Re: Music is no different from any other art
Matthew Fields
Jay <jsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Poets and readers of poetry never tell how to write their poems.
>Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
>their paintings. Sculptors and lovers of sculpture never tell
>sclupters what sculptors to create. Novelists and readers never tell
>novelists how to write their novels (aside from editors, of course).
>
>Why on Earth isn't it the same for us classical music composers?
>
>Everyone here, there and everywhere are _always_ running off at the
>mouth about how the composer should be "sensitive" to the likes of his
>or her audience or composers froth at _other_ composers that the
>latter's musical idiom or aesthetic isn't worth a damn.
>
>Aside from me, is there _anyone_ in this group that writes music that
>_he_ (or she) wants to write -- and be damned with what audiences,
>critics, friends, family, and local street whores think?
>
>I certainly hope there is.
>
>
>Jay
Sure. Some of what I write is tonal, some of it isn't, but it all
has to seem worth hearing to *me*. This approach to writing has no
predictable consequences in terms of ultimate popularity. Laurie
Anderson has had work of hers get on the pop hit charts without
pandering, fergoshsakes.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jeffrey Quick
> Poets and readers of poetry never tell how to write their poems.
> Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
> their paintings. Sculptors and lovers of sculpture never tell
> sclupters what sculptors to create. Novelists and readers never tell
> novelists how to write their novels (aside from editors, of course).
>
> Why on Earth isn't it the same for us classical music composers?
It IS the same, because none of the above is true.
> Everyone here, there and everywhere are _always_ running off at the
> mouth about how the composer should be "sensitive" to the likes of his
> or her audience or composers froth at _other_ composers that the
> latter's musical idiom or aesthetic isn't worth a damn.
You can't fake it. If what you have to say can't be conveyed in an
"audience-friendly" way, then it can't, and an attempt to do otherwise
will reek of insincerity. OTOH, a vigorous creative act will generally
carry audiences along.
> Aside from me, is there _anyone_ in this group that writes music that
> _he_ (or she) wants to write -- and be damned with what audiences,
> critics, friends, family, and local street whores think?
Yeah.
Aladdin Ayesh
painters they reflect, out of complete self desire, what other people feel
and think but cannot put into sound, words or colour.
Al
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-34336-8
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/aladdin
"Jeffrey Quick" <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
news:jaq-132C0D.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu...
Paul McGraw
"Jay" <jsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s3jg01plbr1j26c2f...@4ax.com...
> Everyone here, there and everywhere are _always_ running off at the
> mouth about how the composer should be "sensitive" to the likes of his
> or her audience or composers froth at _other_ composers that the
> latter's musical idiom or aesthetic isn't worth a damn.
It would seem that it was always the same. I suspect it is try in other
fields as well. The war between the supporters of Wagner and Brahams comes
to mind as the greatest example. But of course the exact same thing was
happening at the time of Beethoven, Mozart and even Bach. In the past there
were journals and magazines devoted to concert music that were widely read
by a large percentage of the music-loving public, not just professionals.
Music criticsm and aesthetic argument was a central part of those journals.
I don't think we have anything comparable today. The percentage of the
population interested in recently composed concert music seems very, very
low, when compared to the mid-nineteenth century.
Anyway, composers and critics have always fought and argued and campaigned
for their own point of view. And why not? It is the friction of opposing
views which polishes the reasoning powers and forces one to think with
clarity.
Paul McGraw
Lawrenceville, GA
Matthew Fields
Jay <jsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:30:46 GMT, "Aladdin Ayesh"
><ala...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Jeffrey I agree with you totally. In addition, I think composers, poets and
>>painters they reflect, out of complete self desire, what other people feel
>>and think but cannot put into sound, words or colour.
>
>(no. 4) -- NOT the feelings of others.
>
>
>Jay
>
The 4th symphony of Tchaikovsky is an arrangement of sounds which,
for some listeners, successfully creates the illusion of
expressive language. If you're fascinated by it without getting
that illusion, you're not doing anything wrong as a listener.
If you get a different illusion--that the music merges with you and
becomes *you* using expressive language--and you are fascinated by it,
you're still not doing anything wrong as a listener. If you don't
like it and go listen to something else, you're still not doing anything
wrong as a listener. If you interfere with others' efforts to enjoy it,
then you're probably doing something wrong!
Jeffrey Quick
Jay <jsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:23:55 -0500, Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <s3jg01plbr1j26c2f...@4ax.com>,
> > Jay <jsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Poets and readers of poetry never tell how to write their poems.
> >> Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
> >> their paintings. Sculptors and lovers of sculpture never tell
> >> sclupters what sculptors to create. Novelists and readers never tell
> >> novelists how to write their novels (aside from editors, of course).
> >>
> >> Why on Earth isn't it the same for us classical music composers?
> >
> >It IS the same, because none of the above is true.
>
> ALL of the above is true...
>
> Example: I'm no art historian, but I suspect Rembrandt painted
> whatever the fuck he wanted.
>
> Rembrandt: "Hmm...a lovey bowl of apples. I think I'll make a
> painting of it."
>
> Rembrandt: "Hmm...it's been a while since my last self-portrait. I
> think I'll paint one."
>
> Elizabeth Bishop: "I want to relate the experience of a child dying
> in Nova Scotia. I'll call the poem, "First Death in Nova Scotia".
If Rembrandt got a commission, he'd be told what to paint. I suspect
that if people regularly commissioned poems, they'd want "a poem
about..."
I am not convinced in any case that people "tell" creators HOW to
create. If you don't like a person's style, you don't have them do the
work. And as for general aesthetic posturing and politicing, ALL arts
have that.
> ...etc, etc, etc.
>
> You get the picture.
>
> >
> >> Everyone here, there and everywhere are _always_ running off at the
> >> mouth about how the composer should be "sensitive" to the likes of his
> >> or her audience or composers froth at _other_ composers that the
> >> latter's musical idiom or aesthetic isn't worth a damn.
> >
> >You can't fake it. If what you have to say can't be conveyed in an
> >"audience-friendly" way, then it can't, and an attempt to do otherwise
> >will reek of insincerity.
>
> Hmm...conveying my music in an "audience-friendly" way.
>
> 'Fraid this isn't my job.
>
> My job is to write the kind of music that I want to write, and if
> listeners hates it, fine. The creative arts _are_ subjective,
> afterall.
>
> On the other hand, if listeners like my music, I'm more than pleased.
That was actually my point. I don't think one should make thinks
excessively difficult for anybody (performers or audience), but what
defines excess is the requirements of the creative impetus. If it's GOT
to be noisy or chaotic or "too" contrapuntal or whatever, then that's
how it is.
>
> > OTOH, a vigorous creative act will generally
> >carry audiences along.
>
> I don't know what you mean by a "vigorous creative act".
>
> Feel free to elaborate.
Inspiration, the view of the work as a whole, the "it" that without "it"
it's just a mess of notes.
Most people nowadays have no problem with The Rite of Spring. But if you
made a whole piece out of the beginning, or the end, they'd be offended.
Jeffrey Quick
Jay <jsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:30:46 GMT, "Aladdin Ayesh"
> <ala...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeffrey I agree with you totally. In addition, I think composers, poets and
> >painters they reflect, out of complete self desire, what other people feel
> >and think but cannot put into sound, words or colour.
>
> No, Tchaikovsky is expressing his OWN feelings in his 'Fate' symphony
> (no. 4) -- NOT the feelings of others.
Yeah, but...
What makes those feelings at all useful to the audience is that they
are, or become, the audiences' own feelings. Confessional music only
works if the audience has a reason to care about what you're confessing.
Jeffrey Quick
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
> The 4th symphony of Tchaikovsky is an arrangement of sounds which,
> for some listeners, successfully creates the illusion of
> expressive language. If you're fascinated by it without getting
> that illusion, you're not doing anything wrong as a listener.
> If you get a different illusion--that the music merges with you and
> becomes *you* using expressive language--and you are fascinated by it,
> you're still not doing anything wrong as a listener. If you don't
> like it and go listen to something else, you're still not doing anything
> wrong as a listener. If you interfere with others' efforts to enjoy it,
> then you're probably doing something wrong!
Agreed 100%.
But have we been discussing people who actually interfere in somebody's
efforts to enjoy a certain style of music? I don't think so. I don't
see Paul's efforts in that light at all, and that's what started this.
J R Laredo
> Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
> their paintings. Sculptors and lovers of sculpture never tell
> sclupters what sculptors to create. Novelists and readers never tell
> novelists how to write their novels (aside from editors, of course).
>
> Why on Earth isn't it the same for us classical music composers?
>
> mouth about how the composer should be "sensitive" to the likes of his
> or her audience or composers froth at _other_ composers that the
> latter's musical idiom or aesthetic isn't worth a damn.
>
> _he_ (or she) wants to write -- and be damned with what audiences,
> critics, friends, family, and local street whores think?
>
>
>
> Jay
That is a very romanticized view of the arts, which is, for the most part,
wrong.
People tell, and always have told, artists what to do and how it should be
done. And, for the most part, the artists who never listen are the ones who
don't make a living at art.
Consider, the great Davinci considered his crowning achievement as a
sculptor to be a bronze horse, over 20 feet tall. But it was never made
during his lifetime because he couldn't get it funded.
As to the written arts, writers are told by the readers' feet: if they flock
to the books, then the writer is given the feedback that a need is being
filled; if they swarm away, then the opposite is true.
As for composers, well, Haydn, for example, wrote a lot of music for
baritone. I have never seen if that was a particularly satisfying medium
for him, but, that was beside the point. His boss played the baritone, and
seemed to like playing the baritone, so, to retain his job, he had better
come up with some baritone music. The same was true of comic operas: his
boss liked them so he had to write them. Similar stories can be told of
myriad of composers over the years.
Something else that tends to be forgotton is that while composing is
essentially hearing something in your head and then writing it down, what
you are hearing in your head is influenced by everything you have ever
heard. So, for good or for ill, everything, including being "sensitive" to
the likes of the audience becomes a part of the music.
As to the criticism? Hardly anything new. Composers have been saying bad
things about each other for as long as there has been composers.
J R Laredo
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:37:43 GMT, "J R Laredo"
> <jrlar...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jay" <jsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:s3jg01plbr1j26c2f...@4ax.com...
>>> Poets and readers of poetry never tell how to write their poems.
>>> Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
>>> their paintings. Sculptors and lovers of sculpture never tell
>>> sclupters what sculptors to create. Novelists and readers never tell
>>> novelists how to write their novels (aside from editors, of course).
>>>
>>> Why on Earth isn't it the same for us classical music composers?
>>>
>>> Everyone here, there and everywhere are _always_ running off at the
>>> mouth about how the composer should be "sensitive" to the likes of his
>>> or her audience or composers froth at _other_ composers that the
>>> latter's musical idiom or aesthetic isn't worth a damn.
>>>
>>> Aside from me, is there _anyone_ in this group that writes music that
>>> _he_ (or she) wants to write -- and be damned with what audiences,
>>> critics, friends, family, and local street whores think?
>>>
>>> I certainly hope there is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jay
>>
>>That is a very romanticized view of the arts, which is, for the most part,
>>wrong.
>
>
> I write the kind of music I want to write, and if my manuscripts just
> lay in a shelf never to be performed, because no one likes the music,
> I can live with this.
And you prove my point.
>
>>
>>People tell, and always have told, artists what to do and how it should be
>>done. And, for the most part, the artists who never listen are the ones
>>who
>>don't make a living at art.
>
> That's just it!
>
> Unlike many here, I'm not necessarily trying to make a living from
> composition. Sure, if I can get some financial gain from my music,
> I'm not going to turn it down. But trying to succeed financially from
> my music isn't my primary goal.
>
> Hell, I venture that many here have day jobs to pay the bills, and do
> not benefit financially solely from composing. Though, I could be
> wrong.
>
>>
>>Consider, the great Davinci considered his crowning achievement as a
>>sculptor to be a bronze horse, over 20 feet tall. But it was never made
>>during his lifetime because he couldn't get it funded.
>
> But that's a different issue.
>
> The funding issue aside, this bronze horse sculpture would have still
> been created because that is what Ds Vinci wanted.
The funding issue is the point. The lovers of sculpture were telling him
what and how to sculpt by not funding him.
>
>>
>>As to the written arts, writers are told by the readers' feet: if they
>>flock
>>to the books, then the writer is given the feedback that a need is being
>>filled; if they swarm away, then the opposite is true.
>
> Yeah, but this is like saying thousands of flies can't be wrong about
> the goodness of shit, if you'll excuse my French.
No, it is not. This is saying that thousands of flies like shit. How good,
or well crafted, or any other qualification means nothing against the mighty
"like" when it comes to the buying public voting and influencing with their
feet.
>
>>
>>As for composers, well, Haydn, for example, wrote a lot of music for
>>baritone. I have never seen if that was a particularly satisfying medium
>>for him, but, that was beside the point. His boss played the baritone,
>>and
>>seemed to like playing the baritone, so, to retain his job, he had better
>>come up with some baritone music. The same was true of comic operas: his
>>boss liked them so he had to write them. Similar stories can be told of
>>myriad of composers over the years.
>
> Sure, I expect this of commissioned and quasi-commissioned pieces.
Every composer who tries to make a living, note, make a living does similar.
Schubert tried for years to write a successful opera so that he would be a
success, and for the money. But, the lovers of opera and music voted with
their feet. Beethoven wrote versions of the same work to satisfy the lovers
of chamber music, so he could reach a wider audience and, well, show his
"sensitivity" to the audience and thereby get more money. Dvorak made deals
with his publisher: the audience wanted more symphonic dances, well, he
would give more syphonic dances because thereby he would be "sensitive" to
the wishes of the audience but only if he would publish his symphonies.
>
>>
>>Something else that tends to be forgotton is that while composing is
>>essentially hearing something in your head and then writing it down, what
>>you are hearing in your head is influenced by everything you have ever
>>heard. So, for good or for ill, everything, including being "sensitive"
>>to
>>the likes of the audience becomes a part of the music.
>
> For the life of me, I just don't come to that conclusion.
>
> I'm really taking to heart what you're saying, but unfortunately, I
> just can't come to your conclusion.
>
There is a simple experiment. Prior to the next time you compose, forget
all the music you have ever heard. Not just don't think about it, forget
it. All of it, even music you have written before. Even what music is.
The closest I know of a composer working in a cultural vacuum might be
Gesualdo. Everyone else is the sum total of their life to that point.
>
>>
>>As to the criticism? Hardly anything new. Composers have been saying bad
>>things about each other for as long as there has been composers.
>
> Yes, on this we agree.
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
Pete Thomas
> Poets and readers of poetry never tell how to write their poems.
> Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
> their paintings. Sculptors and lovers of sculpture never tell
> sclupters what sculptors to create. Novelists and readers never tell
> novelists how to write their novels (aside from editors, of course).
>
> Why on Earth isn't it the same for us classical music composers?
<snip>
I would say that music is different to the other arts you mentioned, it
has _always_ been "abstract".
By this I mean that literature, poetry, painting and sculpture used to
be more or less obvious in meaning, ie a picture or sculpture of a horse
was easily interpreted on first glance as a representation of a horse.
Any symbolism or more obscure meaning the artist may have had was
"behind" that and often required some winkling out. It was almost
impossible for instrumental music to have such an obvious representative
meaning. Of course all art can now be much more abstract.
--
Pete Thomas
***********
On-line composition and jazz theory courses, Saxophone Instruction DVD
***********
To reply privately please use the link on www.petethomas.co.uk.
xeno
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, J R Laredo wrote:
> ... for the most part, the artists who never listen are the ones who
> don't make a living at art.
The stubborn hear; they're just obstinate.
> As to the written arts, writers are told by the readers' feet: if they
> flock to the books, then the writer is given the feedback that a need is
> being filled; if they swarm away, then the opposite is true.
Feedback is a good thing but pandering is not. The best pulp, though,
tells the truth about something in a clear, unambiguous way.
Richard Brooks
> Poets and readers of poetry never tell how to write their poems.
> Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
> their paintings. Sculptors and lovers of sculpture never tell
> sclupters what sculptors to create. Novelists and readers never tell
> novelists how to write their novels (aside from editors, of course).
>
> Why on Earth isn't it the same for us classical music composers?
>
It's hard for us to lump our ideas into a warehouse and have the lot burnt
down.
Richard.
Samuel Vriezen
> Poets and readers of poetry never tell how to write their poems.
many do, actually. Edgar Allan Poe has a very lucid account
of how he wrote The Raven, for example.
> Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
> their paintings.
Not true either.
The fact is that it's very interesting to know as much as
can be known about how somebody did something interesting.
So people talk about it. It's very simple.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html
Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that
was or will be, much less is.
- Charles Bernstein
Samuel Vriezen
> Discussing how something is created is a different issue from telling
> someone what to write (commssions aside).
Got it.
Samuel Vriezen
> Aside from me, is there _anyone_ in this group that writes music that
> _he_ (or she) wants to write -- and be damned with what audiences,
> critics, friends, family, and local street whores think?
>
> I certainly hope there is.
Cheers Jay, reading you with more concentration this time -
I promised myself solemnly that what I'm going to do with my
life is things that I think are interesting. Therefore I try
to write only music that I will be willing to defend to the
utmost from a real sense of engagement with what I write.
I do care what people think about my music and of course
society influences me, but I try to be aware of how that
influencing works and use it to my advantage.
BTW sure, poets get told to write sensitive poetry all the
time, too. Only last week we had Bruce Andrews in Amsterdam
and he told us that his mother would really like him to
write a beautiful sensitive poem for a change. Mindless
conventionality pervades all society.
J R Laredo
"Jay" <motle...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:atav01tissselmdrf...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:22:20 +0100, Samuel Vriezen
> <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>Jay wrote:
>>
>>> Poets and readers of poetry never tell how to write their poems.
>>
>>many do, actually. Edgar Allan Poe has a very lucid account
>>of how he wrote The Raven, for example.
>
>
> Aside from accepting a commission, name for me five ocassions when
> five different people told you what pieces to write.
Don Peterson: "Your assignment is to write a fugue in the style of Bach."
Roque Cordero: "I would like for next week some short examples of ternary
form."
Russ Vroman: "You really should write some Christmas arrangements."
Barth Dowling: "That arrangement of Brian's Song for your sister's wedding
knocked me out. Write some more like that."
Robert Sheldon: "You need to write simpler."
>
>
>>
>>> Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
>>> their paintings.
>>
>>Not true either.
>>
>>The fact is that it's very interesting to know as much as
>>can be known about how somebody did something interesting.
>>So people talk about it. It's very simple.
>
> Discussing how something is created is a different issue from telling
> someone what to write (commssions aside).
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
Laurence Payne
<inv...@reply-via-site.com> wrote:
>I would say that music is different to the other arts you mentioned, it
>has _always_ been "abstract".
A load of it accompanies words. A load more, particularly in ancient
times, was functional. Dance music (in both usages of the term)
still is.
"Art" music may be central to we musicians, but is a very small
proportion of the world's total musical output, and a very small part
of the average listener's experience.
Samuel Vriezen
>>I do care what people think about my music and of course
>>society influences me, but I try to be aware of how that
>>influencing works and use it to my advantage.
>
>
> Yes, I understand what you're saying. However, I'm still just an
> itsy, bitsy, teeny, tiny bit different: I _don't_ care what people
> think about my music.
If you mean that entirely competely literally, I'll have a
hard time believing you. It's human to want to know and care
what other think of you. You can still do whatever you want
regardless of what others think but I bet there's reactions
to your work that would pain you. In fact, my work could
only grow by my having had to digest reactions to it.
> If someone doesn't like something I wrote, fine. I'll live.
Sure. Just anybody, sure. But there are probably people
whose judgement you hold in higher esteem.
Laurence Payne
>Hmm. Perhaps in this particular case, but I wouldn't want to
>generalize.
NOW you wouldn't want to generalise! :-)
Laurence Payne
>>It IS the same, because none of the above is true.
>
>ALL of the above is true...
Not just because you say so! In UPPER CASE or not :-)
>
>Example: I'm no art historian, but I suspect Rembrandt painted
>whatever the fuck he wanted.
>
>Rembrandt: "Hmm...a lovey bowl of apples. I think I'll make a
>painting of it."
>
>Rembrandt: "Hmm...it's been a while since my last self-portrait. I
>think I'll paint one."
>
>Elizabeth Bishop: "I want to relate the experience of a child dying
>in Nova Scotia. I'll call the poem, "First Death in Nova Scotia".
And both of those were doubtless immediately criticised and analysed
to death by other artists and writers who had plenty of advice to
offer regarding "improvements" and how they'd have approached a
different subject in a different way.
Read about Rembrandt.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/
He took lots of commissions. His patrons told him what to paint,
subject and style. They expected "Rembrandt as known". They got it.
Laurence Payne
>Poets and readers of poetry never tell how to write their poems.
>Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
>their paintings. Sculptors and lovers of sculpture never tell
>sclupters what sculptors to create. Novelists and readers never tell
>novelists how to write their novels (aside from editors, of course).
>
>Why on Earth isn't it the same for us classical music composers?
Sure they do. Go to any place where writers, painters (and wanabee
writers, painters) meet and watch them tear each other's work to
pieces :-)
J R Laredo
> Hmm. I'm reallly surprised that I have to spell things out around
> here.
>
You do, because your original statement was so removed from reality that it
only applies to people who never, ever show their work to anyone else. We
don't know what you mean, we don't know what your are thinking, we don't
know about your use of exception strings. All we know is what you wrote.
And what your wrote simply is not true.
You should try again, and this is how you should ........................
ekaguy
"Jay" <jsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:92kl011vius9v5b5i...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:37:43 GMT, "J R Laredo"
> jrlar...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Jay" <jsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:s3jg01plbr1j26c2f...@4ax.com...
> Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
> their paintings. Sculptors and lovers of sculpture never tell
> sclupters what sculptors to create. Novelists and readers never
tell
> novelists how to write their novels (aside from editors, of
course).
>
> Why on Earth isn't it the same for us classical music composers?
>
the
> mouth about how the composer should be "sensitive" to the likes of
his
> or her audience or composers froth at _other_ composers that the
> latter's musical idiom or aesthetic isn't worth a damn.
>
that
> _he_ (or she) wants to write -- and be damned with what audiences,
> critics, friends, family, and local street whores think?
>
> I certainly hope there is.
>
>
>
> That is a very romanticized view of the arts, which is, for the most
part,
> wrong.
>
> Respectfully, I disagree.
>
> I write the kind of music I want to write, and if my manuscripts
just
> lay in a shelf never to be performed, because no one likes the
music,
> I can live with this.
>
And you prove my point.
>
>
> People tell, and always have told, artists what to do and how it
should be
> done. And, for the most part, the artists who never listen are the
ones
> who
> don't make a living at art.
>
> That's just it!
>
> Unlike many here, I'm not necessarily trying to make a living from
> composition. Sure, if I can get some financial gain from my music,
> I'm not going to turn it down. But trying to succeed financially
from
> my music isn't my primary goal.
>
> Hell, I venture that many here have day jobs to pay the bills, and
do
> not benefit financially solely from composing. Though, I could be
> wrong.
>
>
> Consider, the great Davinci considered his crowning achievement as
a
> sculptor to be a bronze horse, over 20 feet tall. But it was never
made
> during his lifetime because he couldn't get it funded.
>
> But that's a different issue.
>
> The funding issue aside, this bronze horse sculpture would have
still
> been created because that is what Ds Vinci wanted.
>
The funding issue is the point. The lovers of sculpture were telling
him
what and how to sculpt by not funding him.
>
>
> As to the written arts, writers are told by the readers' feet: if
they
> flock
> to the books, then the writer is given the feedback that a need is
being
> filled; if they swarm away, then the opposite is true.
>
> [/quote]
Hello. Interesting comments, but I think misdirected. I am 52, and
have composed since I was 12. I compose music that is challenging to
the ears. It runs the gamet of tonal/atonal, but there is generally a
tonal base.
The fellow that speaks about poetry, visual art, and so on, I don't
agree with him exactly. AMATEUR artists run off of emotion and whim,
and are proud to say they are self taught. Artists who strive for the
better study and perfect their craft, and DO discuss and dissect their
work as does anyone in any other craft or specialty. Amateurs are
loath to discuss method or technique. The problem with some of these
postings is that some of you are comparing amateurs with
professionals....and adding confusion to the changes in society. It
is silly to compare what Dvorsak did in the 19th century, and to
compare it to anything in this new century. They did not have TV,
Cable, HBO, movies, phonographs, and so on. All of these modern
developments assist the composer of today, but add distance between
him/herself and his audience. Also, there was a mention of music
publishing. Composers of today don't rely on publishing as they did
in the 19th century. It's pointless to bring up these obvious
differences. Another word I see that keeps popping up, and it's
"feelings", and how the "feelings" of culture demand things of
composers. If you are speaking of strictly POP music, I will concede.
But let's get real. Serious concert music (of the last 100 years) has
little or nothing to do with the feelings of the masses. Conversely,
a serious composer is looking beyond mere feelings to express things
greater. Lastly, "feelings" do not get the job done without a great
deal of skill, patience, and hard work.
F/S.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Laurence Payne
>>And both of those were doubtless immediately criticised and analysed
>>to death by other artists and writers who had plenty of advice to
>>offer regarding "improvements" and how they'd have approached a
>>different subject in a different way.
>
>This isn't what I'm talking about.
>
>>
>>Read about Rembrandt.
>>http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/
>>
>>He took lots of commissions. His patrons told him what to paint,
>>subject and style. They expected "Rembrandt as known". They got it.
>
>As I've written elsewhere in this thread, I'm not referring to
>commissions.
You seem to be talking about a peculiar form of compositional
masturbation in which you choose to indulge. It's just for you - an
audience is not required.
Fine. I trust you find it therapeutic. But why do you feel it worth
discussing?
Samuel Vriezen
> You seem to be talking about a peculiar form of compositional
> masturbation in which you choose to indulge. It's just for you - an
> audience is not required.
>
> Fine. I trust you find it therapeutic. But why do you feel it worth
> discussing?
I tend to feel that the romantic picture of the 'lonely
artist' working outside society - even if it works in some
rare cases (Nancarrow?) - is mostly a political setup
designed to make artists passive about their role in
society, to make them unwilling to assert themselves. It's
about taming creativity.
"We, the capitalist status quo, have given you the right to
be an individual artist struggling in heroic isolation.
Aren't you glad? Now shut up, we've got business to take
care of."
Samuel Vriezen
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:05:38 +0100, Samuel Vriezen
> <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>Laurence Payne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You seem to be talking about a peculiar form of compositional
>>>masturbation in which you choose to indulge. It's just for you - an
>>>audience is not required.
>>>
>>>Fine. I trust you find it therapeutic. But why do you feel it worth
>>>discussing?
>>
>>
>>I tend to feel that the romantic picture of the 'lonely
>>artist' working outside society - even if it works in some
>>rare cases (Nancarrow?) - is mostly a political setup
>>designed to make artists passive about their role in
>>society, to make them unwilling to assert themselves. It's
>>about taming creativity.
>>
>>"We, the capitalist status quo, have given you the right to
>>be an individual artist struggling in heroic isolation.
>>Aren't you glad? Now shut up, we've got business to take
>>care of."
>
>
>
> Not caring what others think of one's artistry, in no way means one is
> an artistic hermit. To believe othereise to be writing too much into
> something.
>
> You really should take what I've said in this thread at face value,
> and leave it at that.
>
> In other words, I don't think you should go looking for sometihng that
> isn't there.
>
OK, just be very clear, because a lot of artists *do* use
the 'I don't care about society' reasoning to actually not
care about society.
Matthew Fields
Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>> I don't know what you mean by a "vigorous creative act".
>>
>> Feel free to elaborate.
>
>Inspiration, the view of the work as a whole, the "it" that without "it"
>it's just a mess of notes.
That's what (note-oriented) music is. All of it. But we can perceive
it as if it were "something more", or enjoy it without that perception;
either way is good. The notion that there must be an extra "it" beyond
people enjoying listening to sounds that makes music music is an
unnecessary layer of mysticism.
>Most people nowadays have no problem with The Rite of Spring. But if you
>made a whole piece out of the beginning, or the end, they'd be offended.
Precious few people complained at the random cuts Stokowski applied to it.
The result, of course, wasn't The Rite of Spring, but it was part of
the soundtrack of Fantasia.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Matthew Fields
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that music is neither dance
nor words.
Matthew Fields
Jay <jsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:32:00 +0000, Pete Thomas
><inv...@reply-via-site.com> wrote:
>
>>> Poets and readers of poetry never tell how to write their poems.
>>> Painters and lovers of paintings never tell painters how to create
>>> their paintings. Sculptors and lovers of sculpture never tell
>>> sclupters what sculptors to create. Novelists and readers never tell
>>> novelists how to write their novels (aside from editors, of course).
>>>
>>> Why on Earth isn't it the same for us classical music composers?
>>
>>
>>I would say that music is different to the other arts you mentioned, it
>>has _always_ been "abstract".
>>
>>be more or less obvious in meaning, ie a picture or sculpture of a horse
>>was easily interpreted on first glance as a representation of a horse.
>>Any symbolism or more obscure meaning the artist may have had was
>>"behind" that and often required some winkling out. It was almost
>>impossible for instrumental music to have such an obvious representative
>>meaning. Of course all art can now be much more abstract.
>
>Yes, I take your point about music being "abstract", but surely we've
>all heard music that touches our imagination in such a way that it
>borders on the "concrete", so to speak.
>
>Off the top of my head, I think of Tchaikovsky's musical depiction of
>Hell in his piece "Francesca Da Rimini".
Is that "hell" or "an orgasm"?
Pete Thomas
My point exactly. There are only subjective interpretations of such an
intrinsically abstract artform. It can't be a "concrete" interpretation
if it varies between hell and an orgasm.
--
Pete Thomas - www.petethomas.co.uk
***********
On-line saxophone exercises, composition and jazz theory courses,
Saxophone Instruction DVD
***********
To reply privately please use the link on my site.
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>>
>> "Art" music may be central to we musicians, but is a very small
>>proportion of the world's total musical output, and a very small part
>>of the average listener's experience.
>
>Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that music is neither dance
>nor words.
Music is often part of an entity "Song". Must the musical element
always stand alone? Should it?
Matthew Fields
If it doesn't work by itself (e.g. for listeners who don't understand
the language), it might be less effective than if it does. Then you could
get the words and the music reinforcing each other's strengths rather than
trying desparately to cover up for each other's weaknesses.
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>>Music is often part of an entity "Song". Must the musical element
>>always stand alone? Should it?
>
>If it doesn't work by itself (e.g. for listeners who don't understand
>the language), it might be less effective than if it does. Then you could
>get the words and the music reinforcing each other's strengths rather than
>trying desparately to cover up for each other's weaknesses.
It might. Is this your ideal?
Matthew Fields
In all relationships, not just words-music relationships. :)
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>>>>Music is often part of an entity "Song". Must the musical element
>>>>always stand alone? Should it?
>>>
>>>If it doesn't work by itself (e.g. for listeners who don't understand
>>>the language), it might be less effective than if it does. Then you could
>>>get the words and the music reinforcing each other's strengths rather than
>>>trying desparately to cover up for each other's weaknesses.
>>
>>It might. Is this your ideal?
>
>In all relationships, not just words-music relationships. :)
Interesting. I see the possibility that if either music or lyric are
TOO strong, it can lessen the whole.
There's an analogy in audio mixing. You can set up an "ultimate"
piano sound, covering the full frequency range, in a lovely
reverberant space - but it won't lie very well with a similarly
"ultimate" solo instrument.
Matthew Fields
Well, strength includes knowing when to be calm and *not* clamor for
attention.