to understand today's better songs. But I don't see
how much farther they can go with all the ambiguity, without going
downhill.
Jerry
Samuel Vriezen
but I have been played some excellent Drum 'n Bass music lately, and
paraphrasing Stockhausen: you are looking for a chicken in an abstract
painting. This music is nowhere comparable to Gershwin in terms of
melodic invention, but it can have wonderful qualities in other
domains: very well selected samples, incomprehensibly effective
strange rhythms, etc. It involves a lot of good ear and technique all
of its own. Ditto for hip hop.
jerb...@zianet.com (jerry and judy):
jerry and judy
Vriezen) wrote:
> Oh come on, guys. I am not very aware of contemporary popular music,
> but I have been played some excellent Drum 'n Bass music lately, and
> paraphrasing Stockhausen: you are looking for a chicken in an abstract
> painting. This music is nowhere comparable to Gershwin in terms of
> melodic invention, but it can have wonderful qualities in other
> domains: very well selected samples, incomprehensibly effective
> strange rhythms, etc. It involves a lot of good ear and technique all
> of its own. Ditto for hip hop.
IMO, we need 'less' rhythm! Popular music has become distracted by
rhythm, because youngsters can 'get it' with very little listening
experience (and that's where the discretionary income is). Ragtime,
bebop, rock, disco and now hip hop/rap have been, and are, taking up too
much time and attention, for an unsatisfying dose of the primal drums and
the sexual thrustings.
I'm gonna invent a new style, when I get the time. <grin>
Thanks Samuel,
Jerry5
I'm definitely a 5.
Michael Subotin
>
> In article <380BE8...@shalt.not.spam>, see@sig wrote:
>
> > jerry and judy wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > That's a riot, Kip! but it's very sad too. Are kids unable to appreciate
> > > the simple pop melodies that I grew up with in the early sixties? What
> > > has happened? It's over their heads? or they're far beyond that?
> > <...>
> >
> > No, no. What's wrong with YOUR generation, mister?
>
> Many things.
>
> >Where was your
> > appreciation of the tunes from the 1930s?
>
> I never heard them enough times to appreciate them, until I grew up.
I think that's how it works still, but the Beatles are much closer to
young ears today, in all respects.
> > Melody in pop music goes
> > downhill from there.
>
> Maybe late thirties. But the quality of pop music started really going
> downhill in the 50's, with the hillbilly/rock-a-billy influence.
Songwriting accomplishment, certainly. I'm not sure about quality.
I'd place the big event in the shift of concerns at the emergence of
singer-songwriter. The transition from melody to hook, in particular,
since hooks rely heavily on single-shot vocal idiosyncrasies.
> > Actually, have you considered the Nostradamian value of your music
> > evolution theory?
>
> Do you mean its power to forecast?
With an apocalyptic tinge...
> > The kids go nuts for harmonic ambiguity these days.
> > We just had an effectively atonal top ten hit, didn't we?
>
> 'Dunno.
I doubt the single made top ten, but the album may have. I see it's
currently #11. I was waiting for a big mainstream hit that would
deliberately try to subvert pitch-centricity. In the context of past
skirmishes about atonality and ivory towers, it was a nice touch to have
it happen in a moment of such unabashed stupidity. Now the Billboard
finally gets its "Ich fuehle Luft..." -- "... and you can have that
cookie" and so on. (well, actually, the argument where I needed this
evidence was uncharacteristically level-headed, as I recall.)
> > Melodies
> > simply got in the way of progress!
>
> Yeah, I'm starting to understand today's better songs. But I don't see
> how much farther they can go with all the ambiguity, without going
> downhill.
I don't know, but it's likely here to stay. Tonality-shyness in pop is
just a side effect of attraction to striking sounds. In American
mainstream it now comes mostly from a rootsy hip-hop angle, which
is lyric-oriented and very slapdash. Electronica is more vibrant as a
genre, and, as Samuel says, some of it is quite imaginative and well-
crafted, but it's still off-limits for American mainstream. I sincerely
hope it all serves to expand the range of sonority in radio songs.
I have to hear this stuff repeatedly in the gym and the monotony of
current rock is beginning to get to me.
More on-topic, I predict that increasing dominance of sampling will
continue to redefine 'accessibility' of classical periods, already in
progress, with common-practice-era music assuming a role akin to
Renaissance polyphony, and 20th century music taking its place.
jerry and judy
> jerry and judy wrote:
> >
> > In article <380BE8...@shalt.not.spam>, see@sig wrote:
> >
> > > jerry and judy wrote:
> > >
> > > <...>
> > >
> > > > That's a riot, Kip! but it's very sad too. Are kids unable to
appreciate
> > > > the simple pop melodies that I grew up with in the early sixties? What
> > > > has happened? It's over their heads? or they're far beyond that?
> > > <...>
> > >
> > > No, no. What's wrong with YOUR generation, mister?
> >
> > Many things.
> >
> > >Where was your
> > > appreciation of the tunes from the 1930s?
> >
> > I never heard them enough times to appreciate them, until I grew up.
>
> I think that's how it works still, but the Beatles are much closer to
> young ears today, in all respects.
Yeah, nothing ever changes, except the participants and it's all new to them.
> > > Melody in pop music goes
> > > downhill from there.
> >
> > Maybe late thirties. But the quality of pop music started really going
> > downhill in the 50's, with the hillbilly/rock-a-billy influence.
>
> Songwriting accomplishment, certainly. I'm not sure about quality.
Well, quality in the popular arts is usually in conflict with the
intention of the popular arts.
> I'd place the big event in the shift of concerns at the emergence of
> singer-songwriter.
Yeah, early Dylan, or a little before.
> The transition from melody to hook, in particular,
> since hooks rely heavily on single-shot vocal idiosyncrasies.
Exactly.
> > > Actually, have you considered the Nostradamian value of your music
> > > evolution theory?
> >
> > Do you mean its power to forecast?
>
> With an apocalyptic tinge...
Indeed, it forecast a crisis in the arts, and I don't know if we're past
it yet, sometimes I'm sure that we aren't. We're still identifying the
problems of modern art, from unconstrained ambiguity to minimalism,
amateur-ism to the threats from capitalism.
> > > The kids go nuts for harmonic ambiguity these days.
> > > We just had an effectively atonal top ten hit, didn't we?
> >
> > 'Dunno.
>
> I doubt the single made top ten, but the album may have. I see it's
> currently #11. I was waiting for a big mainstream hit that would
> deliberately try to subvert pitch-centricity. In the context of past
> skirmishes about atonality and ivory towers, it was a nice touch to have
> it happen in a moment of such unabashed stupidity. Now the Billboard
> finally gets its "Ich fuehle Luft..." -- "... and you can have that
> cookie" and so on. (well, actually, the argument where I needed this
> evidence was uncharacteristically level-headed, as I recall.)
I don't know what you're referring to, I don't read very thread on
atonalism here. I can't abide the ignorance.
> > > Melodies
> > > simply got in the way of progress!
> >
> > Yeah, I'm starting to understand today's better songs. But I don't see
> > how much farther they can go with all the ambiguity, without going
> > downhill.
>
> I don't know, but it's likely here to stay. Tonality-shyness in pop is
> just a side effect of attraction to striking sounds. In American
> mainstream it now comes mostly from a rootsy hip-hop angle, which
> is lyric-oriented and very slapdash. Electronica is more vibrant as a
> genre, and, as Samuel says, some of it is quite imaginative and well-
> crafted, but it's still off-limits for American mainstream. I sincerely
> hope it all serves to expand the range of sonority in radio songs.
> I have to hear this stuff repeatedly in the gym and the monotony of
> current rock is beginning to get to me.
I feel sorry for you, I can't stand the little snippets I'm exposed to,
but I'm probably much older than you are. :(
> More on-topic, I predict that increasing dominance of sampling will
> continue to redefine 'accessibility' of classical periods
Really?
, already in
> progress, with common-practice-era music assuming a role akin to
> Renaissance polyphony, and 20th century music taking its place.
I highly doubt it, but I'm never right about these things. I would have
thought that the popularity of rap would have dwindled by now, because
it's so sing-songy! But as long the words are clever and cutting edge,
there's really nothing to replace it as ethnic OR rebellious 'music'. You
can't unring a bell and so, other music has to 'sound' just as 'nasty' and
(so-called) relevant.
Today's offerings are getting so far from (fun) melodic music, that maybe
private music making will make a come back.
The internet is going to so dilute the power of the record companies, that
future trends might be less calculated and less extreme, for the good or
the bad.
Jerry
Michael Subotin
>
> jerry and judy wrote:
<...>
> > Popular music has become distracted by
> > rhythm, because youngsters can 'get it' with very little listening
>
> Why is rhythm a distraction? You might as well say that melody is a
> distraction, as it probably was to Buddy Rich. <...>
But not as much as counterpoint would've been. Because that's what
counterpoint is... the art of distraction.
> > Ragtime,
> > bebop, rock, disco and now hip hop/rap have been, and are, taking up too
>
> Isn't this series a bit inordinate? What is the relationships between bop
> and ragtime? Or bop and disco? <...>
Wweeelll.... ragtime->dixie->swing->bop->hardbop->souljazz->funk->disco
Bebop has no business in that list, of course. And it was sneered at by
the old guard precisely because it lacked 'rhythm'. How about we replace
it with opera buffa?
vertigo
> In article <380d96f...@news.xs4all.nl>, s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel
> Vriezen) wrote:
>
> IMO, we need 'less' rhythm!
But you wouldn't have said that at the turn of the century! Thank God for
what ethnic music did for our staid Western culture.
> Popular music has become distracted by
> rhythm, because youngsters can 'get it' with very little listening
Why is rhythm a distraction? You might as well say that melody is a
distraction, as it probably was to Buddy Rich. No wonder that Frank got
pis%ed at him!
> Ragtime,
> bebop, rock, disco and now hip hop/rap have been, and are, taking up too
Isn't this series a bit inordinate? What is the relationships between bop
and ragtime? Or bop and disco? There's a difference between a repetitive
beat and a syncopated beat and even an irregular beat! I can see Charlie
Parker together with Donna Summer! But that would be on a romantic, moonlit
night!
> much time and attention, for an unsatisfying dose of the primal drums and
> the sexual thrustings.
You're beginning to sound like John Calvin! (No, I don't mean the little boy
with his pet tiger, Hobbes!)
>
> I'm gonna invent a new style, when I get the time. <grin>
You mean when you beat out the time, don't you?
--
***********************************
"I guess some like it hot. I
personally prefer classical music."
TONY CURTIS
***********************************
Christian Boult
< SNIP .. >
>Beatles and Jimi Hendrix make music that is both exiting and spiritually
>charts as skillfully as any so called master. Rock may be loud and it
>may be simple, but its beauty is in its simplism sounding so damned
>complex. The simple rock riff to the STones "Satisfacion" has yet to be
>duplicated because rock, even in its most primitive state, has the
>complexity of a deeper meaning then a flurry of notes played by a violin
>artists do symphony ideas even better then some overrated punter like
>muted, mournfull violin in the Beatles, "Elenore Rigby" and it sends
>shivers down my spine. Im sure this may start a rancorous discussion,
>bit more interesting.
>
Yeah well most of the famous rock stars studied classical and
were very much aware of its qualities when writing their own
brilliant music.
My 2 cents.
Christian Boult (aaac...@bigfoot.com)
<please remove the aaa in my e-mail adress to reply>
vertigo
And I've just heard that Elvis Costello has contributed something to an album
of Henry Purcell's music! For the record, two great artists raised in the
classical tradition were Neil Sedaka ("Oh, Carol!") and Sir Elton John.
jerry and judy
> jerry and judy wrote:
>
> > In article <380d96f...@news.xs4all.nl>, s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel
> > Vriezen) wrote:
> >
> > IMO, we need 'less' rhythm!
>
> But you wouldn't have said that at the turn of the century! Thank God for
> what ethnic music did for our staid Western culture.
Well, I have to admit you're right, but everything in moderation.
> > Popular music has become distracted by
> > rhythm, because youngsters can 'get it' with very little listening
>
> Why is rhythm a distraction? You might as well say that melody is a
> distraction, as it probably was to Buddy Rich. No wonder that Frank got
> pis%ed at him!
No one element of music (any art) should overwhelm the aesthetic
details/particulars of all the other elements. Melody also becomes an
unacceptable distraction when it does that, we might call the result
egregious sentimentality.
I'm currently listening to a Chopin mazurka. The rhythm is strong enough
to contribute to the logic, the melody is clever, the form is clear and
the harmony is very interesting. This short piece of a larger opus will
endure longer than any of the slices of grunge currently being tapped out
in any two car garage, or wherever. Ahhh! you say, but will it make as
much money?
> > Ragtime,
> > bebop, rock, disco and now hip hop/rap have been, and are, taking up too
>
> Isn't this series a bit inordinate? What is the relationships between bop
> and ragtime? Or bop and disco?
I understand that form and harmony in pop music must take a backseat to
melody and rhythm, (because of the target audience) but the long trend has
been that even quality melodies must be 'beaten' away or thrashed into
little snippets by the excessively primal-sounding percussion. I'm
wondering when the trend that started with ragtime, will change? Maybe
you think it will never change. Decades from now, pop music selections
will have devolved into three minute sequences of mindless booming, to get
us moving, dancing and repopulating the planet anew. ;-)
> There's a difference between a repetitive
> beat and a syncopated beat and even an irregular beat! I can see Charlie
> Parker together with Donna Summer! But that would be on a romantic, moonlit
> night!
>
> > much time and attention, for an unsatisfying dose of the primal drums and
> > the sexual thrustings.
>
> You're beginning to sound like John Calvin! (No, I don't mean the little boy
> with his pet tiger, Hobbes!)
heh heh I did want to make a hard-to-ignore point. heh So I'll try to
identify with your characterization. Calvin was a Renaissance humanist,
you had to have been there <grin>, but he was. His opponents were the
'systematic' Scholastics (sp?) who hoped that human reason was up to the
task at hand. Calvin thought that the Reformation's scriptura sola was
the way to go. I'm not a fan of Calvin, but he did emphasize the
'suitability' to the times and to the 'audience' (usually for their own
good). Calvin did have contrary tendencies, to say the least, but he
always said he had the people's well-being in mind AND so do I!
As for Thomas Hobbes, I've never been able to apply what he meant, to
today, so I've always considered him relevant only for the 1600's. The
idea of a mechanistic metaphysics always seemed like an oxymoron. heh heh
> >
> > I'm gonna invent a new style, when I get the time. <grin>
>
> You mean when you beat out the time, don't you?
No, heh heh, I want a time-out on the beat! I want the already excessive
and long tiresome beat 'muffled' by prospective CD buyers. Barring that, I
would hope for a slowdown in the acceleration of this destructive trend.
"You can't always get what you want."
Jerry
BHeneg8560
(jerry and judy) writes:
>Well, quality in the popular arts is usually in conflict with the
>intention of the popular arts.
Well, I hate to disagree, but: if the popular arts are indeed popular (i.e.
well-liked by many people) then those arts are full of quality for the people
who like them. There's no conflict there. The intention of the popular arts is
to provide characteristics that a lot of people like, and find full of quality.
What causes the confusion is that quality is not present in the same thing
and/or at the same time for everybody. That same soaring violin melody that you
or I might love in a piece is exactly what turns another listener right off.
It's full of quality for you and me, not for him.
Perhaps it makes more sense to say "If the things *I* find full of quality are
too evident in popular art, there's a good chance that it won't be so popular
anymore" - assuming, that is, that your artistic likes and dislikes generally
*don't* overlap with those of the consumers of "popular" art.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
jerry and judy
> vertigo wrote:
> >
> > jerry and judy wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > > Popular music has become distracted by
> > > rhythm, because youngsters can 'get it' with very little listening
> >
> > Why is rhythm a distraction? You might as well say that melody is a
> > distraction, as it probably was to Buddy Rich. <...>
>
> But not as much as counterpoint would've been. Because that's what
> counterpoint is... the art of distraction.
Yes, by most definitions all art is artifice, founded and composed of
subterfuge. But, there are good distractions and bad distractions. And I
will decide for the rest of youse!
> > > Ragtime,
> > > bebop, rock, disco and now hip hop/rap have been, and are, taking up too
> >
> > Isn't this series a bit inordinate? What is the relationships between bop
> > and ragtime? Or bop and disco? <...>
>
> Wweeelll.... ragtime->dixie->swing->bop->hardbop->souljazz->funk->disco
>
> Bebop has no business in that list, of course. And it was sneered at by
> the old guard precisely because it lacked 'rhythm'.
Again, if rhythm is the issue, then there's something wrong, and bebop
fits the trend. I happen to love Monk and Parker, but because of their
harmonic innovations and their virtuosity, not because their rhythms are
easy or hard to dance to!
> How about we replace
> it with opera buffa?
I don't get it, I'm dense, and I do have French roots that go way back!
<opéra bouffe> heh heh
Jerry
Samuel Vriezen
>In article <jerbidoc-201...@lc0392.zianet.com>, jerb...@zianet.com
>(jerry and judy) writes:
>
>>Well, quality in the popular arts is usually in conflict with the
>>intention of the popular arts.
>
>Well, I hate to disagree, but: if the popular arts are indeed popular (i.e.
>well-liked by many people) then those arts are full of quality for the people
>who like them.
Presuming that it is quality that these people are (aware of being)
looking for. Could also be a place to hang out friday night, or
something to talk through, to annoy your parents with etc. Could call
that quality as well of course.
BHeneg8560
writes:
>bhene...@aol.com (BHeneg8560):
>>Well, I hate to disagree, but: if the popular arts are indeed popular (i.e.
>>well-liked by many people) then those arts are full of quality for the
>people
>>who like them.
>
>Presuming that it is quality that these people are (aware of being)
>looking for. Could also be a place to hang out friday night, or
>something to talk through, to annoy your parents with etc. Could call
>that quality as well of course.
Why, aye (just thought I'd write that in a Geordie accent). If those things are
what those people want, then quality inheres in those things for those people
at that time.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
Samuel Vriezen
I believe the word 'quality' this way becomes quite superfluous,
defined away. Not an impossible philosophical position of course - in
fact, it is irritatingly well possible to defend that. Not my choice
though.
Michael Subotin
<...>
> > Bebop has no business in that list, of course. And it was sneered at by
> > the old guard precisely because it lacked 'rhythm'.
>
> Again, if rhythm is the issue, then there's something wrong, and bebop
> fits the trend. I happen to love Monk and Parker, but because of their
> harmonic innovations and their virtuosity, not because their rhythms are
> easy or hard to dance to!
But wouldn't that make bebop an example of un-distraction?
> > How about we replace
> > it with opera buffa?
>
> I don't get it, I'm dense, and I do have French roots that go way back!
> <opéra bouffe> heh heh
No, I was just trying my hand at being elliptic. You COULD say opera
buffa was an infusion of rhythm into singing (I think)... less
vocalization, more chit chat -- and, so, a precedent for the infusion
of rhythmicized speech into singing (not only from rap), that, I
believe, is what has been washing melody out of pop music above all
other (musical) factors lately. One of the rare infusions of rhythm
that had nothing to do with dance.
(whew... did I get out of that one? <g>)
jerry and judy
bhene...@aol.com (BHeneg8560) wrote:
> In article <jerbidoc-201...@lc0392.zianet.com>, jerb...@zianet.com
> (jerry and judy) writes:
>
> >Well, quality in the popular arts is usually in conflict with the
> >intention of the popular arts.
>
> Well, I hate to disagree, but: if the popular arts are indeed popular (i.e.
> well-liked by many people) then those arts are full of quality for the people
> who like them. There's no conflict there. The intention of the popular arts is
> to provide characteristics that a lot of people like, and find full of
quality.
>
> What causes the confusion is that quality is not present in the same thing
> and/or at the same time for everybody. That same soaring violin melody
that you
> or I might love in a piece is exactly what turns another listener right off.
> It's full of quality for you and me, not for him.
The level of quality in a work of art is determined objectively and
systematically according to the criteria of a branch of philosophy called
aesthetics. It doesn't depend upon the receiver's seriousness or
experience or his extraneous uses for the expression.
> Perhaps it makes more sense to say "If the things *I* find full of quality are
> too evident in popular art, there's a good chance that it won't be so popular
> anymore" - assuming, that is, that your artistic likes and dislikes generally
> *don't* overlap with those of the consumers of "popular" art.
Why, I'm posterity -and so are you;
And whom do we remember? Not a hundred.
Were every memory written down all true,
The tenth and twentieth name would be but blundered!
We begin life in a state of dwarfishness, incoherence and perplexity.
The quality in art is what lies beyond us.
Jerry
> best wishes
> Ben Heneghan
>
>
Franklin Howell
CONSTANTIN MARCOU wrote:
> Well, oddly enough (and it is odd because it would seem to be at variance with the
> sentiments expressed in my earlier posting), I have never begrudged an entertainer the
> profits gleaned from capitalizing on the public's execrable taste. It is the public I
> begrudge for having the execrable taste to begin with, and for having the misplaced
> value system that rewards the schlockmeister.
I'm in agreement with you. One of the mysteries, I suppose, is where this taste
originated--with the public or with the agent. I think that ultimately it comes from the
people. I am pretty certain that if the funds stopped the material would magically
cease. It is a vapor only, generated by public demand. Remove the demand and the ghost
dissolves.
> And that public is exemplified by the
> original poster who confuses socio-economic class resentment with art (and who seems
> to have disappeared entirely, supporting the theory that he was trolling to begin
> with.)
I rather wonder if that person really meant all of that. There are some pretty ridiculous
remarks in the post.
> What is not rewarded (in our current society of 30-second attention spans)
<laughing>
> is
> virtuosity in any artistic endeavor, or the time it takes to develop it (and
> especially in composition). I agree that there are, of course, numerous exceptions,
> and numerous artists who place personal integrity over commercial advantage.
Most of them are underground rock stars with cult-type followings. Some of them, in my
opinion, reveal no talent, but a few of them do.
> I do not
> believe, however, that they are representative of their genres. Of course, I may just
> be restating a common verity that is unchanged over the ages. However, I think that
> past generations and societies have at least paid vice's tribute to virtue by mouthing
> the usual platitudes about pursuing integrity and virtuosity. My complaint with our
> current artistic values is that they are so blatantly and overtly slapdash, shoddy,
> opportunistic and venal, no one even pays lip service anymore.
I suppose there is a little lip service going on, but it's mostly seen as hot air coming
from classical weirdoes and others who just don't understand where it's at. I think one
of the issues here is numbers. The support for commercial decorations in pop music is
enormous.
> Best regards,
And to you.
BHeneg8560
writes:
>bhene...@aol.com (BHeneg8560):
>>
>> If those things
>are
>>what those people want, then quality inheres in those things for those
>people
>>at that time.
>I believe the word 'quality' this way becomes quite superfluous,
>defined away. Not an impossible philosophical position of course - in
>fact, it is irritatingly well possible to defend that. Not my choice
>though.
Well, feel free to define "quality" without citing the specific things or
attributes in which you yourself find quality.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
vertigo
> In article <jerbidoc-201...@lc0392.zianet.com>, jerb...@zianet.com
> (jerry and judy) writes:
>
> >Well, quality in the popular arts is usually in conflict with the
> >intention of the popular arts.
>
> Well, I hate to disagree, but: if the popular arts are indeed popular (i.e.
I think the original poster is saying that 1. the avowed aims of the patronage or
market is at odds with the real aims of the artist, or 2. the conscious commercial
aims of the artist is at odds with the unconscious artistic goals of the artist.
This, of course, would be true of the popular arts where there is a commercial
target at all. Nobody would assume this of a Schoenberg who doesn't care about
commercial reception.
This of course is true. Let's face it, one of the glorious choral works of all
time, the Messiah, was written because Handel was losing his commercial appeal &
decided to regain his audience. That doesn't take away from the artistic worth of
the final product.
This by the way is called the intentional fallacy in critical theory. Namely,
that the conscious intent of the artist should determine the reception of the work
in those terms.
The case of Woody Allen vs. Alfred Hitchcock is a paradigmatic example here.
Hitchcock boasted all he cared about was technical form and audience reaction (not
even response, but merely reaction, such as shock, as in Psycho). Woody Allen
thinks he's another Bergman. And his intentions are clearly to compete with
serious artistic pedigree, such as Beckett or Bergman or (God forbid) Mahler.
Yet, of course, there's no question who is the artist between them.
Hitchcock's work ranks with the greatest art of the ages. Allen's work is
abyssmally inferior. Yet because Allen markets himself as a serious artist, his
screenplays are invariably nominated by the Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts, and
Sciences (I think he's received a record number of nominations, surpassing even
those for the great Billy Wilder and his partners), while Hitch received only 5
nominations in his career, never winning (although Rebecca received the Best
picture award for Davy Selznick).
ISamuel Johnson is quoted as saying that any writer who writes for anything
other than money is a blockhead. And yet, beginning with the Romantic era, we have
had a whole arsenal of reasons for writing other than money, including neurasthenic
torment, theopneustos inspiration, aesthetic innovation, etc.
ATETHIS
>were very much aware of its qualities when writing their own
>brilliant music.
>
>
This begs the question do we have rock that is influenced by rock these days?
BHeneg8560
(jerry and judy) writes:
>The level of quality in a work of art is determined objectively and
>systematically according to the criteria of a branch of philosophy called
>aesthetics.
You're welcome to that opinion. But why do you think you can determine the
level of quality in art objectively? What criteria do you use? How do you know
if they're valid criteria? How do you measure the extent to which any
particular work of art fulfils those criteria?
[snip]
>Why, I'm posterity -and so are you;
> And whom do we remember? Not a hundred.
>Were every memory written down all true,
> The tenth and twentieth name would be but blundered!
>
>We begin life in a state of dwarfishness, incoherence and perplexity.
>The quality in art is what lies beyond us.
I'm too stupid to understand these lines. What do you mean by them?
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
BHeneg8560
writes:
>BHeneg8560 wrote:
>> In article <jerbidoc-201...@lc0392.zianet.com>,
>jerb...@zianet.com
>> (jerry and judy) writes:
>> >Well, quality in the popular arts is usually in conflict with the
>> >intention of the popular arts.
>> Well, I hate to disagree, but: if the popular arts are indeed popular (i.e.
>I think the original poster is saying that 1. the avowed aims of the
>patronage or
>market is at odds with the real aims of the artist, or 2. the conscious
>commercial
>aims of the artist is at odds with the unconscious artistic goals of the
>artist.
>This, of course, would be true of the popular arts where there is a
>commercial
>target at all.
Why? You can only assert this if you know what the artist's "real aims" and
"unconcscious goals" are.
[snip]
> This by the way is called the intentional fallacy in critical theory.
>Namely,
>that the conscious intent of the artist should determine the reception of the
>work
>in those terms.
> The case of Woody Allen vs. Alfred Hitchcock is a paradigmatic example
>here.
>Hitchcock boasted all he cared about was technical form and audience reaction
>(not
>even response, but merely reaction, such as shock, as in Psycho). Woody
>Allen
>thinks he's another Bergman. And his intentions are clearly to compete with
>serious artistic pedigree, such as Beckett or Bergman or (God forbid) Mahler.
> Yet, of course, there's no question who is the artist between them.
>Hitchcock's work ranks with the greatest art of the ages. Allen's work is
>abyssmally inferior.
This comparison of Hitchcock and Allen isn't fact but opinion. I agree that the
artist's intentions needn't necessarily affect one's individual, personal
response to the work - in other words, the intentions (such as we know them)
are only as relevant as we choose. However, I don't find Allen's work abysmally
inferior to Hitchcock's. But my opinion may be based on a different set of
criteria to those that yours is based on.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
vertigo
> In article <380FBF8D...@ms22.hinet.net>, vertigo <ver...@ms22.hinet.net>
> writes:
>
> >BHeneg8560 wrote:
>
> >> In article <jerbidoc-201...@lc0392.zianet.com>,
> >jerb...@zianet.com
> >> (jerry and judy) writes:
>
> >> >Well, quality in the popular arts is usually in conflict with the
> >> >intention of the popular arts.
>
> >> Well, I hate to disagree, but: if the popular arts are indeed popular (i.e.
>
> >I think the original poster is saying that 1. the avowed aims of the
> >patronage or
> >market is at odds with the real aims of the artist, or 2. the conscious
> >commercial
> >aims of the artist is at odds with the unconscious artistic goals of the
> >artist.
> >This, of course, would be true of the popular arts where there is a
> >commercial
> >target at all.
>
> Why? You can only assert this if you know what the artist's "real aims" and
> "unconcscious goals" are.
I'm not asserting is as a particular fact, but as a general principle.
There's a difference there. Obviously, each case would have to be
studied differently; and even then there are so many variables at work
or play that the conclusion would be contentious in any case. Hence the
intentional fallacy. However, there are strictly aesthetic criteria,
and not merely biographical criteria, to consider. It doesn't really
matter whether an artist cynically dismisses his work in terms of the
profit motive; what matters is the aesthetic effect, judged, of course,
by consensual standards. Shaw jokingly tweaked the Hollywood producer,
Sam Goldwyn, by saying, "The difference between us is that all you care
about is art, while what all I care about is money." This should not
affect our aesthetic responses in reading a play such as Man and
Superman or Saint Joan.
>
> [snip]
>
> > This by the way is called the intentional fallacy in critical theory.
> >Namely,
> >that the conscious intent of the artist should determine the reception of the
> >work
> >in those terms.
> > The case of Woody Allen vs. Alfred Hitchcock is a paradigmatic example
> >here.
> >Hitchcock boasted all he cared about was technical form and audience reaction
> >(not
> >even response, but merely reaction, such as shock, as in Psycho). Woody
> >Allen
> >thinks he's another Bergman. And his intentions are clearly to compete with
> >serious artistic pedigree, such as Beckett or Bergman or (God forbid) Mahler.
> > Yet, of course, there's no question who is the artist between them.
> >Hitchcock's work ranks with the greatest art of the ages. Allen's work is
> >abyssmally inferior.
>
> This comparison of Hitchcock and Allen isn't fact but opinion.
Of course it is. However, I'd add the word "educated," getting
"educated opinion"; there's a difference. In the same way, a policeman
makes a guess where a suspect might be hiding, but that's not just a
wild guess, it's an educated guess, based on many years of studying
human, specifically criminal, behavior. I have no doubt that many would
disagree with my comments about Allen; many European, and most American,
critics would disagree. Nonetheless, I submit it into the arena of
ideas. Some still think that HItchcock (or Ford, Hawks, etc.) are
Hollywood journeymen, rather than artists. It's good to have diverse
points of view, if only to sharpen one's own.
> I agree that the
> artist's intentions needn't necessarily affect one's individual, personal
> response to the work - in other words, the intentions (such as we know them)
> are only as relevant as we choose. However, I don't find Allen's work abysmally
> inferior to Hitchcock's. But my opinion may be based on a different set of
> criteria to those that yours is based on.
Exactly. And so the long, presumably interminable, debate on aesthetic
values continues. I have no quarrel with that. The point I was making
was simply that we cannot reduce aesthetic facts (in terms of response
and reception) to artistic intentions. Who knows what Milton's
conscious intentions were when he created one of the archetypal Romantic
figures in Lucifer, in Paradise Lost. Was he, as Blake approvingly
asserted, of the Devil's Part without knowing it? On this newsgroup,
we're still arguing about the aesthetic meaning of the final movement of
DSCH's Fifth Symphony. We should argue aesthetically, not
biographically. It doesn't really matter whether DSCH affirmed or
rejected that movement in the apochryphal autobiography. The conductor
has got to discover coherence and authority in the musical notes
themselves, not in the notation about the music, written by others or by
the composer.
jerry and judy
bhene...@aol.com (BHeneg8560) wrote:
> In article <jerbidoc-211...@lc0738.zianet.com>, jerb...@zianet.com
> (jerry and judy) writes:
>
> >The level of quality in a work of art is determined objectively and
> >systematically according to the criteria of a branch of philosophy called
> >aesthetics.
>
> You're welcome to that opinion.
It's not an opinion. It's the one hope we have to save time, and not miss
something important in our short lives.
> But why do you think you can determine the
> level of quality in art objectively?
Me?
>What criteria do you use?
I told you, above.
>How do you know
> if they're valid criteria?
Ah! good point. They have been honed down through recent history,
analogous to Einstein theories being a 'subset' of Newton's.
>How do you measure the extent to which any
> particular work of art fulfils those criteria?
Oh Ben, you've heard this before... <grin> This is of course where the
subjectivity comes in, but at least it's not "I'm fourteen and I like this
one, but I hate that one!"
Is "Escape" (Metallica) a higher quality song than "Yesterday"
(Beatles)? "Escape" is much louder and longer <grin>, are these good
criteria?
If two songs are close then it doesn't matter, but we need a better set of
criteria than the commercial sales numbers.
> [snip]
>
> >Why, I'm posterity -and so are you;
> > And whom do we remember? Not a hundred.
> >Were every memory written down all true,
> > The tenth and twentieth name would be but blundered!
> >
> >We begin life in a state of dwarfishness, incoherence and perplexity.
> >The quality in art is what lies beyond us.
>
> I'm too stupid to understand these lines. What do you mean by them?
They're ambiguous and open ended, they should mean more than one thing,
hopefully at the same moment. I didn't write the four lines, Byron did.
They have formal and rhythmic integrity. It has qualities that quality
art must have, to be of high quality. Of course, one should read all of
Don Juan, these were a few lines that I thought related to what we were
discussing.
> best wishes
And to you,
Jerry
> Ben Heneghan
>
>
Samuel Vriezen
Even better, I'm going to feel free not to define 'quality' but use
the word anyway as I see fit. Much like the word 'policy' or 'cheese'.
If we ever get into a substantial disagreement through our different
uses of the word, I'm sure as reasonably people we will find our way
out.
Samuel Vriezen
>The level of quality in a work of art is determined objectively and
>systematically according to the criteria of a branch of philosophy called
>aesthetics.
Thank God!
jerry and judy
Vriezen) wrote:
Very funny, do I take myself too seriously? Nahhh!
Thanks Samuel, you relativist!!
Jerry
Samuel Vriezen
I'm not sure whether 'relativist' would describe me best, perhaps we
need to consider some more points of view first... :-)
BHeneg8560
(jerry and judy) writes:
>bhene...@aol.com (BHeneg8560) wrote:
>> (jerry and judy) writes:
>> >The level of quality in a work of art is determined objectively and
>> >systematically according to the criteria of a branch of philosophy called
>> >aesthetics.
>> You're welcome to that opinion.
>It's not an opinion. It's the one hope we have to save time, and not miss
>something important in our short lives.
How is it not an opinion? I don't see anything in the statement that actually
proves it. I agree, it's also a hope, but I think that using a set of
prefabricated criteria to make your aesthetic decisions for you is just as
likely to make you miss something important.
>> But why do you think you can determine the
>> level of quality in art objectively?
>Me?
Let me clarify: why do you think the level of quality in art can be objectively
determined?
>>What criteria do you use?
>I told you, above.
Well, no, actually: you said they come from the branch of philosophy called
aesthetics, but you didn't say what the criteria *were*.
>>How do you know
>> if they're valid criteria?
>Ah! good point. They have been honed down through recent history,
>analogous to Einstein theories being a 'subset' of Newton's.
Why does that make them valid?
>>How do you measure the extent to which any
>> particular work of art fulfils those criteria?
>Oh Ben, you've heard this before... <grin> This is of course where the
>subjectivity comes in, but at least it's not "I'm fourteen and I like this
>one, but I hate that one!"
But how does that, in itself, make *your* (i.e. one's) aesthetic judgements
applicable to anyone else?
>Is "Escape" (Metallica) a higher quality song than "Yesterday"
>(Beatles)? "Escape" is much louder and longer <grin>, are these good
>criteria?
How should I know what criteria *you* find good? I'm not trying to be
difficult, it's just that aesthetic criteria don't choose themselves, so
there's no guarantee you and I will agree about how we like music to be.
>If two songs are close then it doesn't matter, but we need a better set of
>criteria than the commercial sales numbers.
Why do we need any criteria at all? Is meaningful aesthetic discussion so
desirable that it must be bought at the price of pretending that certain
criteria are universally valid?
>> >Why, I'm posterity -and so are you;
>> > And whom do we remember? Not a hundred.
>> >Were every memory written down all true,
>> > The tenth and twentieth name would be but blundered!
>> >
>> >We begin life in a state of dwarfishness, incoherence and perplexity.
>> >The quality in art is what lies beyond us.
>> I'm too stupid to understand these lines. What do you mean by them?
>They're ambiguous and open ended, they should mean more than one thing,
>hopefully at the same moment. I didn't write the four lines, Byron did.
>They have formal and rhythmic integrity. It has qualities that quality
>art must have, to be of high quality. Of course, one should read all of
>Don Juan, these were a few lines that I thought related to what we were
>discussing.
Well, "hundred" doesn't actually rhyme with "blundered". If by integrity you
mean wholeness, then yes, they're certainly in a recurring rhythm, not such an
astonishing achievement considering the size of the sample. I'm not sure what
you mean by "formal" integrity, though. Are you talking about the A-B-A-"B"
rhyme scheme? Or something else?
You say they mean more than one thing without going on to tell me what these
things are, and so the whole point of quoting the lines still eludes me.
That's a great line, by the way: "It has qualities that quality art must have,
to be of high quality."
Once again, best wishes.
Ben Heneghan
BHeneg8560
writes:
>> >I think the original poster is saying that 1. the avowed aims of the
>> >patronage or
>> >market is at odds with the real aims of the artist, or 2. the conscious
>> >commercial
>> >aims of the artist is at odds with the unconscious artistic goals of the
>> >artist.
>> >This, of course, would be true of the popular arts where there is a
>> >commercial
>> >target at all.
>> Why? You can only assert this if you know what the artist's "real aims" and
>> "unconcscious goals" are.
>I'm not asserting is as a particular fact, but as a general principle.
>There's a difference there. Obviously, each case would have to be
>studied differently; and even then there are so many variables at work
>or play that the conclusion would be contentious in any case. Hence the
>intentional fallacy.
Well, with respect, if the conclusion's contentious, what's the point of making
the assertion in the first place? Was it actually based on anything verifiable?
>However, there are strictly aesthetic criteria,
>and not merely biographical criteria, to consider. It doesn't really
>matter whether an artist cynically dismisses his work in terms of the
>profit motive; what matters is the aesthetic effect, judged, of course,
>by consensual standards.
Standards that everyone agrees on. Are there any such standards? It would be
convenient if there were, but in fact there are always dissenting voices.
[snip]
>> This comparison of Hitchcock and Allen isn't fact but opinion.
>Of course it is. However, I'd add the word "educated," getting
>"educated opinion"; there's a difference. In the same way, a policeman
>makes a guess where a suspect might be hiding, but that's not just a
>wild guess, it's an educated guess, based on many years of studying
>human, specifically criminal, behavior.
Well, consider what "educated" means in the aestheic context. Does it mean
"illuminated by facts" or does it mean "illuminated by opinions"?
> I have no doubt that many would
>disagree with my comments about Allen; many European, and most American,
>critics would disagree. Nonetheless, I submit it into the arena of
>ideas. Some still think that HItchcock (or Ford, Hawks, etc.) are
>Hollywood journeymen, rather than artists. It's good to have diverse
>points of view, if only to sharpen one's own.
Well, one can like the films of Allen *and* Hitchcock. I don't have any
argument with a lot of what you say in your post. I'm only picking at certain
assertions.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
vertigo
> In article <38104277...@ms22.hinet.net>, vertigo <ver...@ms22.hinet.net>
> writes:
> >I'm not asserting is as a particular fact, but as a general principle.
> >There's a difference there. Obviously, each case would have to be
> >studied differently; and even then there are so many variables at work
> >or play that the conclusion would be contentious in any case. Hence the
> >intentional fallacy.
>
> Well, with respect, if the conclusion's contentious, what's the point of making
> the assertion in the first place? Was it actually based on anything verifiable?
Nothing is verifiable, but contentions are made all the time anyway.
Can one verify God or the God in the slow movement of Beethoven's Ninth
Symphony? I don't understand your point. How can one prove that, say,
the arts are worth knowing, therefore worth teaching? All one can do is
get so many people to agree with you, but that's not proof or
verification in the sense you mean. I believe in a robust exchange of
ideas. That's as near to truth as I believe we mortals can attain on
this earth. The only other verifiable truths are what, in philosophy,
are called analytic truths, such as 4 plus 4 equals 8 or a bachelor is
an unmarried human male.
>
> >However, there are strictly aesthetic criteria,
> >and not merely biographical criteria, to consider. It doesn't really
> >matter whether an artist cynically dismisses his work in terms of the
> >profit motive; what matters is the aesthetic effect, judged, of course,
> >by consensual standards.
>
> Standards that everyone agrees on. Are there any such standards? It would be
> convenient if there were, but in fact there are always dissenting voices.
Well, the meaning of consensus is generally accepted in majority or
pluralistic terms. It doesn't mean everyone agrees for all time but
merely that enough people agree for the moment. At one time nobody
would dare to teach university in English. There was a consensus that
this should not be done. You either knew Hebrew,
Latin, and Greek, or you didn't get an education. At one time, nobody
wrote great epics in Italian; not until Dante came along. There was a
consensus that this should not be done. Obviously there were dissenting
voices, since Dante's was one of them. At one time Brhams was
considered a minor composer; then he was alliteratively ranked with Bach
and Beethoven. Mahler was considered a minor composer; which means a
consensus thought this. They published the books and journals and
taught classes and produced recordings and wrote liner notes for them.
You talked about Ford once. It would be amusing to unearth a
contemporary review of The Searchers! "Typical Ford-Wayne western with
a miscegenation twist. Strictly for the youngsters" **1/2 At the
time, of course, it was consensually believed that Ford had already
reached his acme, with such films of his expressionistic period such as
The Informer, Grapes of Wrath, etc.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> This comparison of Hitchcock and Allen isn't fact but opinion.
>
> >Of course it is. However, I'd add the word "educated," getting
> >"educated opinion"; there's a difference. In the same way, a policeman
> >makes a guess where a suspect might be hiding, but that's not just a
> >wild guess, it's an educated guess, based on many years of studying
> >human, specifically criminal, behavior.
>
> Well, consider what "educated" means in the aestheic context. Does it mean
> "illuminated by facts" or does it mean "illuminated by opinions"?
Both. Although I'd place quotations around "facts," since that's the
contentious term in aesthetics. Today it's a contentious term in every
area of epistemology and historiography (Nietzsche: "There are no
facts, only interpretations."). The "fact" that Mahler's symphonies are
too long may not be a fact to a Mahler enthusiast. Therefore the word
fact is always contentious. Yet we need it in theoretical terms,
because otherwise we would be speaking without appealing to a putative
thing or object. Regardless whether you agree with a writer about a
film, that that
travelling shot effects subjective identification with a character in
order to establish an ambivalent relationship with that character, we
can at least respect the writer for specifically appealing to a moment
in the movie that is at least verifiably "there," if not aesthetically
there as a fact, since that aesthetic fact can only be confirmed by
another's response.
This is different from merely saying that "this movie establishes
ambivalent identifications with characters, which is why I think it's
the greatest movie ever made." Here we have no theoretical facts at
all, merely a very impressionistic statement of a presumed aesthetic
response.
BHeneg8560
writes:
>BHeneg8560 wrote:
>
>> In article <38104277...@ms22.hinet.net>, vertigo
><ver...@ms22.hinet.net>
>> writes:
>> >I'm not asserting is as a particular fact, but as a general principle.
>> >There's a difference there. Obviously, each case would have to be
>> >studied differently; and even then there are so many variables at work
>> >or play that the conclusion would be contentious in any case. Hence the
>> >intentional fallacy.
>> Well, with respect, if the conclusion's contentious, what's the point of
>making
>> the assertion in the first place? Was it actually based on anything
>verifiable?
>Nothing is verifiable, but contentions are made all the time anyway.
>Can one verify God or the God in the slow movement of Beethoven's Ninth
>Symphony? I don't understand your point. How can one prove that, say,
>the arts are worth knowing, therefore worth teaching?
I'm losing track here. Weren't we talking about the intentions of the artist?
All I'm saying is that if you don't know the artist's intentions, then what's
the point of saying anything about them and building further arguments based on
this unverified knowledge? Unless, of course, your aim is to inspire; in that
case, I suppose you must use whatever it takes, including myths. No-one
sensible expects rhetoric to be strictly logical.
[snip]
>> Standards that everyone agrees on. Are there any such standards? It would
>be
>> convenient if there were, but in fact there are always dissenting voices.
>Well, the meaning of consensus is generally accepted in majority or
>pluralistic terms. It doesn't mean everyone agrees for all time but
>merely that enough people agree for the moment.
Enough for what? It merely ignores all those who disagree, while carrying the
connotation that if you disagree you're marginalised, disenfranchised, a crank.
Any fool can call an agreement between him and other fools a consensus. It's a
very imprecise word, or to be fair, it's often used imprecisely or at least
prematurely.
[snip]
>> >> This comparison of Hitchcock and Allen isn't fact but opinion.
>> >Of course it is. However, I'd add the word "educated," getting
>> >"educated opinion"; there's a difference. In the same way, a policeman
>> >makes a guess where a suspect might be hiding, but that's not just a
>> >wild guess, it's an educated guess, based on many years of studying
>> >human, specifically criminal, behavior.
>> Well, consider what "educated" means in the aestheic context. Does it mean
>> "illuminated by facts" or does it mean "illuminated by opinions"?
>Both. Although I'd place quotations around "facts," since that's the
>contentious term in aesthetics.
Well, I disagree. I think that in the aesthetical context, "educated" merely
means "illuminated by opinions".
>Today it's a contentious term in every
>area of epistemology and historiography (Nietzsche: "There are no
>facts, only interpretations."). The "fact" that Mahler's symphonies are
>too long may not be a fact to a Mahler enthusiast. Therefore the word
>fact is always contentious.
Surely not always. How is the height of the Empire State Building a contentious
fact? The only way that that particular fact can be called contentious is by
claiming that all facts are contentious, a position I can certainly think of
arguments for but which I'm not sure is what you're actually asserting. I've
never read Nietzsche, so this quote of his refers to nothing I know, and by
itself is merely an unsupported allegation. The "fact" about Mahler's
symphonies is an opinion. Who in their right mind would ever seriously claim
facthood for it? It's not even a fact to the Mahler hater.
> Yet we need it in theoretical terms,
>because otherwise we would be speaking without appealing to a putative
>thing or object. Regardless whether you agree with a writer about a
>film, that that
>travelling shot effects subjective identification with a character in
>order to establish an ambivalent relationship with that character, we
>can at least respect the writer for specifically appealing to a moment
>in the movie that is at least verifiably "there," if not aesthetically
>there as a fact, since that aesthetic fact can only be confirmed by
>another's response.
Well, if you mean we can all see, or have pointed out to us, the camera
movement called a travelling shot, then it's a fact. The interpretation we
place on it is an opinion. Is that what you mean, or have I missed something?
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
vertigo
> In article <3811D471...@ms22.hinet.net>, vertigo <ver...@ms22.hinet.net>
> writes:
> >Nothing is verifiable, but contentions are made all the time anyway.
> >Can one verify God or the God in the slow movement of Beethoven's Ninth
> >Symphony? I don't understand your point. How can one prove that, say,
> >the arts are worth knowing, therefore worth teaching?
>
> I'm losing track here.
Believe me, so am I!
Weren't we talking about the intentions of the artist?
The problem is antecedence: who's "we"? I'm usually against non-edited
followups, but sometimes I can see the point, since grievously amputated
posts can misrepresent previous posters.
> All I'm saying is that if you don't know the artist's intentions, then what's
> the point of saying anything about them and building further arguments based on
> this unverified knowledge?
As I remember, my argument, referring to the "intentional fallacy," was
that the intentions of the artist are irrelevant. You may be confusing
me with another poster, or I may be misunderstanding your current point.
> No-one
> sensible expects rhetoric to be strictly logical.
Rhetoric isn't logical at all, although it may appeal to logic, as it,
indeed, appeals to everything else, including base and idealized
emotions, values, prejudices, self-esteem, etc.
>
> >Well, the meaning of consensus is generally accepted in majority or
> >pluralistic terms. It doesn't mean everyone agrees for all time but
> >merely that enough people agree for the moment.
>
> Enough for what? It merely ignores all those who disagree, while carrying the
> connotation that if you disagree you're marginalised, disenfranchised, a crank.
> Any fool can call an agreement between him and other fools a consensus. It's a
> very imprecise word, or to be fair, it's often used imprecisely or at least
> prematurely.
That's my point. These are words, merely. What's a fool? What's a
susperstition? What's a religion. You know the old joke, "What you
believe is a superstition, what I believe is a religion." Paul turned
the wisdom of Greeks upsidedown and made it seem like foolishness.
These reversals of values are part of our shared humanity. Marx turned
Hegel upside down and got what he thought was rightsideup! Classical
music is the history of rediscoveries: of Mahler, of Bach, of Mozart,
of Bruckner, of Joplin, of Handel. That doesn't mean most of these
composers were completely eclipsed, but they were radically
reinterpreted by later generations.
>
> Well, I disagree. I think that in the aesthetical context, "educated" merely
> means "illuminated by opinions".
What I mean is that you have to have at least hypothetical "facts," or
references to legitimate any opinion; at least if you wish to engage
your interlocutor. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who
says, "This man's a f%*king genius! If you can't hear that, you're an
as%hole!" But I will be engaged by someone who says, "Listen especially
to the way that horn passage beautifully contrasts with the violin
pizzicato, gently nudging a variation of the theme." Now, I may listen
to that aesthetic "fact" and decide that there's nothing special about
it; that, in fact, it is quite banal, routine, or uninspired. Still,
these putative "facts" are necessary for a productive exchange of
ideas. Moreover, called to our attention, we can then use them to make
entirely different discoveries. And this is, indeed, how heuristic
discoveries occur.
>
> Surely not always. How is the height of the Empire State Building a contentious
> fact?
Is it a building or a tower? From what point to what point do you
measure it? Are you measuring relative to other buildings or
absolutely? Is the building an office building or merely a structure?
Does it include the antennae or adjuncts on top of the building? We
still can't make up our minds whether the Statue of Liberty is located
in Noo Yawk or Noo Joisey! But even the "fact" of New York is
contentious and arbitrary. New York is an agreed upon term for a
certain geographical area. It was once called New Amersterdman. And
New Yorkers are familiar with New Amsterdam street near Lincoln Center
for the Performing Arts, paralell, as I recall, with Broadway. Some
diehard secessionists still refuse to accept the reality of the Union.
We know of cases in Japan of Japanese soldiers who fought WWII thirty
years after the end of the war. Even to "fight" is a putative fact.
Since people do their "fighting" in different ways. Just hiding from
the enemy is part of the fight. We call it resistance.
The only way that that particular fact can be called contentious is by
> claiming that all facts are contentious, a position I can certainly think of
> arguments for but which I'm not sure is what you're actually asserting.
That's exactly what I'm asserting. But, I qualify, that a putative fact
becomes a fact so long as there is a consensual community validating it
as a fact. Facts are validated opinions. This is a radical, but
necessary, epistemology, if we are to think clearly about things. By the
way, this is not the same thing as saying that anything goes, or it's
ONLY subjective. It is not ONLY subjective, since that subjectivity
must be shared by others. One dreamer is a madman. Two dreamers are
the beginning of a revolution. Think of Jesus.
I've
> never read Nietzsche, so this quote of his refers to nothing I know, and by
> itself is merely an unsupported allegation. The "fact" about Mahler's
> symphonies is an opinion. Who in their right mind would ever seriously claim
> facthood for it? It's not even a fact to the Mahler hater.
Oh, it certainly is. Read reviews of Mahler in the early 60s! People
literally couldn't comprehend my passion for Mahler. If the
condescended to sit patiently for the few recordings available (on SPA,
for example), they'd smirk and say, "not bad for movie music." Now
there are dozens more copies of a single Mahler work than there was of
the entire canon!
>
> Well, if you mean we can all see, or have pointed out to us, the camera
> movement called a travelling shot, then it's a fact. The interpretation we
> place on it is an opinion. Is that what you mean, or have I missed something?
That's it. Note that here we "assume" certain "facts": namely that of
a travelling shot in the first place. But these shared opinions as
facts are necessary if society is to function at all. We agree to use a
12 point unit measuring time and a 10 point unit measuring money, etc.
We never stop to question why there are two factual units of time! But
this is what all consensus involves: a blind adherence to opinions as
facts. That's why every revolution is at once so easy and yet so hard.
It is easy because there are so many prejudices in which we are
enveloped that anyone can pick them apart. Yet, we are also enveloped
in the institutionalization of these prejudices as facts, so resisting
them in commensurately hard. We know that "death" may or may not be a
fact, depending on the purpose of the culture. "Death" was not a fact
in the Middle Ages. Even tdoay we say that people pass away, or are in
a better place, or live with the angels, or await the Last Judgment, or
are at peace, etc. The "fact" of death may be convenient for a
biological paradigm, but inconvenient for a religious paradigm. We know
that many cultures believe in ghosts, in which case "death" is different
for those cultures. Mothers talk to their "dead" children, which
suggests these children are not really "dead" but elsewhere. The
contentious or disputatious nature of the reality of death is neatly
linked with our ambiguity of terms, say, between passing out and passing
away. Once I was listening to a talk show in Noo Yawk and a young boy,
about nine, phoned in asking the talk-show host whether a grandfather
clock was worth anything. He wanted to know, since his grandfather had
just passed out and the family thought the clock might be worth
something. Needless to say, the host got very concerned. "Now, wait a
minute, son! What do you mean your grandfather just passed out? You
mean he passed away or he's unconscious?" "Yeah, right! He passed
away!"
--
************************
"The world will construe
according to its wits,
this court must construe
according to the law."
Sir Thomas More,
A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
************************
BHeneg8560
writes:
[loads of interesting stuff about facts]
You have a fairly radical stance on the nature of facts that I certainly
sympathise with and have thought about for years, even to the extent, some
years ago, of formulating this thought (and possibly having it tattooed on the
back of my children's necks - we'll see): "Facts are opinions shared by all but
the insane." Read Robert Pirsig for more on this and related matters.
IMHO, we have to behave as if certain opinions were actually facts. The problem
is always the borderline cases, not the central ones.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
Kip Williams
...
> We know of cases in Japan of Japanese soldiers who fought WWII thirty
> years after the end of the war.
And I think we have some people in this country who've been fighting WW3
for at least 20 years.
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
vertigo
Thanks for the words. And yes, obviously social transactions will take place, as
usual. Everybody KNOWSs what we mean; at issue is whether this knowing is a fact
or not, or merely a shared communication. Moreover, it underscores, as you say,
the even greater issue of more nebulous opinions ("facts"), such as aesthetic
judgments, etc. But the key is that these opinions are DISCIPLINED opinions, not
merely wild guesses, hunches, assertions, etc.
Ice-bear
statement presupposes that you are aware of the composers' attitudes
and ideas. I cannot assess your background when it comes to rock
music, but I can tell that your are not very familiar with a large
group of classical composers. What about Beethoven, Mozart, Billings,
Chopin, Schubert and the lot of them, who died in poverty and
completely ignored by the social elite? Or the other extreme:
Rossini's operas attended and acclaimed by the 'low' social classes?
Any music making a social claim is bound to get outdated at some point,
which immediately raises the question of its real musical value. I
myself prefer classical (or better: ancient) music to a lot of the crap
I get through radio and T.V. every day, but that does not mean I have a
condescending attitude towards people who do not share my taste. You
get stupid, asocial or annoying people in classical concert halls as
well, you know.
Still, for the sake of an argument: how many of 'America's most wanted'
would be familiar with Gregorian chant, Lassus, Beethoven, Mozart or
Stravinsky...?;-)))
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Marc Vere' Anthony
judy <jerb...@zianet.com> wrote:
> > >The level of quality in a work of art is determined objectively and
> > >systematically according to the criteria of a branch of philosophy called
> > >aesthetics.
> >
> > You're welcome to that opinion.
>
> It's not an opinion. It's the one hope we have to save time, and not miss
> something important in our short lives.
Hey man, you've got a point. I don't understand why everyone is
wasting their time thinking out meaningless details---things that
haven't the slightest bit of relevancy when you look at the bigger
picture. WHO CARES if a lot of today's music is trash. Many of you are
certainly wasting a lot of time trying to figure it out---time that
could be spent thinking about more important and relevant issues in the
world.
Music is out there to be enjoyed and to enlight, NOT to be defined and
constrained.
-Marc Vere'
Marc Vere' Anthony
<jkelecom...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> I
> myself prefer classical (or better: ancient) music to a lot of the crap
> I get through radio and T.V. every day, but that does not mean I have a
> condescending attitude towards people who do not share my taste.
Very commendable attitude.
If only more people were like that.
-Marc Vere'
Caius Marcius
<only...@usenet.com> writes:
>
>Music is out there to be enjoyed and to enlight, NOT to be defined and
>constrained.
In other words - let's try not to realize how hideous this pop stuff
truly is - let's like make the scene with the hoi polloi and try not to
think about it. war is peace! freedom is slavery! drivel is music!
- CMC
ATETHIS
>truly is - let's like make the scene with the hoi polloi and try not to
>think about it. war is peace! freedom is slavery! drivel is music!
>
> - CMC
I think that there are two sides to Pop music. One side that wants to make a
"sound" to sell to the masses in order to make money for the record companies.
The other side is the more sincere "artist" who is trying to create something
of "meaning."
I myself have tried to get more in tune with Pop music this last year and a
half and have found that I was only fooling myself. I really like classical no
matter what it's "status" is. (status meaning popularity or whether it is on
the rise or decline)
Fred
Most People Aren't Famous
Marc Vere' Anthony
<ate...@aol.com> wrote:
> I think that there are two sides to Pop music. One side that wants to make a
> "sound" to sell to the masses in order to make money for the record
> companies.
> The other side is the more sincere "artist" who is trying to create something
> of "meaning."
>
> I myself have tried to get more in tune with Pop music this last year and a
> half and have found that I was only fooling myself. I really like classical
> no
> matter what it's "status" is. (status meaning popularity or whether it is on
> the rise or decline)
Why were you fooling yourself? Was it just that you were enjoying the
music and you suddenly realized that it was an unkosher thing to do in
some of the "elite" social circles you've become accustomed to?
Good music is good music. The artists have nothing to do with the
so-called "status" of their music. Why should that deter you from
listening to it? I personally never decide what music to listen to
based on it's popularity.
Many people are simply ignoring a lot of good music for the wrong
reasons. (Because they've been brainwashed into believing it's not a
smart thing to dig simple music) ... It's an EGO thing (purely an
unnatural human creation) ... Think of it this way: Before you let
people place these inhibitions on you, you actually ENJOYED some rock
music. It moved you emotionally( which in and of itself is a NATURAL
thing ) --- Now that you have these inhibitions, all that is
happening when you listen to the music that you used to enjoy is that
your ego is coming into play turning off any emotional connection you
used to have. (which is unnatural)
-Marc Vere'
Kip Williams
> Many people are simply ignoring a lot of good music for the wrong
> reasons. (Because they've been brainwashed into believing it's not a
> smart thing to dig simple music) ... It's an EGO thing (purely an
> unnatural human creation) ... Think of it this way: Before you let
> people place these inhibitions on you, you actually ENJOYED some rock
> music. It moved you emotionally( which in and of itself is a NATURAL
> thing ) --- Now that you have these inhibitions, all that is
> happening when you listen to the music that you used to enjoy is that
> your ego is coming into play turning off any emotional connection you
> used to have. (which is unnatural)
Okay, guys, admit that you're just pretending to like this 'classical'
stuff in order to bother Marc. The pretense has gone on long enough, and
we can all get back to Snuff Pappy and Eat Moe Pork now.
By the way, while we're on a similar subject, all you 'foreign' people
can stop pretending to speak foreign languages now. The joke has gone on
long enough, and we can get back to unimpeded conversation in English
now, without all these made-up words and that wacky syntax. My heartfelt
congratulations to all who managed to keep the hoax going, especially
the 'French' ones, who had one of the hardest jobs, keeping their
stories straight.
Marc Vere' Anthony
wrote:
> Okay, guys, admit that you're just pretending to like this 'classical'
> stuff in order to bother Marc.
Enough of that Kip, What have you been smoking?
-Marc
Kip Williams
Merely intoxicated with the heady ideas in the post I was responding to,
man. Uh, spare change?
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
peace, love, and thematic development
Marc Vere' Anthony
wrote:
> Uh, spare change?
Yeah, how about you?
:-P
-Marc Vere'
jerry and judy
(ATETHIS) wrote:
> >In other words - let's try not to realize how hideous this pop stuff
> >truly is - let's like make the scene with the hoi polloi and try not to
> >think about it. war is peace! freedom is slavery! drivel is music!
> >
> > - CMC
>
> I think that there are two sides to Pop music. One side that wants to make a
> "sound" to sell to the masses in order to make money for the record
companies.
> The other side is the more sincere "artist" who is trying to create something
> of "meaning."
>
> I myself have tried to get more in tune with Pop music this last year and a
> half and have found that I was only fooling myself. I really like
classical no
> matter what it's "status" is. (status meaning popularity or whether it is on
> the rise or decline)
>
> Fred
>
> Most People Aren't Famous
Heh heh I tried too, Fred. With not much luck. It seems it's either
male 'monotone' anger and rage, or it's female 'yodeling' to try to feign
an emotional depth. It just doesn't convince me (of anything). And the
talent necessary for such a limited dimension of projection is meager. It
might strike a chord with a thirteen year old male and female
respectively, but what does it point to, in the area of musical
appreciation for these kids, into the future? The Beatles pointed to the
acceptance of more sophisticated melodies, technological gimmicks and
socially relevant pieces, but today's trends are a dead end for maturing
music buyers, as was techno and glitter rock.
Jerry
Michael Subotin
> <...> abstain from practicing ignorance.
Oh, come on! *Everyone's* doing it and omniscience is so damned boring.
May one at least practice Socratic irony?
Michael
--
mvsst3+@pitt{DOT}edu Replace {DOT} with a dot
ATETHIS
>> half and have found that I was only fooling myself. I really like
>classical
>> no
>> matter what it's "status" is. (status meaning popularity or whether it is
>on
>> the rise or decline)
What I ment by this statement was: I was a 33 year old single male and trying
to get on the same level as younger women in my area because young women are
usually either have a child, are off to the university (outside the area) or
are married by the time they are 22. I find that now being almost 35 years
old, that I am a 35 year old man who likes classical music and I should not try
to guess the likes of 22 year old women in order to be with the "in" crowd and
like pop just so I can go to bed with them.
I lived quite an unusual life. Certainly interesting and most probably the
road less traveled.
Steven Forrest
>Marc Vere' Anthony ordaineth:
>
>> <...> abstain from practicing ignorance.
>
>Oh, come on! *Everyone's* doing it and omniscience is so damned boring.
Yeah, besides, if you don't practice ignorance
you'll never be any good at it!
-Steve
Marc Vere' Anthony
<ate...@aol.com> wrote:
> What I ment by this statement was: I was a 33 year old single male and trying
> to get on the same level as younger women in my area because young women are
> usually either have a child, are off to the university (outside the area) or
> are married by the time they are 22. I find that now being almost 35 years
> old, that I am a 35 year old man who likes classical music and I should not
> try
> to guess the likes of 22 year old women in order to be with the "in" crowd and
> like pop just so I can go to bed with them.
That's completely understandable. I'm 21, yet I've always found it
extremely hard to understand the trends that most of my age group are
into. I guess I was born a generation too late. :P
-Marc Vere'
jerry and judy
<only...@usenet.com> wrote:
> In article <jerbidoc-311...@lc0672.zianet.com>, jerry and
> judy <jerb...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> > but today's trends are a dead end for maturing
> > music buyers, as was techno and glitter rock.
>
> Techno stinks.
>
> Trendy music is usually a bore.
>
> Much of what is out there right now is fairly pathetic. That doesn't
> mean talent doesn't still exist, you've just got to look for it and
> abstain from practicing ignorance.
>
> -Marc Vere'
Concerning your estimation of ignorant behavior, is it really so ignorant to
want guidance concerning what is 'worthwhile'?
You say that you've been 21 times around our Sun, at this point -are you
even slightly aware of how fast your coming life will slip away??
The world of art is vast, but our discriminative abilities and our time,
are extremely limited.
I'm almost three times as old as you, and I hope that this is a helpful
glimpse of what I've learned the hard way.
It has been my premise for a long time that we need to be taught (by rote)
a hierarchy of value in the arts, so that we can taste a little of its
treasure, whether we appreciate 'it' immediately or not!
Jerry
Jeff Alan Lamy
> I think that there are two sides to Pop music. One side that wants to make a
> "sound" to sell to the masses in order to make money for the record companies.
> The other side is the more sincere "artist" who is trying to create something
> of "meaning."
> I myself have tried to get more in tune with Pop music this last year and a
> half and have found that I was only fooling myself. I really like classical no
> matter what it's "status" is. (status meaning popularity or whether it is on
> the rise or decline)
> Fred
I'm not sure what your definition of pop music is, but i think if you put
enough effort into seeking out new non-classical music, you will
eventually find something you can enjoy. the amount of really interesting
modern non-classical music (rock, jazz, industrial, ambient, techno, etc)
is limitless, imo. however if i were to listen to fm radio and mtv all
day, i would agree that pop music is a waste of time.
jeff.
Richard Schultz
: For the record, two great artists raised in the
: classical tradition were Neil Sedaka ("Oh, Carol!") and Sir Elton John.
No comment on Neil Sedaka. At least no comment that is publishable
in a family newsgroup. I haven't exactly been following this thread,
but does the recent full page ad in The New Yorker for Sir Elton's
"Aida" have anything to do with it?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Robert Raschhofer
Now, if one considers "pop" music as "popular" music then a lot of what the
three tenors are singing is pure "pop" music.
The other method is to consider almost everything, which is not classical music
to be pop (like Jeff said - rock, jazz, industrial, ambien, ...).
But is really jazz=pop? Can jazz, with (in many cases) complex harmonies, not simple
structure, often based on "difficult" melodies really be considered pop music?
Or if one takes ethnic music. These are often not very complex but by no means
easy to listen to.
In the end it all leads to the question: How do you define pop music?
In my opinion pop music is music, which has a relatively simple structure,
simple melodies, and is "easy" listening (I do not know how to define that).
This does not mean that it's better or worse than other music - it is just
different - and it should be seen that way and accepted as such!
Robert
Jeff Alan Lamy wrote:
--
::-------------------------------------------------::
Robert Jon Raschhofer
RIIC - Research Institute for Integrated Circuits
Altenberger Str. 69, A-4040 Linz, Austria
Tel.:+43 732 2468 7118
Fax :+43 732 2468 7126
email: rasch...@riic.at
::------------------------------------------------::
Jeff Alan Lamy
<snip>
> But is really jazz=pop? Can jazz, with (in many cases) complex harmonies, not simple
> structure, often based on "difficult" melodies really be considered pop music?
> Or if one takes ethnic music. These are often not very complex but by no means
> easy to listen to.
I would agree that a lot of jazz probably is not pop music. For
convenience I have considered all non-classical music to be pop music
since the original poster appeared to only be a listener of classical
music (nothing wrong with that).
> In the end it all leads to the question: How do you define pop music?
> In my opinion pop music is music, which has a relatively simple structure,
> simple melodies, and is "easy" listening (I do not know how to define that).
> This does not mean that it's better or worse than other music - it is just
> different - and it should be seen that way and accepted as such!
Sounds like a good definition. The "easy" listening part i'm not so sure
about, and would be hard to be objective about. For me, easy listening has
a connotation of monotonity and lack of depth, and is generally an insult.
Also, I think it is important to consider that many other genres of music,
while they might be simple in a musical sense, can be extraordinally
complex sonically. I'm thinking of electronic music mostly. The enjoyment
can come from complexity & ingenuity of the sounds themselves, rather than
the musical structure & melodies. Anyway, that is another topic. THe main
point, is that you have to change your mindset and expectations when
listening to other types of music to be able to enjoy them.
jeff.
Nicolai P. Zwar
> The easy listening crowd
> can't see what's good in today's music because they don't spend one square
> minute trying to find it.
Isn't it interesting how often people like US (the ones with our
preferences) always know what's good and people like THEM (the ones with
other preferences) don't know what's good, and so they have to like
something of lesser value, until someone comes along and enables them to
see.
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
I am made out of water. You wouldn't know it, because I have it bound
in. My friends are made out of water, too. All of them. The problem for
us is that not only do we have to walk around without being absorbed by
the ground but we also have to earn our livings.
(Jack Isidore of Seville, Calif.)
jerry and judy
<jal...@fn3.freenet.tlh.fl.us> wrote:
> ATETHIS <ate...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I think that there are two sides to Pop music. One side that wants
to make a
> > "sound" to sell to the masses in order to make money for the record
companies.
> > The other side is the more sincere "artist" who is trying to create
something
> > of "meaning."
>
> > I myself have tried to get more in tune with Pop music this last year and a
> > half and have found that I was only fooling myself. I really like
classical no
> > matter what it's "status" is. (status meaning popularity or whether
it is on
> > the rise or decline)
>
> > Fred
>
> I'm not sure what your definition of pop music is, but i think if you put
> enough effort into seeking out new non-classical music, you will
> eventually find something you can enjoy.
That's hardly a foregone conclusion. Music (art) doesn't subscribe that
way. Pop music in whatever form you think is pertinent and new, I can
advise you, that it's not! This is just a fact of human life and
experience. I'm no more erudite than anyone else my age, but if you study
all kinds of music for many many decades, you'll start to eventually see
what I'll call the 'human cycle' pattern. And I'm not saying that it's
not interesting! Beethoven and Schoenberg broke the cycle for more and
less of a fruitfulness, but OTHERWISE there hasn't been anything really
new and significant under the diatonic sun.
Pop music is one of the few artforms that relies heavily upon the short
'logical' and temporal 'awareness' of its target audience.
>the amount of really interesting
> modern non-classical music (rock, jazz, industrial, ambient, techno, etc)
> is limitless, imo.
Limitless?, maybe in strict arithmetic terms, but not in artistic
(categorical etc.) generalities. And if they cannot be even 'generally'
new, then what should a mature person derive from them?
> however if i were to listen to fm radio and mtv all
> day, i would agree that pop music is a waste of time.
Now you're getting a glimpse of the larger problem.
Correction, it's not a problem, (I'm so old and judgmental) it's just the
way things authentically are!! Revel in the way things are!!
Thanks jeff,
Jerry
> jeff.
jerry and judy
> L'Crowe wrote:
>
> > The easy listening crowd
> > can't see what's good in today's music because they don't spend one square
> > minute trying to find it.
>
> Isn't it interesting how often people like US (the ones with our
> preferences) always know what's good and people like THEM (the ones with
> other preferences) don't know what's good, and so they have to like
> something of lesser value, until someone comes along and enables them to
> see.
What a cheap shot! It's not like that at all! Are you writing a weekly
comic strip? or the like?? Don't waste our time!
Most anyone who wants to devote a few decades of their life to what most
'modern' persons would consider an unproductive pursuit, can truly and
deeply understand aesthetics, ask the students that have been compelled to
do it! Does your imperfect conception of this discipline mean that it
should never have been formulated?? What nonsense!!
'Nothing personal, Nicolai, you were just in the line of fire today,
Jerry
Nicolai P. Zwar
> In article <38248115...@aol.com>, Nicola...@pironet.de wrote:
>
> > L'Crowe wrote:
> >
> > > The easy listening crowd
> > > can't see what's good in today's music because they don't spend one square
> > > minute trying to find it.
> >
> > Isn't it interesting how often people like US (the ones with our
> > preferences) always know what's good and people like THEM (the ones with
> > other preferences) don't know what's good, and so they have to like
> > something of lesser value, until someone comes along and enables them to
> > see.
>
> What a cheap shot! It's not like that at all! Are you writing a weekly
> comic strip? or the like??
Woah! Bull's eye, Jerry, I used to write a daily one. However, I did not
want to make a cheap shot at L'Crowe's post, which raised some valid
points. I'm simply always questioning and cautioning when the
"absolutes" of good and bad in music are established in what seems like
a patronizing manner, that's all. Nothing to get all excited about.
> Don't waste our time!
It seems rec.music.classical has gotten a new spokesperson in my
absence. I don't know... do you consider answering you now a waste of
time? Calm down, Jerry, relax, I'm not on "their" side.
> Most anyone who wants to devote a few decades of their life to what most
> 'modern' persons would consider an unproductive pursuit, can truly and
> deeply understand aesthetics, ask the students that have been compelled to
> do it! Does your imperfect conception of this discipline mean that it
> should never have been formulated?? What nonsense!!
Say that again? I would be the first person in line to state that a
serious pursuit of music and musical understanding is a worthwhile past
time that will broaden your horizon and lead you to develop a taste and
appreciation for the "classics" of the past and present. No pop song can
effect you as profoundly as a Beethoven symphony or startle you like a
serial composition by Schönberg or sweep you away like the melodies of
Ravel or stir your senses like the music of Wagner. I am merely stating
that this is not what pop music is about, just like reading a four
picture comic strip cannot hope to indulge you like a drama by
Shakespeare or a novel by Thomas Mann. It's not what it is about. But if
what if you're simply looking for a little smile in the morning, do you
turn to "Peanuts" or to "Death In Venice"?
A pop song is "easy", direct, short, and not too deep, otherwise it
would not be so popular. I am just saying that those are not always bad
qualities, just like licorice is not bad by default. If it is your only
diet, you'll never know the pleasure of a real meal, but you hardly get
people to eat right by telling them how much smarter you are for doing
so already. The headline of this thread "pop music is equal to
classical?" is already as nonsensical as "filet mignon equal to
bubblegum?". They are aiming at different pleasures and levels of
gratification, but there is bad filet mignon and good
bubblegum in this world.
By which criteria do you judge what is "good"?
When you compare and judge classical music and pop music by the criteria
important in classical music, of course classical music "wins". It's
just that those criteria are not the only ones valid in the world and if
you apply other criteria you'll get a different result. If you are
evaluating Schönberg's "Verklärte Nacht" on the basis of, say, how good
one can dance to it, you would have to admit that it'll compare
unfavorably to many pop songs. If you are evaluating Stravinsky's "Le
Sacre du printemps" on the basis of its suitability for a romantic
candlelight dinner, it looks pretty meager, don't you think? How would
you like to go up and down in elevators all day listening to Bartok's
"The Miraculous Mandarin"? (Actually, I kinda like that last idea, but
it's not for the claustrophobic.) So perhaps the "easy listening crowd"
is simply looking for different things in music at different times. A
quick emotional fix here, a snappy melody with a toe tapping beat there,
that's perhaps enough for many, and what accmoplishes this better, a
song by Madonna or a composition by Boulez?
The patronizing and smug attitude often displayed by classical music
lovers towards any kind of "easy and popular" music and especially
towards its devotees is highly suspect to me, and seems a much stronger
deterrent for newcomers to sample a taste of the classical repertoire
than the difficulties of the music itself (which are easily overcome if
you're really interested in the music). The difference between "pop"
music and "classical" music has less to do with what is "good" music and
"bad" music per se (there is both "good" and "bad" music to be found in
either category), but rather with what the music itself is actually
trying to accomplish and how well it reaches those goals.
Finally, I have to say that no music scares me personally more than most
of what is usually found in the "easy listening" sections of the record
stores, I just try to not get a superiority complex because of it.
> 'Nothing personal, Nicolai, you were just in the line of fire today,
> Jerry
It seems this group has remained as prickly as I remembered it. Not
personally taken, Jerry. I usually enjoy your posts.
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
send spam to: NPZ...@aol.com
send e-mail to: nicola...@pironet.de
Kip Williams
enter into the equation. I prefer classical music more of the time
because it gives me a better grade of what acid users expressively call
"body rushes." That zing in the spine: some pieces in other genres have
it as well, but not with the same consistency as classical.
Maybe complexity is a part of this, but it's really one of many options,
and the best thing about classical (especially today) is how many of
these options it embraces.
In theory, pop has all these options open to it, but routinely uses
fewer. In using fewer changes in dynamics, it's more radio-friendly,
requiring less work at the station to keep things at a suitable level
for ease of transmission, for instance.
Nicolai P. Zwar
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. Especially about the zing
in the spine.