Julian Lloyd Webber on contemporary classsical music...
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> I just read an interesting article from last February concerning Julian
> Lloyd Webber's views on contemporary classical music. Actually, the
> article was a link from that NewKlassical web site.
And Charles Rosen, hardly a font of the new, successfully took him apart
in the New York Review of Books ("Who's Afraid of the Avant-Garde?", May
14, 1998, http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/content980514.html).
I have an extended exchange in frustration with a group called The
Churchill Society about new music in which they use JLW's essay as a
kind of starting point. The exchange will be posted on my website within
the month.
Dennis
--
Dennis Báthory-Kitsz
Malted/Media: http://www.maltedmedia.com/
The Middle-Aged Hiker: http://www.maltedmedia.com/books/mah/
Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar: http://www.maltedmedia.com/kalvos/
Carl Jackson
Lloyd Webber's views on contemporary classical music. Actually, the
article was a link from that NewKlassical web site.
For all of Webber's spouting off, I think he simply needs a bit of Bach for
solo cello and a good lay.
I've included the URL for the article and wish to hear views from you
guys -- especially from the more "senior" composers.
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/98/02/02/timnwsnws03008.html?22135
08
Carl
Dr.Matt
JLW's notion---that composers are responsible for much of
anything---would be quite funny if it weren't so sad and taken so
seriously by the media. The timing is interesting, I'd have to say
that he's trying actively to support government moves to end music
education. France takes its music--including its 'avant garde'--to
heart as a serious part of its national pride, and does darned well.
But I guess having suffered such anti-melodists (see the newspapers
of the times) as Berlioz and Debussy, France is prepared to absorb
any shock!
--
Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
http://e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/wpoison/wpoison.cgi dns-...@BELLGLOBAL.COM k...@NETSCAPE.COM king...@MYHOST.COM hostm...@THENERVE.COM ro...@IHERMES.COM co...@TELEGRAPH.NET
"Product. [...] Misbegotten populism in the grips of a corporate mindfuck."
--Jeff Harrington on the "popular==good" meme
David Cleary
: I have an extended exchange in frustration with a group called The
: Churchill Society about new music in which they use JLW's essay as a
: kind of starting point. The exchange will be posted on my website within
: the month.
The Churchill Society? One wonders if their side of the exchange included,
"We will fight sterile academicism in the performance lofts, in the
concert spaces, in the recital halls--to quell the blood, sweat, and tears
generated by this heinous sterile algebra."
While chomping on a big cigar, of course...... ;)
Dave
Jeff Harrington
: oops...I don't think that URL was correct -- here's the correct one:
Here's a better link to it:
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/98/02/02/timnwsnws03008.html?2213508
This is basically about the end of government support for serious art.
My wife and I were talking a few weeks ago and we came to the conclusion
that what's going on is basically that the young people have won. We won
in the 60's and 70's. Rock music won and a corporate body politic of 20
something suits was going to control culture from now on.
Look at what we have now... constant... cartoons and loud rock music.
Ubiquitous. We've won! If I'd been told in 1974 that everywhere I'd look
in NYC there'd be pics of underwear models, pounding rock music,
psychedelic cartoons... I would've laughed out loud. We were fighting Ed
Sullivan, Pat Boone. They were the enemies and we won! This (them)
imaginary future of high intensity video culture would be exhilirating!
We won. And now we control everything. We control the beat. We control
the movies. And we do it with lots of money.
And now the little corners of deeply human and serious and wonderful art
that are left are being assaulted. If it doesn't sell, (read if it ain't
popular statistically to a significant proportion of us) then it must not
be supported.
Let there be no trace of anything but Eric Clapton and Homer Simpson!
All must be erased!
We won!
Jeff Harrington [ Mercurealities for Flute, Viola, Cello 15 Minute MPEG ]
je...@parnasse.com [ of Premiere http://www.parnasse.com/mercurealities.mp2]
http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm --------->>[[ My Music ]]<<--------------]
http://www.parnasse.com/vrml.shtml ------->>[[ My Worlds ]]<<-------------]
Dr.Matt
Baaahhhh! Pop hit good, art music baaaaad! Baaaaaaaah!
Jeff Harrington
: In article <6qs7c6$57k$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
: Baaahhhh! Pop hit good, art music baaaaad! Baaaaaaaah!
Not quite Dr. Matt!
Money good! No money bad!
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> The Churchill Society? One wonders if their side of the exchange included,
> "We will fight sterile academicism in the performance lofts, in the
> concert spaces, in the recital halls--to quell the blood, sweat, and tears
> generated by this heinous sterile algebra."
And you think you're kidding! Sample quotes from their emails:
"The committee members hold that these views have come into being as a
consequence of the cloning type teaching theorems of certain academics
in University Music Departments and Music Colleges."
Regarding my own compositions:
"Bathory type 'music' is now so far removed from the origin of all music
- the human voice with its marvellous ability to express emotions -
later to be supported by hand-made, expressively played musical
instruments - that it is not music - it is sound effects - one person
likening it to the sounds heard in the London Underground system when
the trains were echoeing through the tunnels and buskers playing far
away."
And, of course, this note:
"The very raison dšetre of the societyšs Music Department - is the
re-establishment of GOOD MUSIC regardless of genre, but constructed on
rational principles."
You were saying?
As ever,
Dr.Matt
Has there *ever* been a music constructed on rational principles?
Would such a thing be good?
Gordon Neal Herman
Jeff Harrington wrote:
> And now the little corners of deeply human and serious and wonderful art
> that are left are being assaulted. If it doesn't sell, (read if it ain't
> popular statistically to a significant proportion of us) then it must not
> be supported.
>
> Let there be no trace of anything but Eric Clapton and Homer Simpson!
>
> All must be erased!
>
> We won!
On Monday, there was an article on NPR's All Things Considered about Cobb (?)
county in Georgia (?) which had become famous 5 years ago for passing a resolution
condeming Homosexuality. At the same time, they voted to cut all funding of the
arts as a way of "protecting family values". The NPR article was a 5 year follow
up and they were interviewing people abou the effects of cutting funding for the
arts on the local art scene.
One council member basically said that if art cannot support itself in the open
market what right should it have to lay claim to the public money. After all,
country and western and acid rock were making money and didn't need government
support so why should the other forms of art.
Acid rock as family values because it makes money. Hmm.
GNH
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> Has there *ever* been a music constructed on rational principles?
> Would such a thing be good?
Engage them in a little debate. They're certain of it and will use lots
of capital letters to make you certain of it too! Plus, don't miss the
really great march they have posted as an example...
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/
Kalv
D.G. Porter
Someone I know who lived in Gerogia said that the trouble with Georgians
is that the human genes got mixed up with pig genes somewhere. Well,
they did vote for Newty....
D.G. Porter
> My wife and I were talking a few weeks ago and we came to the conclusion
> that what's going on is basically that the young people have won. We won
> in the 60's and 70's.
>
> We won!
This is old news. Bill Griffith observed decades back (in one of his
comic conversations with Louie the Toad) that, "With its victory over
tradition, the avant garde has ceased to exist!"
D.G. Porter
>
> I just read an interesting article from last February concerning Julian
> Lloyd Webber's views on contemporary classical music. Actually, the
> article was a link from that NewKlassical web site.
Yep, this was discussed back then here & elsewhere.
> For all of Webber's spouting off, I think he simply needs a bit of Bach for
> solo cello and a good lay.
What was the line of Robin Williams' character in "Good Morning,
Vietnam!"? "I never met a man who needed a blowjob more than you do!"
> I've included the URL for the article and wish to hear views from you
> guys -- especially from the more "senior" composers.
Tell ya what -- in the future, if I need to hear an asshole spewing
fart, shit & diarrhea (a la JLW), I'll swallow a bottle of olive oil and
turn my tape deck on "record" for future use!!
For the rest of you, here it is!
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/98/02/02/timnwsnws03008.html?22135
> 08
>
> Carl
D.G. Porter
>
> Has there *ever* been a music constructed on rational principles?
> Would such a thing be good?
I think Ives was thinking of this when he wrote a little parody in 1909
[all this is his own words]:
Nice little easy sugar plum sounds
For the soft ears velvet satin pocket books.
Nice little easy sugar plum sounds
For the soft ears velvet pocket books!
Nice pretty Dachy perfumed sounds [What the hell is
For the Dress Circle Cushion Chain Ears. "Dachy"???]
Nice pretty Dachy perfumed sounds
For the opera boxes Cushion Chain Ears!
Nice Sweety silk bonnet Melodies!
Nice sweety Jelly cake Hamonies!
Rinky Dinky Dinky Dinky Rhymick fleas!
OH VER and O ver and [repeat 48 or 64 times]
A GAIN! [repeat 998 times]
After Herr Hans Kuckle Hegrsky finished the sugar plum Symphony, then
Mrs. van Smiths or Patron says to Herr Conductor = "You played that
beauty ful music beautifully -- Here is $850000 for your next silk dress
for the Next Concert!"
This work of Art composed after hearing the Famous Kneisel Quartet
playing for the 999th time the Famous Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta Ta S.Q. for Nice
German Blackboard Rule.
Prof Hans Beer in heine Roausch & Dr. Wally Damn Rots Music Dock.
Timothy Kendall
> [...] what's going on is basically that the young people have won. We won
> in the 60's and 70's. [...]
>
> We won. And now we control everything. We control the beat. We control
> the movies. And we do it with lots of money.
>
> And now the little corners of deeply human and serious and wonderful art
> that are left are being assaulted. If it doesn't sell, (read if it ain't
> popular statistically to a significant proportion of us) then it must not
> be supported.
>
> Let there be no trace of anything but Eric Clapton and Homer Simpson!
>
> All must be erased!
>
> We won!
Whaddya mean "we", paleface?
Sorry, some of us just can't be lumped in with this. I was "young" back
in them thar sixties, and I remember well when the Beatles hit these
shores.
They sucked.
They really, REALLY sucked. They continued to suck. They never did
anything BUT suck. Paul McCartney (as a "composer") sucks to this day.
And they weren't alone. The Dave Clark Five (remember them?) sucked.
The Rolling Stones sucked. The Doors sucked. The Who sucked. Bob
Dylan sucked even more than most. Before all these, Elvis sucked and
Chuck Berry sucked, and they weren't alone in their day, either.
Jefferson-Whatever and especially Steppenwolf sucked. The Grateful Dead
sucked a bit less than most, but still sucked. A bit later, Springsteen
came along and sucked. The entirety of Punk sucked. I've just gotten
started and this list is already out of hand, so I'll just end it
arbitrarily, stipulating that it's an open-ended list...there were and
are a LOT more of these clowns who Just. Plain. Sucked.
But there were little hidden pockets of "young people" sparsely
scattered throughout the land, who knew all this suckery for what it was
all along. They didn't have a great time of it, except when they could
huddle together with the few like-minded souls they could find. In
those days, there was NO outcast like a high-school kid who was into
"classical" music, even as a newcomer to the whole world of it. Anyone
who was SERIOUSLY into it (to the point, say, of recognizing that
Beethoven and Brahms were only two trees in a huge forest, or that
Chopin didn't invent the piano, or that people other than Bach had
composed for the organ) was damned-near public enemy number one.
Elitists. Snobs. And my favorite to this day, "Queers".
"We", though, were "young people" ANYWAY, however unwelcome we were
among among our "fellows". And believe me, none of us felt that this
"victory" was in any way ours. We could see it coming like the
Titanic's iceberg, but that didn't make it "ours".
Congratulations, Jeff, you've set me off again. Maybe I'll learn one
day, but as for now, I'm conveniently leaving on vacation and won't
(ha-ha!) see any of the flameage this is sure to elicit. Arsonists are
cordially invited to knock themselves out.
Timothy Kendall
John Sowalsky
Timothy Kendall wrote:
> Sorry, some of us just can't be lumped in with this. I was "young" back
> in them thar sixties, and I remember well when the Beatles hit these
> shores.
>
> They sucked.
>
> They really, REALLY sucked. They continued to suck. They never did
> anything BUT suck. Paul McCartney (as a "composer") sucks to this day.
>
> And they weren't alone. The Dave Clark Five (remember them?) sucked.
> The Rolling Stones sucked. The Doors sucked. The Who sucked. Bob
> Dylan sucked even more than most. Before all these, Elvis sucked and
> Chuck Berry sucked, and they weren't alone in their day, either.
> Jefferson-Whatever and especially Steppenwolf sucked. The Grateful Dead
> sucked a bit less than most, but still sucked. A bit later, Springsteen
> came along and sucked. The entirety of Punk sucked. I've just gotten
> started and this list is already out of hand, so I'll just end it
> arbitrarily, stipulating that it's an open-ended list...there were and
> are a LOT more of these clowns who Just. Plain. Sucked.
That's Just. Your. Opinion. You are certainly entitled to it, but your tone
suggests that it should serve as the one and only true gospel. That's a shame.
For raw, gutteral power, nothing to my mind can match the end of The Who's
"Won't Get Fooled Again." To claim that Bob Dylan sucked is downright ludicrous.
No orchestra has ever rocked out. No orchestra ever will. Now, maybe you don't
ever like to rock out yourself, but some of us do. Please don't tell us that
we're stupid just because we don't want to be serious 100% of the time.
Laughter, joy, simplicity, and light entertainment all have their place. No one
can furrow their brow 24 hours a day. I try to appreciate as wide a range as I
possibly can, and when I *don't* like a type of music, I tend to listen even
more carefully, at least until I gain a deep, very specific understanding of why
I don't like it.
I don't know why common sense seems so uncommon. Just because a piece of music
is popular does not *automatically* make it good or bad. I myself try to
separate the aesthetic merits of a piece of music from any marketplace
considerations. This is not uncommon, at least by analogy. We often dismiss the
personal conduct of artists by reason of their accomplishments (i.e., Wagner,
Dali, Woody Allen, et al.) I don't care about the marketplace, I care about the
music. I'm sure a lot of what I listen to would make you cringe. No doubt in my
mind. But the attitude you project here just seems to be a thinly-disguised
variation of that old elitist mentality which denigrates all music not ordained
by its own self-appointed authority. Such a viewpoint would have no trouble
dismissing any form of folk music as the simplistic prattlings of ignorant
peasants.
Having said that, I would agree that certain "musical worlds" are best left
apart from one another. (That's just my opinion.) I am no fan of Paul
McCartney's "classical" work, not by any means. Nor is McCartney even one of my
favorite rock artists (although I don't loathe him the way some people seem to.)
Live and let live! By the same token, I feel that when orchestras attempt to
sound more "hip" by incorporating elements of rock, it usually just sounds silly
and awkward.
In short, if it's not your cuppa joe, fine... just don't tell me I'm wrong for
enjoying it, because I am not! And NO argument will ever change that.
--
John Sowalsky
(Remove NO and SPAM from the address above to correspond via e-mail)
Nicholas J Delonas
>To claim that Bob Dylan sucked is downright ludicrous.
Kendall's whole post was moronic, but it was obviously troll bait. Nothing
more.
--------
Nick Delonas
Cult V
http://www.cultv.com
John Ladasky
Timothy Kendall <tken...@cnri.reston.va.us> wrote:
>Jeff Harrington wrote:
>> [...] what's going on is basically that the young people have won. We won
>> in the 60's and 70's. [...]
>>
>> We won. And now we control everything. We control the beat. We control
>> the movies. And we do it with lots of money.
[snip]
>Whaddya mean "we", paleface?
>
>Sorry, some of us just can't be lumped in with this. I was "young" back
>in them thar sixties, and I remember well when the Beatles hit these
>shores.
>
>They sucked.
[snip]
>...there were and
>are a LOT more of these clowns who Just. Plain. Sucked.
>
>But there were little hidden pockets of "young people" sparsely
>scattered throughout the land, who knew all this suckery for what it was
>all along. They didn't have a great time of it, except when they could
>huddle together with the few like-minded souls they could find. In
>those days, there was NO outcast like a high-school kid who was into
>"classical" music, even as a newcomer to the whole world of it.
This was still true in 1981, when I was a junior-high student,
fresh back from a year of living in Algeria, with extensive exposure to
"high culture" as a consequence of several visits to Europe. One year
of relief from American television, and you know? I've *never* gone back
to watching it. I can honestly say that I watch less than 10 minutes
per week. I was already into classical music, had been since young. I
really enjoyed 19th-century Russian composers, and the late-tonal French
guys (Saent-Saens, Debussy, Satie). A weird musical diet for a kid.
Coming back to the U.S. after having visited the Louvre, and having
chucked my TV habit, I was the emobdiment of the isolated young intel-
lectual, deeply in love with his classical music.
>Anyone
>who was SERIOUSLY into it (to the point, say, of recognizing that
>Beethoven and Brahms were only two trees in a huge forest, or that
>Chopin didn't invent the piano, or that people other than Bach had
>composed for the organ) was damned-near public enemy number one.
>Elitists. Snobs. And my favorite to this day, "Queers".
Yep. I got all of these taunts, too. And I got quite defensive
about it, and I didn't like *any* rock-n-roll, and I was proud of that.
So the things you're saying in this post sound an awful lot like the
things that I was saying when I was thirteen.
Guess what? I grew up.
A friend introduced me to prog-rock. I listened. I heard *some-
thing more interesting* than a mind-numbing 4/4 beat at 120 beats per
minute, designed for no other purpose than to lubricate the pubescent
dance crowd. So I listened some more. And I outgrew some of the prog-
rock stuff, and I held on to some of it. I heard musical merit in some
of the compositions in other rock sub-genres. The process goes on. New
music comes my way, and I listen to it. *Old* popular music from people
who were once phenomena occasionally catches my ear, too. If you're
worried about appearing to be a slave to fashion, wait until the hype
has died down. I've just started listening to Nirvana. Some of it is
interesting.
Listen critically. Don't listen with the mindset of a rejected
adolescent. You don't need to prove you're better than they are by dis-
liking *everything* that they liked.
BTW, do you feel the same way about jazz? Most adolescents have
no opinion about jazz at all.
[snip]
>Congratulations, Jeff, you've set me off again. Maybe I'll learn one
>day, but as for now, I'm conveniently leaving on vacation and won't
>(ha-ha!) see any of the flameage this is sure to elicit. Arsonists are
>cordially invited to knock themselves out.
I think I've managed to pour a few gallons of gas on this fire.
You're welcome to read this response when you return from your vacation.
Have a nice time.
>Timothy Kendall
--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw. - John Ladasky
Tore Lund
>
> Whaddya mean "we", paleface?
>
> Sorry, some of us just can't be lumped in with this. I was "young" back
> in them thar sixties, and I remember well when the Beatles hit these
> shores.
>
> They sucked.
>
> anything BUT suck. Paul McCartney (as a "composer") sucks to this day.
>
> And they weren't alone. The Dave Clark Five (remember them?) sucked.
> The Rolling Stones sucked. The Doors sucked. The Who sucked. Bob
> Dylan sucked even more than most. Before all these, Elvis sucked and
> Chuck Berry sucked, and they weren't alone in their day, either.
> Jefferson-Whatever and especially Steppenwolf sucked. The Grateful Dead
> sucked a bit less than most, but still sucked. A bit later, Springsteen
> came along and sucked. The entirety of Punk sucked. I've just gotten
> started and this list is already out of hand, so I'll just end it
> are a LOT more of these clowns who Just. Plain. Sucked.
Which is to say that everyone who tried to express their own time in the
idiom of their own time, and who even did a lot to develop that idiom,
they were all suckers. Whereas the youngsters who wisely sticked to the
tested music of their forefathers were the only mature people around.
Didn't Plato say something to the same effect about the music of his
time? Or was that Moses? Both, I guess.
I admit that I am seriously tempted to take this on face value. It's
just that by pitting one half-truth against another half-truth one can
indeed make any stand seem true or false at will, and this is the only
point proved by this piece of flame-bait.
Too bad you have left on vacation, Tim. Otherwise, this could have
become quite an interesting dialog...
--
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no>
John Perkins
John Sowalsky wrote in message <35D1E8FF...@erols.com>...
>But the attitude you project here just seems to be a thinly-disguised
>variation of that old elitist mentality which denigrates all music not
ordained
>by its own self-appointed authority. Such a viewpoint would have no trouble
>dismissing any form of folk music as the simplistic prattlings of ignorant
>peasants.
I agree with John S.
Timothy should consider Hungarian folk music. If it had not captured the
imagination of Bartok, we wouldn't even have Bartok's music as it exists
today. And he's just one example, there are numerous composers who have
utilized or been influenced by different forms of "folk" music. Just because
some music isn't so-called "high art" doesn't mean that such music has no
worth or merit. And who is to say that someone who is introduced to music
via _today's_ popular music might not become the next Bartok-like figure?
Personally, I don't like rock music very much myself, although I did when I
was younger. Yet, my personal preference doesn't blind me to the fact that
every type of music has a unique value and reason for existing.
Best regards,
John P.
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt
I've been *accused* of embracing various versions of these
elitisms. At all times, I've simply opted to concentrate *my* life on
the music I find that is the best match for me. So far, this has not
led me towards rock, and it just happens that many trendy kinds of
music---pop, David Lang, etc... ---just don't interest me. For not
writing down to an allegedly infantile audience, I've been accused of
trying to prevent such an audience from accessing the music of their
choice, and I've been accused of being part of the cause that young
cellists playing Dvorak have such a hard time getting ahead in the
world.
Both accusations are malarky--the same malarky JLW and the Churchill
Foundation are spouting. Composers were never in such an all-powerful
position.
Within the last few years, I've been informed that my personal
aesthetics make me a communist, a fascist, a white supremacist, an
exotic offense to all that is white and good, a political hell-raiser,
and an apolitical colluder with the status quo.
What I really am is a composer.
I think tantrums like JLW's are part of a whole process of social
displacement. My grandmother has trouble dealing with the notion that
some women decide not to become full-time married mothers at exactly
21-1/2, and this is in part a natural end-effect of her own advocacy
in the 1920's. Whole generations of people imagine there's a higher
rate of teen pregnancy than ever before, when the real difference is
in reporting. Whole generations of people imagine there are more
homosexuals now than ever before, when what really has happened is
some minor gains in civil rights for homosexuals, enabling them to be
visible. Whole generations of people imagine first "The Jews are
taking over"---and then "The Blacks are taking over"---when all that
really has happened is baby steps towards a fairer society. The hunt
for a scapegoat for an imagined fall-from-grace is hardly a new thing,
and it's certainly not unique to music.
Matt
D.G. Porter
> Sorry, some of us just can't be lumped in with this. I was "young" back
> in them thar sixties, and I remember well when the Beatles hit these
> shores.
>
> They sucked.
>
> They really, REALLY sucked. They continued to suck. They never did
> anything BUT suck. Paul McCartney (as a "composer") sucks to this day.
>
> And they weren't alone.
I don't see Zappa's name in this list....
D.G. Porter
> To claim that Bob Dylan sucked is downright ludicrous.
He sucked big time in the mid-'70s. No brag, jest fact. I think he
died or something before this happened.
> No orchestra has ever rocked out. No orchestra ever will.
One will when it plays my rockabilly-inspired piece!
D.G. Porter
> Within the last few years, I've been informed that my personal
> aesthetics make me a communist, a fascist, a white supremacist, an
> exotic offense to all that is white and good, a political hell-raiser,
> and an apolitical colluder with the status quo.
I KNEW there was something I liked about you!
John Sowalsky
Dr.Matt wrote:
> Ummm, just an aside here, Rock and Roll is not folk music.
Agreed. I did not mean to imply such. I was only pointing out that the mentality expressed would devalue not just all rock music, but any form other than itself. Jazz could
just as easily be attacked along the same lines.
John Sowalsky
D.G. Porter wrote:
> He sucked big time in the mid-'70s. No brag, jest fact. I think he
> died or something before this happened.
No doubt. "Self Portrait" was notably pathetic. However, just a few
years later he put out "Blood On The Tracks," which has its charms. In
the mid-80s he said something to the effect that all the best songs had
already been written. I figure he was making reference to himself.
> > No orchestra has ever rocked out. No orchestra ever will.
>
> One will when it plays my rockabilly-inspired piece!
Go for it! Maybe you'll change my mind!
jpickard
> >
> > They sucked.
> >
> > They really, REALLY sucked. They continued to suck. They never did
> > anything BUT suck. Paul McCartney (as a "composer") sucks to this day.
> >
In your opinion they sucked. In my opinion they wrote some of the most
beautiful, witty and all around cool songs in history.
Julie
John Perkins
Dr.Matt wrote in message <6qsvhm$5n3$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
>Ummm, just an aside here, Rock and Roll is not folk music.
Did you understand what I meant even though I didn't use the term as it is
traditionally used?
-jp
Gordon Neal Herman
D.G. Porter wrote:
> John Sowalsky wrote:
> > To claim that Bob Dylan sucked is downright ludicrous.
>
> He sucked big time in the mid-'70s. No brag, jest fact. I think he
> died or something before this happened.
There was that Dead Dylan tour in 1988 (?)
GNH
Dave Baird
wrote:
>Ummm, just an aside here, Rock and Roll is not folk music.
I agree. However, don't you think that rock music now serves a similar
function to art music as did folk music in the past? That function is
the seminal influence on art music.
I can no more deny the influence of rock, blues, R&B and jazz on my
music than I can deny the influence of Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky,
Ives, Copland, Penderecki, Schoenberg. I imagine that, similarly,
Bartok could not deny the influence of Hungarian folk music on him.
--------------------------
David Olen Baird, Composer
Email: mailto:davb...@fileshop.com
Home Page: http://www.tfs.net/~davbaird/
John Sowalsky
Gordon Neal Herman wrote:
> There was that Dead Dylan tour in 1988 (?)
Funny you should say that, because the original poster had said something
to the effect that the Grateful Dead were slightly less abominable than
the rest of the lot. I thought that was kind of funny, and telling in way.
I would characterize the Grateful Dead as more of a cultural phenomenon
than a musical one. I always thought they were a pretty 2nd-rate band
myself. Poor vocals, endless improvistional meandering, agonizingly slow
tempos, bland rhythms, and tons of wrong notes. Just my opinion, though.
The point being, I wonder how many of those groups the original poster has
really taken the time to listen to?
John Sowalsky
Dr.Matt wrote:
> In article <6qsvf7$5jg$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
> Dr.Matt <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
> > Within the last few years, I've been informed that my personal
> >aesthetics make me a communist, a fascist, a white supremacist, an
> >exotic offense to all that is white and good, a political hell-raiser,
> >and an apolitical colluder with the status quo.
> Oh, I forgot a few: "deadhead", "squeakblat", "ivory tower theoretician",
> "anti-intellectual composer-type".
>
> Ah, yes. War is peace, Arbeit macht frei, and all that.
>
You must be doing something right. How dare you!
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
> Within the last few years, I've been informed that my personal
>aesthetics make me a communist, a fascist, a white supremacist, an
>exotic offense to all that is white and good, a political hell-raiser,
>and an apolitical colluder with the status quo.
Oh, I forgot a few: "deadhead", "squeakblat", "ivory tower theoretician",
"anti-intellectual composer-type".
Ah, yes. War is peace, Arbeit macht frei, and all that.
Gordon Neal Herman
John Sowalsky wrote:
> Gordon Neal Herman wrote:
>
> > There was that Dead Dylan tour in 1988 (?)
>
> Funny you should say that, because the original poster had said something
> to the effect that the Grateful Dead were slightly less abominable than
> the rest of the lot. I thought that was kind of funny, and telling in way.
> I would characterize the Grateful Dead as more of a cultural phenomenon
> than a musical one. I always thought they were a pretty 2nd-rate band
> myself. Poor vocals, endless improvistional meandering, agonizingly slow
> tempos, bland rhythms, and tons of wrong notes. Just my opinion, though.
I agree with your characterizing of the Dead. I have several friends who are
hard core dead heads who insisted that I had to hear the Dead. Between 1980
and 1988 I saw them three times. Each time I was in the appropriate condition
as it were and all three times were a waste. Garcia's aimless guitar lines
drove me crazy, and their attempt at vocal harmony was painful. But oh them
hippie girls dancin' in the summer sun almost made up for the musical nausea
that I experienced.
GNH
Howard Peirce
> Has there *ever* been a music constructed on rational principles?
> Would such a thing be good?
Back when I was in college, around '85, I attended a lecture/performance by one of the "new tonalists"--David Something-or-other, I forget. His music sounded kind of like
the 3rd movement of Berio's Sinfonia, but tamer, and not "borrowed" from Mahler. Anyway, this old guy, who happened to be a world-famous mathematician (I forget his name,
too, but he was Douglas Hofstadter's mentor) gets up and opines something like, "Finally, a return to rational music based on natural principles" or something ludicrous
like that.
The irony of it was, that one of the reasons for his fame in mathematics was his work in non-Euclidean geometries--the notion that one can construct self-contained,
internally consistent geometries, and that one was as good as another, that there was nothing inherently natural about Euclidean space. But the same guy simply couldn't
grasp that functional tonality is an artificial system, no more or less "natural" than serialism, or blues, or ragas, or whatever.
HP
John Sowalsky
> Ummm, just an aside here, Rock and Roll is not folk music.
As an afterthought, how would you categorize the music of someone like Bob Dylan? I myself am forced to split his output into at least two categories: folk and popular.
Several of his albums consist primarily of traditional folk songs, although the bulk of his output consists of rock. Likewise for a group such as The Byrds who, although
primarily known as a pop band, released a couple of albums which embraced a country music sensibility. I could go on and on with such examples. In fact, the more I think
about it, the harder it becomes to categorize various "pop" artists. Specific pieces are easier to categorize. This issue is confusing to me. Any pearls of wisdom out
there...?
Steve Chandler
>
>So why does art have a claim to public funds? Who says so?
>
>Funding implies control. If people are willing to support
>the arts out of their own checkbook, cool. Why make
>it a function of government?
I must like to live dangerously, but I'm going to actually attempt to answer
this obviously rhetorical question.
The historical precedent of government/church support for the arts going
back to the Middle Ages is obvious but not necessarily relevant in our time.
It does exist and has always existed. I think it is also obvious that
popular art, that is what sells, needs little support from the government.
In the USA there is a protection for free speech and there a few amoung us
who would abolish it. That does not imply that there should be support from
the government for speech, merely protection.
The only reason there should be government support for the arts is because
experience has taught us that left to our own devices the only art that will
survive without government support is that which appeals to the lowest
common denominator. You said it yourself that you'd hate to see NPR go away
for lack of government funding. As someone who has chaired a local arts
council we had no control over planning and implementation of events (except
those we sponsored) that was left to the organization and individuals who
applied for grants. We controlled only yay or nay and how much. Content,
performer, time, place, venue were all left to the grant applicants to
manage. Usually a healthy proportion was granted to schools (about half)
but the community at large got the rest.
I've said this before, the people who run arts councils are hard working
(albeit a touch altruistic) volunteers who do it because they love the arts
and want to help support them in the wider community.
The fact is without government support we wouldn't have art, only
commercials
>
>C&W and "acid rock" ( whatever that means ) are forms of commerce
>masquerading as/bumping into art. Kind of like calling McDonalds "food".
>On occassion, they can actually perform as art.
>
>I think you'll find them (C&W and rock) to be less flush with
>cash than you seem to think.
>
>>
>> Acid rock as family values because it makes money. Hmm.
>
>You're right about that part. Too bad basic logic is not
>taught in schools.
>
I've found fault with your logic, you spoke out of both sides of your mouth.
Keep NPR but don't support the arts. You can't have it both ways, because
it's not governments place to make the value judgements. And believe me the
local arts councils don't try beyond eliminating the obvious frauds and
trying to spread limited funds across the community in a way that's as fair
as they can.
That's my $.02 or as they say in Beantown, "Ya had to get me stahted!"
Steve Chandler
D.G. Porter
> Government subsidy of the arts is a bad idea.
> The result is compromised at best.
Not always. The NEA gave the Cleveland orchestra a big gran to fund the
production of the premiere of Ives' "Emerson Piano Concerto this
October. They didn't have a say in the content. And they'd have had to
argue the merits of this score with ME! (Let them TRY to argue my
bibliographic work and musicological sleuthing!)
Sometimes it does work the right way.
--DGP
D.G. Porter
McCartney still sucks. He especially sucked with "Someone's knockin' at
the doh, somebody's ringin' the bell, Do me a favor, Open the door & let
'em in, ooh yeah..."
Goddamn, I had to hear that song a bazillion times working at Tower...
D.G. Porter
>
> D.G. Porter wrote:
>
> > John Sowalsky wrote:
> > > To claim that Bob Dylan sucked is downright ludicrous.
> >
> > He sucked big time in the mid-'70s. No brag, jest fact. I think he
> > died or something before this happened.
>
Heh, I was referring to when Dylan got "born-again." You have to die
first, get it?
Tore Lund
>
> Dr.Matt wrote:
>
> > Ummm, just an aside here, Rock and Roll is not folk music.
>
> As an afterthought, how would you categorize the music of someone like Bob Dylan? I myself am forced to split his output into at least two categories: folk and popular.
> Several of his albums consist primarily of traditional folk songs, although the bulk of his output consists of rock. Likewise for a group such as The Byrds who, although
> primarily known as a pop band, released a couple of albums which embraced a country music sensibility. I could go on and on with such examples. In fact, the more I think
> about it, the harder it becomes to categorize various "pop" artists. Specific pieces are easier to categorize. This issue is confusing to me. Any pearls of wisdom out
> there...?
If it's acoustic, it's folk. If it's electric, it's rock. If it's
popular, it's pop. Unless I am mistaken, this is the state of our
vocabulary in this field. And that's why we ended up with terms like
folk-rock.
BTW, who cares? Does it really matter one way or the other what we call
this music...??
--
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no>
Dr.Matt
same common folks who "consume" it, and follows a tradition of doing the
same. Rock played on acoustical guitars and sold on CDs may sometimes
document folk-music traditions, but that doesn't make it folk music.
Nicholas J Delonas
>harder it becomes to categorize various "pop" artists. Specific pieces are
easier to categorize. This issue is confusing to me. Any pearls of wisdom
out
>there...?
Hmmm. How about "categorization is not an exact science"?
I sometimes think it would be more useful to classify artists by the ones I
like and the ones I don't like. I sure wish record stores could do that. I
could then just go to the stuff-Nick-will-like bin and save a lot of time.
The truth is that the stuff-Nick-will-like bin and the stuff-Nick-will-hate
bin would both contain CDs from every category of music even though some
categories would be more heavily represented in one bin or the other.
Categorization also is often a matter of opinion. The borders are hardly
well defined.
--
Nick Delonas
Cult V
http://www.cultv.com
Nicholas J Delonas
>The only reason there should be government support for the arts is because
>experience has taught us that left to our own devices the only art that
will
>survive without government support is that which appeals to the lowest
>common denominator.
What experience is that?
>The fact is without government support we wouldn't have art, only
>commercials
Evidence please.
FWIW, I know some great artists, none of whom have ever received government
money.
>I've found fault with your logic, you spoke out of both sides of your
mouth.
>Keep NPR but don't support the arts.
I definitely oppose government funding of the arts (and almost everything
else). I am, however, a member in good standing with PBS and contribute
regularly because I like their programming. There is no philosophical
conflict. People who like PBS can support it. People who don't shouldn't
have to contribute.
Nicholas J Delonas
>McCartney still sucks. He especially sucked with "Someone's knockin' at
>the doh, somebody's ringin' the bell, Do me a favor, Open the door & let
>'em in, ooh yeah..."
He also wrote "Yesterday."
As a pop songwriter he is, at worst, inconsistent.
Saying "he sucks" is pretty silly.
John Sowalsky
> If it's acoustic, it's folk. If it's electric, it's rock. If it's
> popular, it's pop. Unless I am mistaken, this is the state of our
> vocabulary in this field. And that's why we ended up with terms like
> folk-rock.
>
> BTW, who cares? Does it really matter one way or the other what we call
> this music...??
The point of my post was to dispell my own ignorance. To that extent, at least, I do care. Thanks for the input, though. Your point is well taken.
John Sowalsky
Tore Lund
>
> The state of the terms as I use 'em is that folk music is made by the
> same common folks who "consume" it, and follows a tradition of doing the
> same.
You are talking about the situation where Ole Tom hums a tune that is
picked up by Ole Nick and further modified by Aunt Sally, etc., etc.
till the whole neighborhood is a-hum with this tune and another gem is
added to our rustic heritage...
I wonder if this scenario is for real, by which I mean that I doubt that
the "folk" themselves ever make music or lyrics (even though they can
and do modify existing songs). My impression is that songwriting is
done by local semi-professionals everywhere, and I suspect that the same
is true of those old songs whose origin is unknown - in which case rock
musicians of today need not be all *that* different in their function
from the originators of folk songs.
> Rock played on acoustical guitars and sold on CDs may sometimes
> document folk-music traditions, but that doesn't make it folk music.
I grant that you have a point, and that the differences in style can be
considerable. But there are only so many words in this vocabulary, and
as long as no one has invented a word to describe "music that resembles
folk more than any other category at hand", we shall have to call it
"folk". At any rate, this is a lesser evil than calling it "rock",
which is taken to mean heavy rock by many people.
One instance that several readers might know about is the last song on
the "Easy Rider" album by Roger McGuinn, labeled "Ballad of Easy Rider".
Its outward appearance is definitely "folk", but the essence of it is
not. I wish we had another word for it, because I think this particular
song is a fine example of what can be done with folk material once it is
relieved of the constraints of traditional folk music.
--
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no>
Dr.Matt
>You are talking about the situation where Ole Tom hums a tune that is
>picked up by Ole Nick and further modified by Aunt Sally, etc., etc.
>till the whole neighborhood is a-hum with this tune and another gem is
>added to our rustic heritage...
Or where the family at home sings a gradually modified version of the
seder or the doxology or something, until it diverges completely from
its roots. Divergent melodies used to thrive on the lack of universal
communication.
BHeneg8560
writes:
>Carl Jackson wrote:
>>
>> I just read an interesting article from last February concerning Julian
>> Lloyd Webber's views on contemporary classical music. Actually, the
>> article was a link from that NewKlassical web site.
[snip]
>> For all of Webber's spouting off, I think he simply needs a bit of Bach for
>> solo cello and a good lay.
[snip]
>Tell ya what -- in the future, if I need to hear an asshole spewing
>fart, shit & diarrhea (a la JLW), I'll swallow a bottle of olive oil and
>turn my tape deck on "record" for future use!!
Now why didn't Charles Rosen think of that?
Ben Heneghan
"What - no gwavy?!?"
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> Tell ya what -- in the future, if I need to hear an asshole spewing
> fart, shit & diarrhea (a la JLW), I'll swallow a bottle of olive oil and
> turn my tape deck on "record" for future use!!
Don't plagiarize! I did "Body Language" in 1994. Nice 20 minute mix if
you can take it.
Ever,
Dennis
--
Dennis Báthory-Kitsz
Malted/Media: http://www.maltedmedia.com/
The Middle-Aged Hiker: http://www.maltedmedia.com/books/mah/
Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar: http://www.maltedmedia.com/kalvos/
John Ladasky
"One of the reasons that folk music is so bad is that it was
written by -- the *people*." -- Tom Lehrer
--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw. - John Ladasky
D.G. Porter
>
> D.G. Porter wrote:
> >
> > Tell ya what -- in the future, if I need to hear an asshole spewing
> > fart, shit & diarrhea (a la JLW), I'll swallow a bottle of olive oil and
> > turn my tape deck on "record" for future use!!
>
> Don't plagiarize! I did "Body Language" in 1994. Nice 20 minute mix if
> you can take it.
Oh, I never plagiarize, I just steal outright! Don't ALL good
composers??
--DGP
D.G. Porter
>
> Steve Chandler wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >So why does art have a claim to public funds? Who says so?
> > >
> > >Funding implies control. If people are willing to support
> > >the arts out of their own checkbook, cool. Why make
> > >it a function of government?
FWIW:
A few years ago I was asked to sit as a juror in a Calif. State Univ.
statewide arts competition for students. The winner in each area got a
monetary prize. The panel I was in (4 or 5? -- I forget) heard
presentations on visual arts and music. (It must have been 4 for we wee
evenly divided along the lines of music & visual arts.) I remember this
one female student from Northridge presented some truly awful paintings
with objects included. It was trite and showed one of those attitudes
of "Technique is a form of cultural imperialism." (This was a popular
attitude around CSUN at the time; may still be.) Another student --
male, if anyone cares (I'm lettin' myself in for flames now!! -- PC
crowd'll be after me!), had done a piece of computer music, one-line,
ragtime/rock-n-roll rhythms (very close), arpeggiation creating a sense
of harmony. He had score and tape. The notes, rhythms and harmonies
were in a word INTERESTING. There was also a mathematical premise to
this tonal piece. (Heh, he had forgotten to include a repeating of a
flat in a measure -- the naturaled note really stuck out, & I'm
surprised he never caught it himself -- I caught him on it when I was
listening to the tape, and questioned him on it later -- he looked
REALLY surprised, staring at the page for a half a minute!)
The other entries were not striking enough to make an impression on me
that I remember, but there was another piece of music (horrible, I
think) and at least one other visual piece.
Well, the panel voted unanimously for the musician. We all agreed that
he'd done the best work of art of the 5 contestants (THAT'S where the
number "5" came into mind!).
I remember at the awards dinner afterwards, I saw the Northridge student
and her teacher sitting there at their table looking like, "Well! We
know that the MAN always gets the award, don't we!" (I guess they
thought the two females on our panels were gender traitors.)
So the lucky students walked away with government funding for their art.
And yes, the merits of theire work were judged. By a musicologist and
an instructor of music from UC Irvine and two visual artists. However,
we thought we were judging on merit, not politics. Silly us!
Sometimes, I like to think, the system works.
--DGP
D.G. Porter
>
> D.G. Porter wrote in message <35D33A...@pacbell.net>...
> >McCartney still sucks. He especially sucked with "Someone's knockin' at
> >the doh, somebody's ringin' the bell, Do me a favor, Open the door & let
> >'em in, ooh yeah..."
>
> He also wrote "Yesterday."
I assumed that "Lennon-McCartney" meant something other than a
convenience.
("Yesterday, all my pop tunes seemed so good; today, now it looks as
though I've nothing to say. Oh, I wish it was yesterday!")
> As a pop songwriter he is, at worst, inconsistent.
As a warm place, Hell is, at best, uhhh, warm.
> Saying "he sucks" is pretty silly.
No it isn't. Wings sucked. The Beatles(s) *occasionally* <wink> had a
good one. Two heads are better sometimes than one. (PS I think Lennon
sucked a lot on his own too.)
> --
D.G. Porter
> I definitely oppose government funding of the arts (and almost everything else).
> conflict. People who like PBS can support it. People who don't shouldn't
> have to contribute.
Gosh, if only that were true of most military boondoggle projects!
I oppose a lot of US warmongering and foreign interference, but my money
is used against my will for things *I* don't approve of, so turnabout is
fair play on you, Nick!
BHeneg8560
Ladasky) writes:
>I've just started listening to Nirvana. Some of it is
>interesting.
I agree. I really, genuinely like "(Smells Like) Teen Spirit", especially the
chorus. It has a wall-smashing quality that is more than just thrash. I'd like
to be able to say I appreciated it long before Cobain's death, but I *can* say,
at least, that I only heard it for the first time about a year ago.
best wishes
BHeneg8560
(Dr.Matt) writes:
>The state of the terms as I use 'em is that folk music is made by the
>same common folks who "consume" it, and follows a tradition of doing the
>same. Rock played on acoustical guitars and sold on CDs may sometimes
>document folk-music traditions, but that doesn't make it folk music.
What about rock played on acoustic guitars, sold on CD, and bought by acoustic
guitar players? Does it then become folk music?
But anyway, why make the distinction? Any music by folks as opposed to filing
cabinets or fire hydrants is folk music - although it's true that some of it's
certainly a lot less popular than some other.
BHeneg8560
<DEL...@prodigy.net> writes:
>Categorization also is often a matter of opinion. The borders are hardly
>well defined.
Keep saying it.
Dr.Matt
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <bat...@maltedmedia.com> wrote:
>Carl Jackson wrote:
>>
>> I just read an interesting article from last February concerning Julian
>> Lloyd Webber's views on contemporary classical music. Actually, the
>> article was a link from that NewKlassical web site.
Read it. In light of the Lexicon of Musical Invective, it was rather
predictable.
>And Charles Rosen, hardly a font of the new, successfully took him apart
>in the New York Review of Books ("Who's Afraid of the Avant-Garde?", May
>14, 1998, http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/content980514.html).
Moderately interesting. Rosen speaks as a lover of music and has facts
and figures at his fingertips, as usual.
>I have an extended exchange in frustration with a group called The
>Churchill Society about new music in which they use JLW's essay as a
>kind of starting point. The exchange will be posted on my website within
>the month.
Dr.Matt
What's the difference between literature and folklore, on the one
hand, and organized religion and folklore on the other hand?
The term "folk music" has a purpose in life.
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
folks always decline listening...
Kalv
Nicholas J Delonas
>I assumed that "Lennon-McCartney" meant something other than a
>convenience.
That's a reasonable assumption of course, but my understanding is that many
of the Beatles' most popular songs were really written by one or the other.
"Yesterday" is definitely and wholly a McCartney creation. He wrote both
the music and the lyrics.
>No it isn't. Wings sucked.
This is meaningless. You didn't like them. Other people did. No one's
opinion on such matters is any better than anyone else's.
McCartney is one of the most revered pop songwriters in history among
professional and semi-professional pop songwriters.
I do think he is unusually inconsistent. His relatively recent CD "Flaming
Pie" demonstrates he's still got it though (to me anyway).
Nicholas J Delonas
>> I definitely oppose government funding of the arts (and almost everything
else).
>> There is no philosophical
>> conflict. People who like PBS can support it. People who don't
shouldn't
>> have to contribute.
>
>Gosh, if only that were true of most military boondoggle projects!
Yes, if only. Nobody despises the military-industrial complex more than I
do.
>I oppose a lot of US warmongering and foreign interference,
Me too.
>but my money
>is used against my will for things *I* don't approve of, so turnabout is
>fair play on you, Nick!
What turnabout? I agree with you.
I'd like to see a lot of that crap cut too and much more.
Philip Kappaz
sucks, but what does that mean? Claiming that so and so, or somthing, 'sucks'
reeks of a elementary playground, or at best adolesent, level of analysis.
Its' all purely subjective. And since there is no qualifying information in
this note regarding 'why' big Paul, or the Beatles, 'sucked', the statements
from the authors are completely and totally meaningless. Lets put some meaning
and meat into our words and discussions around here. Now, if the authors had
said 'Monica Sucks', you might have something.
DR PCK
D.G. Porter wrote:
> Nicholas J Delonas wrote:
> >
> > D.G. Porter wrote in message <35D33A...@pacbell.net>...
> > >McCartney still sucks. He especially sucked with "Someone's knockin' at
> > >the doh, somebody's ringin' the bell, Do me a favor, Open the door & let
> > >'em in, ooh yeah..."
> >
> > He also wrote "Yesterday."
>
> I assumed that "Lennon-McCartney" meant something other than a
> convenience.
>
Dr.Matt
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <bat...@maltedmedia.com> wrote:
>Heck, I just thought I'd be able to get in a plug for "Body Language" --
No, no, don't plug it, sooner or later the plug will come loose and
then you'll be sorry!
Craig Clark
times here. If contemporary classical music is to survive, it is
time to forget the three Bs, Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, forget
Beatles, and concentrate on the four Ss.
Sibelius, Stravinsky, Scriabin and Shostakovich
BTW, if you want a good place to start, try Symphony No. 7 by
Shostakovich, "The Leningrad", recorded by the Leningrad
Philharmonic Orchestra.
Plenty of good music can grow out of these 4 masters.
Craig Clark
D.G. Porter
> I'd like to see a lot of that crap cut too and much more.
Well, the NEA paid for the preparation of the peformance parts of the
Ives "Emerson" Concerto. Was that so bad?
Nicholas J Delonas
Of course not, but that's irrelevant. The question is whether the funding
for such good things should be confiscated from people who may or may not be
able to afford it. I believe people should be able to decide for themselves
what arts and charities they will or won't fund with their own hard-earned
money.
I realize I'm in the minority in here.
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> The question is whether the funding
> for such good things should be confiscated from people who may or may not be
> able to afford it. I believe people should be able to decide for themselves
> what arts and charities they will or won't fund with their own hard-earned
> money.
>
> I realize I'm in the minority in here.
Philosophically, I'm in your minority, but I also oppose the
confiscation of geometrically bigger amounts of money, for example, to
bludgeon and eviscerate and vaporize people around the world. I'd like
to be given that yea-or-nay choice as well, but as our illustrious
president might say, that dog won't hunt. So if the bloodletting isn't
a choice, then arts funding isn't either. Confiscation all around.
Dennis
Dr.Matt
confiscated from people who may be unable to afford it. Over the
years this has amounted to an enormous subsidy of the automobile
industry at the expense of all other modes of transportation. For the
same price, we could probably have had free streetcars going
everywhere. After military misappropriation, we've got a whole lineup
of major players before we need to cut arts education endowment!
Carl Jackson
<35D47FB4...@Prodigy.net>...
> Mr. Weber raises a valid point. I've raised the same issues many
> times here. If contemporary classical music is to survive, it is
> time to forget the three Bs, Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, forget
> Beatles, and concentrate on the four Ss.
>
> Sibelius, Stravinsky, Scriabin and Shostakovich
>
I really can't argue with your statement, but I disagree to the extent that
unless all contemporary classical composers are somehow simultaneously
whacked, contemporary classical music will always be around. Unless, of
course, your definition of "survive" is music that the masses all love.
> BTW, if you want a good place to start, try Symphony No. 7 by
> Shostakovich, "The Leningrad", recorded by the Leningrad
> Philharmonic Orchestra.
>
yep, I find the Leningrad readings quite powerful.
> Plenty of good music can grow out of these 4 masters.
yep again.
> Craig Clark
>
Carl
D.G. Porter
> The question is whether the funding
> for such good things should be confiscated from people who may or may not be
> able to afford it.
You can't afford 36 cents a year????
That's what part of your taxes went to the NEA.
Dr.Matt
jpickard <jpic...@efn.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > They sucked.
>> > They really, REALLY sucked. They continued to suck. They never did
>> > anything BUT suck. Paul McCartney (as a "composer") sucks to this day.
>In your opinion they sucked. In my opinion they wrote some of the most
>beautiful, witty and all around cool songs in history.
I just had this thread brought to my attention. It seemed like a
trifle at the time, but apparently somebody either got their undies in
a bunch over it, or thought it would make a good target for an HFW
attack or something.
Anyhow, I have only one comment on this thread and that's that I eat
pussy with gusto.
Neal
Dr.Matt wrote in message <6r7bn2$6cg$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
> Anyhow, I have only one comment on this thread and that's that I eat
>pussy with gusto.
I would guess you are saying you don't suck...
Dr.Matt
Depends on how you define it, of course, like everything else!
Daniel
Dr.Matt wrote in message <6r0923$kot$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
>
>What's the difference between literature and folklore, on the one
>hand, and organized religion and folklore on the other hand?
>The term "folk music" has a purpose in life.
This reminds me: If you know anything about Nevada, you know that classical
musicians (string-players) often got roped into the casino bands that used
to be prevalent in days gone by. As a callow youth I found myself in such a
setting. At least I liked my fellows. They were, of course, mostly jazzers,
and for them showbiz was almost as much a come-down as it was for me. Still,
I would always enjoy immensely, if perchance I came into the bandroom at a
moment when some great jazzer was on the television, and all the guys
gathered 'round. I'd say, "Oh, great. I just love folk music." I laughed
alone. Jazzers are actually very sensitive.
Nicholas J Delonas
>What I wanna know is whether the funding for highways should be
>confiscated from people who may be unable to afford it.
Not from people who don't drive. All highway funds should come solely from
people who use them whether through fuel taxes or tolls. Now that
technology exists to charge tolls without slowing traffic, that would be my
preference.
>After military misappropriation, we've got a whole lineup
>of major players before we need to cut arts education endowment!
Even so, I oppose it. To support it would be hypocritical on my part.
Nicholas J Delonas
>You can't afford 36 cents a year????
>That's what part of your taxes went to the NEA.
The size of the cost is irrelevant. This is a philosophical question not a
practical one.
I have an opinion on what government should do and in general my answer is
"not much." I prefer supporting the arts through the private sector. It
would be inconsistent to say otherwise given my political beliefs.
Obviously I'd like to see costlier unnecessary programs cut first as a
practical matter.
Howard Peirce
> I prefer supporting the arts through the private sector. It
> would be inconsistent to say otherwise given my political beliefs.
You know, if your political beliefs are out of sync with the rest of your
life, you can always change your political beliefs.
HP
John Sowalsky
<DEL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>I have an opinion on what government should do and in general my answer is
>"not much." I prefer supporting the arts through the private sector. It
>would be inconsistent to say otherwise given my political beliefs.
Without getting too far into the politics of this issue, let me just
point out that there is a difference between supporting the arts and
supporting art education. In this regard, our attitudes in the U.S. do
not differ much from our attitudes toward education in general.
In principle what you suggest *should* be enough. In an ideal world,
the private sector would lavish money upon artists and art educators
alike. Schools would be well-equipped and fully staffed. However, in
practice, despite our economy's purported prosperity over the course
of this decade, education has regularly suffered. And this at the
hands of a supposedly "liberal" administration.
What I'm saying is this: we're making plenty of money in this country
(or at least someone is, that's for sure), but we have no interest in
forking any of it over to pay for decent education for our children.
The trend in the public schools speaks for itself. Whoever's making
all this money, I'll tell you one thing: they're a bunch of greedy,
short-sighted tightwads! And, of course, when budgets are cut, the
arts are always the first to go. As if they're not essential!
Which, by the way, makes an interesting point in and of itself.
Despite what appears to be a widespread belief among educators that
the arts can enrich the learning process in unique ways, we continue
to place less and less emphasis on them in our daily lives, which is
where the real damage is done. I wonder how Japan and Germany are
making out on this issue...?
In short, I don't mind my tax dollars paying for elementary music
education, and I'm not likely to change my mind on the subject. By the
same token, I will continue to admonish the private sector for sitting
by compliantly while our children are being dressed in cultural
sackcloth. I guess we're preparing the next generation for a silent
parade in the dark. I don't care how we pay for education, but let's
pay for it, damn it! I only wish more people felt this way...
--
John Sowalsky
NOsowal...@erols.com
(remove NO and SPAM to respond via e-mail)
Inotmark
>What I'm saying is this: we're making plenty of money in this country
>(or at least someone is, that's for sure), but we have no interest in
>forking any of it over to pay for decent education for our children.
snip...
> I don't care how we pay for education, but let's
>pay for it, damn it! I only wish more people felt this way.
i hate to disillusion you, but i don't think money is the issue. you can get
good teachers cheap, and you can pay a lot for bad teachers. the problems
arise when the educational philosophy is so screwed up that education doesn't
take place at all, no matter who is in front of the classroom.
John Sowalsky
>i hate to disillusion you, but i don't think money is the issue. you can get
>good teachers cheap, and you can pay a lot for bad teachers. the problems
>arise when the educational philosophy is so screwed up that education doesn't
>take place at all, no matter who is in front of the classroom.
I would agree to the extent that lack of funding is a symptom, not a
cause. However, funding most certainly is a problem in less affluent
areas of this country. There's a big debate raging over just this
issue in Vermont from what I understand. What would you suggest?
Inotmark
>cause. However, funding most certainly is a problem in less affluent
>areas of this country. There's a big debate raging over just this
>issue in Vermont from what I understand. What would you suggest?
the problem exists in the most affluent districts as well. funding is not the
issue.
i suggest cancelling football (hockey, etc.) while educational goals are
pursued. nobody is listening though...
Tim Risher
>the problem exists in the most affluent districts as well. funding is not
the
>issue.
>i suggest cancelling football (hockey, etc.) while educational goals are
>pursued. nobody is listening though...
Nobody seems to mind when the state funds a sports stadium, like they did I
think in Washington State.
Dr.Matt
John Sowalsky <NOsowal...@erols.com> wrote:
>On 21 Aug 1998 00:39:05 GMT, inot...@aol.com (Inotmark) wrote:
>
>>i hate to disillusion you, but i don't think money is the issue. you can get
>I would agree to the extent that lack of funding is a symptom, not a
What exactly *is* the issue that JL Webber is pushing in the UK? It
sure looks like "cut public funds for arts education now!" to me.
John Sowalsky
>the problem exists in the most affluent districts as well. funding is not the
>issue.
>i suggest cancelling football (hockey, etc.) while educational goals are
>pursued. nobody is listening though...
I tend to be sympathetic to this view myself. However, I think we're
having a non-debate here. Just because a district is affluent, does
not mean that its residents will fork over for education. So, I do
agree with you on that. However, lack of funding *is* an issue, and is
symptomatic of a deeper problem. This is how we show our lack of
interest in this country: we just stop paying for things.
My sister has taught in public schools in Baltimore and Montgomery
counties here in Maryland. Montgomery county is particularly affluent,
yet in both cases she complained not only about a lack of sufficient
pay, but also a lack of other kinds of resources, including (and most
importantly) the encouragement of parents and bureaucrats. Likewise
for my ex; she worked for several years in D.C. schools. In both
cases, I assure you, the issue of money and educational funding has
been frequently discussed. I have yet to hear any public school
teacher complain about the excessive amounts of money they're making.
This, in turn, is a demoralizing factor which further impacts the
quality of education.
In short, I would say the cause of our educational decay has to do
with the metaphors we've chosen as the basis of our cultural language.
By the same token, this language is often expressed by our willingness
(or lack thereof) to fork over the dough. Or am I still
misunderstanding you...?
Regardless, I most certainly am listening... You're not entirely
alone, at least not in your (apparent) frustration over this issue.
John Sowalsky
wrote:
>What exactly *is* the issue that JL Webber is pushing in the UK? It
>sure looks like "cut public funds for arts education now!" to me.
I guess I have a morbid curiosity about the kind of mentality that
Webber expresses. What sort of person would take anything away from a
decent education...? And why? Sigh.
Nicholas J Delonas
>You know, if your political beliefs are out of sync with the rest of your
>life, you can always change your political beliefs.
They are not.
Nicholas J Delonas
>In principle what you suggest *should* be enough. In an ideal world,
>the private sector would lavish money upon artists and art educators
>alike. Schools would be well-equipped and fully staffed. However, in
>practice, despite our economy's purported prosperity over the course
>of this decade, education has regularly suffered. And this at the
>hands of a supposedly "liberal" administration.
Do you have any statistical evidence to support the notion that support for
the public schools has been falling long term in real dollars?
My understanding is that just the opposite is true and that during the same
period, there has not been a correlated rise in academic achievement.
>What I'm saying is this: we're making plenty of money in this country
>(or at least someone is, that's for sure), but we have no interest in
>forking any of it over to pay for decent education for our children.
>The trend in the public schools speaks for itself. Whoever's making
>all this money, I'll tell you one thing: they're a bunch of greedy,
>short-sighted tightwads! And, of course, when budgets are cut, the
>arts are always the first to go. As if they're not essential!
They are not essential.
>Which, by the way, makes an interesting point in and of itself.
>Despite what appears to be a widespread belief among educators that
>the arts can enrich the learning process in unique ways, we continue
>to place less and less emphasis on them in our daily lives, which is
>where the real damage is done. I wonder how Japan and Germany are
>making out on this issue...?
Probably less well as evidenced by the fact that American companies dominate
the creative industries in the world market.
>In short, I don't mind my tax dollars paying for elementary music
>education, and I'm not likely to change my mind on the subject. By the
>same token, I will continue to admonish the private sector for sitting
>by compliantly while our children are being dressed in cultural
>sackcloth. I guess we're preparing the next generation for a silent
>parade in the dark. I don't care how we pay for education, but let's
>pay for it, damn it! I only wish more people felt this way...
Again, please provide some evidence that financial support for the public
schools has diminished over the long term. This is news to me.
I tend to oppose public education BTW.
Jeff Harrington
: I tend to oppose public education BTW.
Wow... that's a suprise!
Nick, who the hell is going to teach the kids who want the American
dream but say, surprise, the parents are unemployed or have low-paying
jobs?
Nuns?
Nah.... I know. School of hard knocks.
What an idiot. Could you step out on the street for a split second and
take a look around?
Jeff Harrington [ New Zion Pastorale for Orchestra 9 Min MPEG ]
je...@parnasse.com [ of Premiere http://www.parnasse.com/zion.mp2 ]
http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm --------->>[[ My Music ]]<<--------------]
http://www.parnasse.com/vrml.shtml ------->>[[ My Worlds ]]<<-------------]
Nicholas J Delonas
>Nobody seems to mind when the state funds a sports stadium, like they did I
>think in Washington State.
Are you kidding? Lots of people mind. Such projects are always
controversial.
I would always oppose such a project unless solid evidence predicted that
the net cost to the tax payer long term would be zero or even a net gain
through additional tax revenues created by the project.
John Sowalsky
wrote:
>FWIW, my 15 year old daughter's computer science teacher is
>partially
>compensated by a local software business. The CEO of that
>software business expects to send his kids to that same public
>school.
>So there are exceptions.
I certainly don't mean to detract from any exceptions!
>Much of the problems with education have more to do with the
>kids not
>working hard enough. For whatever reason, the "status" of an
>actual education has fallen. Whether that's because of the
>rise of egalitarianism or just "union mentality" on the part of
>the
>education machinery, I don't know.
It may also have something to do with the values of the moneymakers,
which you refer to below. I went through high school during the Reagan
era. I think the reason many of my friends and I weren't more
interested in getting a good education had to do with a demoralization
factor. I was unable to articulate this at the time, but I think the
sense among us was that, no matter what we did, our lives had already
been reduced to a series of calculations involving monetary values. If
I had to guess, I'd say this sense has only grown deeper, and
business, government, family, have done little to avert this trend.
Probably because, in most cases, it's impossible to see (or at least
very difficult).
This is further compounded by the sense that a college degree no
longer means much. How many people do you know who have gone into
fields completely unrelated to their college major? Or, in many
instances, in order to get a good job in a given field, graduate work
is the only viable option. And what's the alternative? Well, if you
worked 40 hours a week, every single week of the year, for 50 years,
never missing an hour or taking a vacation, and you were paid today's
minimum wage, your life would be worth a little over half a million
dollars. Assuming a life span of about 75 years, that's $7280 a year.
While this may, in many instances, be a gross oversimplification of
the situation, teenage minds are not always able to discern this. Kids
have been feeling hopeless for a long time now...
>I suspect that under the skin of every American lies the heart
>of
>Huck Finn, who would rather be fishing than "learnin ciphers".
>That
>attitude carries.
I would also have to cite a paralyzing fear of the future. And the
fact the as a culture, we send our kids every wrong message we can
possibly come up with.
>My kids are my kids, not "our" kids. And parents have to use
>whatever
>resources are available to make sure the kids *are* educated.
Hey, I don't have kids, and I don't plan to have any. But I still
recognize the importance of educating all young people. It will
benefit me (albeit indirectly) if your kids are well-educated. And,
more specifically, I understand that kids pick up on our bitterness,
anger, frustration, and sense of hopelessness, whenever we choose to
express them.
>At 11 PM last night, my eldest was just finishing up a
>homework assignment. My wife and I were helping her. This is
>the usual evening for us. *This* is what it really takes, a
>concentration of effort on the part of the students, with
>support
>from parents. It's not that hard to do.
Now it sounds like you're the exception. You're absolutely right. What
you're doing can help make a big, big difference!
>> The trend in the public schools speaks for itself. Whoever's making
>> all this money, I'll tell you one thing: they're a bunch of greedy,
>> short-sighted tightwads!
>
>If they wanna be tightwads, nothing I can do about that. They
>don't owe me or mine anything.
In a broad sense I agree with you, but education is not exactly some
kind of way-out-there socialistic experiment. Personally I do believe
that those who really "make it" should feel obliged to give back
something to the fabric of the society which has allowed them to
thrive. I would place support of education in this category. Simply
put, I hope that the filthy rich would be naturally inclined to help
the less fortunate gain an education. (Which is not the same as
expecting it to happen.) By the same token, I would point an equal
finger at government waste, which is just as bad. I guess you just
can't win...
>> And, of course, when budgets are cut, the
>> arts are always the first to go. As if they're not essential!
>
>The arts don't reflect the values of the moneymakers.
Yes, and the values of the moneymakers have become the only values, it
would seem.
>What's not clear to me is that people have an understanding of
>what the true payoff of things like music/art training are.
Let alone reading, writing, and math!
>Were there not studies which showed that musically trained
>children
>have an advantage in being better at "what happens next"
>exercises?
>
>Now you have a practical benefeit which helps you to justify the
>cost.
I've heard several references to such studies in the media, but
haven't seen the studies themselves. I guess I should look on the Web.
I'll post back within a few days if I find anything.
>> By the
>> same token, I will continue to admonish the private sector for sitting
>> by compliantly while our children are being dressed in cultural
>> sackcloth.
>
>Yeah! Go gettum :) Thank you for your efforts. But don't
>be surprised if the "private sector" is very busy :)
Hehehe. Well, people are seldom too busy for a gnat in their ear! ;)
>> I guess we're preparing the next generation for a silent
>> parade in the dark.
>
>From the limited sampling of kids I've seen, I think they'll be
>very much like the rest of us.
OK, then. How about a slightly out-of-tune parade during a partial
eclipse?
>I think that there is a perception on the part of
>most people that life has gotten too complex. The complexity
>makes longer-term planning more difficult, and reduces the
>amount of time and energy devoted to longer-term thought.
My head is spinning. I think I need to take a nap. Thanks for the
thoughtful response!
Dr.Matt
Jeff Harrington <rus...@shell7.ba.best.com> wrote:
>Nicholas J Delonas <DEL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>: I tend to oppose public education BTW.
>
>Wow... that's a suprise!
>
>Nick, who the hell is going to teach the kids who want the American
>dream but say, surprise, the parents are unemployed or have low-paying
>jobs?
>
>Nuns?
>
>Nah.... I know. School of hard knocks.
>
>What an idiot. Could you step out on the street for a split second and
>take a look around?
>
Hmmm. I'll see if I can dig it up at Chronicle of Higher Ed, last I'd
heard, a dollar spent on public education returns an average of a
dollar and a half over 2 years in increased tax base. Not a bad
investment, if it works. And that's not just short-term tech-ed.
Nicholas J Delonas
>This is further compounded by the sense that a college degree no
>longer means much.
Thank God for that. What a bunch of crap most degrees are anyway. Most
degrees impress me about as much as bowling trophies.
We're finally coming into an economy where what you actually are able to do
matters far more than artificial factors such as how many degrees you've got
hanging on your wall.
That's a wonderful thing.
A truly motivated person can pick up a lucrative skill simply by studying
hard in a good public library. The same person might discover just what
skills are lucrative by research done in that same library. This really
wasn't possible in the not-so-distant past. What a great social change!
>In a broad sense I agree with you, but education is not exactly some
>kind of way-out-there socialistic experiment. Personally I do believe
>that those who really "make it" should feel obliged to give back
>something to the fabric of the society which has allowed them to
>thrive.
They now are obliged to do that. People go to jail for tax evasion if you
hadn't noticed and the tax rate on the wealthy is very high (too high IMHO).
>Yes, and the values of the moneymakers have become the only values, it
>would seem.
Just who are these moneymakers that are forcing bad values on the weak
minded? Can you be more specific?
Steve Chandler
>>
>> >I have an opinion on what government should do and in general my answer
is
>> >"not much." I prefer supporting the arts through the private sector.
It
>> >would be inconsistent to say otherwise given my political beliefs.
Your opinion is unfortunate (possibly born of the 80s Reagan mentality).
The fact is government is going to tax you no matter what. One side of the
political spectrum will always be trying to win votes by talking tax
reductions and you must remember that in our political system is that all
the candidates are financially supported far more by business than by
individuals. Thus when push comes to shove arts funding will get the axe
every time.
>>
>> let me just
>> point out that there is a difference between supporting the arts and
>> supporting art education. In this regard, our attitudes in the U.S. do
>> not differ much from our attitudes toward education in general.
>>
>> In principle what you suggest *should* be enough. In an ideal world,
>> the private sector would lavish money upon artists and art educators
>> alike. Schools would be well-equipped and fully staffed. However, in
>> practice, despite our economy's purported prosperity over the course
>> of this decade, education has regularly suffered.
Amen to that. My view is that it's a parents job to be involved in whatever
way they feel makes the biggest impact. Ultimately it's no one else's
responsibility.
>
>Much of the problems with education have more to do with the
>kids not
>working hard enough. For whatever reason, the "status" of an
>actual education has fallen. Whether that's because of the
>rise of egalitarianism or just "union mentality" on the part of
>the
>education machinery, I don't know.
Children learn from their parents' example. If the parents value education,
the kids will.
>> but we have no interest in
>> forking any of it over to pay for decent education for our children.
>
>My kids are my kids, not "our" kids. And parents have to use
>whatever
>resources are available to make sure the kids *are* educated.
>
>At 11 PM last night, my eldest was just finishing up a
>homework assignment. My wife and I were helping her. This is
>the usual evening for us. *This* is what it really takes, a
>concentration of effort on the part of the students, with
>support
>from parents. It's not that hard to do.
While your effort is commendable the fact is if your kids were going to a
school with paint peeling off the walls what message would they be getting
regarding society's value of their education? If they come to feel that
society doesn't care they may also come to believe that there's no hope for
them in the wider world no matter their effort.
>
>If they wanna be tightwads, nothing I can do about that. They
>don't owe me or mine anything.
Well legally there is a guarantee of public education in the USA. The
quality of that education is up to us as a society to determine. Given the
way our political system is funded we shouldn't be surprised at the
priorities of our government. The only way to combat this is to get
involved. How many of you have called your congressmen and senators? They
have offices in the district, it might even be a local call. If you're not
involved in the process you have no right to complain about the results of
that process.
>
>I think that there is a perception on the part of
>most people that life has gotten too complex. The complexity
>makes longer-term planning more difficult, and reduces the
>amount of time and energy devoted to longer-term thought.
>
I'm not sure what this means. Our lives are as complex as we choose (both
individually and collectively) to make them. Politicians look at the large
minority of constituents who choose not to get involved as, "Willing to be
led (i.e. sheep)" My question for every contributor to this thread is what
would you rather be; a squeackey wheel that'll get some grease or a sheep
that'll be led to the slaughter?
Is there a way down from this soapbox?
Steve Chandler
Jeff Harrington
: Amen to that. My view is that it's a parents job to be involved in whatever
: way they feel makes the biggest impact. Ultimately it's no one else's
: responsibility.
Just a quick comment on this "theory." Recent studies of child behavior
have reinforced a new model about child development. This model posits
that children pay no attention to their parent's behavior. It's their
peer's behavior, in fact that forces developmental changes. This theory
has recently been reinforced by a longterm Canadian study...
I found it all pretty interesting because it's just what my Dad always
used to say...
Jeff Harrington [-->>[[ Mercurealities for Flute, Viola, Cello MPEG ]]<<--]
je...@parnasse.com [->>[[ http://www.parnasse.com/mercurealities.mp2 ]]<<--]
Inotmark
>John Sowalsky wrote
>And, of course, when budgets are cut, the
>>arts are always the first to go. As if they're not essential!
>
>They are not essential.
if they are not essential, why does every society in existence have them?
>I tend to oppose public education BTW.
great! lets get medieval and keep all those poor people in their place. then
we won't have to take their money, because they simply won't have any! taxation
will be a thing of the past and indentured servitude will substitute for paying
them. what a brilliant idea. i am sure everyone can see the benefits of this
approach....