why no new Beethovens?
Richard Crist
Brahms, why in the world, do you think, did people stop writing music like
that? It seems to be assumed by everyone that the time for
baroque/classical/romantic music has passed, but how can such an assumption
be justified?
Richard Crist
ChIamydia Jane
to write music like Bach. And no Mahler if he had chosen to write music like
Beethoven. And no Schoenberg if he had chosen to write music like Mahler,
and....well you get the point, I hope.
--Jane
Samuel Vriezen
> Considering the universal success of the music of Bach, Beethoven, and
> Brahms, why in the world, do you think, did people stop writing music like
> that?
Because you can't beat such well-established brands in their own market.
> It seems to be assumed by everyone that the time for
> baroque/classical/romantic music has passed, but how can such an assumption
> be justified?
Try falsifying it - write like Bach, Beethoven or Brahms and see how far
you get.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
Mahler
It is generally much later when composer's music is thought of as 'really
good' (as one would say, Beethoven, Brahms, Bach, etc.). There
are and have been GOOD composers writting music for the last 100 years,
however not many people have heard of them. Most concert goers would
scream if there was a concert without familiar music (Brahms, Beethoven,
etc). And well, the concert goers pay the bills, so you have to play what
they would feel comfortable hearing.
I recently finished a grad paper on this topic. Here's a relevant blurb
from my paper. Source used below is Nicolas Slonimsky's book: Lexicon of
Musical Invective: Critical Assaults on Composers Since Beethoven's Time
(NY: Coleman-Ross, 1953).
"
It is very true that all composers receive harsh reviews on the early
performances of their works. Anything that sounds "new" and against
what is the normal conception of music is by default perceived with a
biased ear. In an April 1825 review of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, the
British newspaper The Harmonicon states that:
"We find Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to be precisely one hour and five
minutes long; a fearful period indeed, which puts the muscles and lungs
of the band, and the patience of the audience to a severe trial....The
last movement, a chorus, is heterogeneous. What relation it bears to the
symphony we could not make out; and here, as well in other parts, the
want of intelligible design is too apparent."
Tchaikovsky is now famous for the sharp rejection of his Violin Concerto
upon its premier, which many violinists at the time claimed was an
impossible work. Tchaikovsky also got huge negative press. On December 5,
1881 the major newspaper of Vienna, the Neue Freie Presse, wrote:
"Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto gives us for the first time the hideous
notion that there can be music that stinks to the ear."
Jeffrey Quick
"Richard Crist" <pt...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> Considering the universal success of the music of Bach, Beethoven, and
> Brahms, why in the world, do you think, did people stop writing music like
> that?
I don't know as if they have. There's the early-late Rochberg clones of
Beethoven, and a lot of "retro" music on the Net. None of it seems as
exciting as "the real thing". The retro-baroque seems to work best, as
one hears a lot of 18th-c knleimeisters who are no worse.
It's hard to write vigorous music in an older style, hard to find a
voice in it. And without a voice, it's just pastiche work, and we don't
hear it. I think that new music has to sound new, even if it uses the
same old chords. And that's a tall order.
It seems to be assumed by everyone that the time for
> baroque/classical/romantic music has passed, but how can such an assumption
> be justified?
Well, clearly it hasn't, as people are still listening to it. But why
should I play Gyrowetz to Mozart when I have a chance of playing Quick
to nobody?
Mahler
instant at all. I think there are MANY Beethoven and Brahms out there
today, many AMAZING composers. Sadly enough it will be like Mahler,
several years after their death until their music is appreciated and
thought of as a 'universal success.'
David7Gable
Universal? Does every teenager alive today listen to their music? Is it the
music most widely performed on the island of Bali?
>, why in the world, do you think, did people stop writing music like
>that?
Define music "like that." Their music is at the heart of the canon of 18th-
and 19th-century Western music, but music stemming from the traditions of
Western art music continues to be written. Looking back at dead 20th-century
composers, Schönberg, Bartók, Stravinsky, and Britten all wrote music that
sounds unlike Bach's, Beethoven's, and Brahms's in many respects.
Nevertheless, their music continues various developments characteristic of the
Western traditions, and it's not always readily apparent how "canonical" the
seemingly new and strange actually is. Listeners becoming familiar with the
serial music of Schönberg for the first time are always surprised to discover
how conservative and Brahmsian that corner of Schönberg's output proves to be.
>It seems to be assumed by everyone that the time for
>baroque/classical/romantic music has passed, but how can such an assumption
>be justified?
It's not an assumption that requires justification, it's the way of the world.
There is no assumption that the time for these styles has past. There is only
the fact that they have. If you examine the traditions of Western music,
literature, and painting, you discover that styles rise and styles fall.
Styles develop in response to the needs--aesthetic needs--perceived by artists
in a given period, and the needs of later artists may not be the same. There
are periods when styles seem to answer all of the needs of the most ambitious
artists, who are also always the artists most responsible for the development
of these styles, and yet they never survive the deaths of those most
responsible for them unchanged.
Nobody in the heyday of Raphael, Leonardo, and Michelangelo imagined that the
high Renaissance style would ever disappear. To everybody most deeply involved
in the art of the place and period, these painters seemed to have scaled
unprecedented heights in solving all the problems. Painting seemed finally to
have arrived. Fifty years later, nobody was painting in a High Renaissance
style, which doesn't mean that Benvenuto Cellini and Caravaggio weren't heirs
to Michelangelo, but they took from Michelangelo what they could use in forming
new styles of their own. In the 1860's and 1870's, the impressionists and
above all Monet had achieved an ambitious new style that seemed to have
liberated them from the shackles of tradition, as they saw them. But the
so-called post-impressionists reacted against the most characteristic aspects
of impressionism and took it in new directions reflecting views that
contradicted those of the impressionists. The visible brushstrokes of Monet
take on an entirely new meaning in the thick expressionist impasto of Van Gogh.
In the "pointillist" paintings of Signac and Seurat the hasty brush strokes of
Monet gave way to precise points of color, blurred impressions to clearly
projected geometric forms. Beethoven hoped to study composition with Mozart
and did in fact study with Haydn, yet his style is distinct from theirs in
important respects. Beethoven himself was idolized by most of the Romantics,
but the Romantics largely abandoned the dynamic and dramatic form building
fundamental to Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven in favor or a more lyrical
approach.
How do you suggest preventing historical processes of this kind from unfolding?
-david gable
Jason Eckardt
excuse me while I powder my wig.
JE
--
New CD on Mode: http://www.mode.com/catalog/137eckardt.html
Website: http://www.ensemble21.com/eckardt
Samuel Vriezen
> A ha! Now I know what I must do to achieve universal success! Now,
> excuse me while I powder my wig.
>
> JE
> --
> New CD on Mode: http://www.mode.com/catalog/137eckardt.html
Congratulations on your wig, I mean CD! I'll be looking for it...
Jeffrey Quick
Mahler <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> To quote Andrew Imbrie, people have always been harsh towards new music.
Always? Until the mid-18th century, there WAS nothing but new music; old
music was never performed. And even after, what people had trouble with
was not new music per se, but new aesthetics. This notion of canonical
repertoire is really 19th-c.
"There is no music, not written within the past 40 years, which is
regarded by the learned as worth hearing"- Johannes Tinctoris, 15th c.
> It is generally much later when composer's music is thought of as 'really
> good' (as one would say, Beethoven, Brahms, Bach, etc.). There
> are and have been GOOD composers writting music for the last 100 years,
> however not many people have heard of them. Most concert goers would
> scream if there was a concert without familiar music (Brahms, Beethoven,
> etc). And well, the concert goers pay the bills, so you have to play what
> they would feel comfortable hearing.
>
> I recently finished a grad paper on this topic.
If this was the level of your argumentation, I assume your prof tore you
apart. Yes, I know the Slonimsky- which of course has its own critical
axe to grind. Note that Nick didn't include any of the choice invective
used on OLD music...such as Charles Burney's slams of various
Renaissance composers, or Ives on Mozart.
Here's a relevant blurb
> from my paper. Source used below is Nicolas Slonimsky's book: Lexicon of
> Musical Invective: Critical Assaults on Composers Since Beethoven's Time
> (NY: Coleman-Ross, 1953).
>
> "
> It is very true that all composers receive harsh reviews on the early
> performances of their works. Anything that sounds "new" and against
> what is the normal conception of music is by default perceived with a
> biased ear. In an April 1825 review of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, the
> British newspaper The Harmonicon states that:
>
> "We find Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to be precisely one hour and five
> minutes long; a fearful period indeed, which puts the muscles and lungs
> of the band, and the patience of the audience to a severe trial....The
> last movement, a chorus, is heterogeneous. What relation it bears to the
> symphony we could not make out; and here, as well in other parts, the
> want of intelligible design is too apparent."
From the viewpoint of the standard classical symphony, I'd say that
review was spot-on. You want me to sit through something twice as long
as the normal symphony, with a CHORUS which symphonies don't have,
singing in some kind of free sorta-rondo form? That's WORK! It's a
reasonable complaint, just as a complaint over the size of a Sorabji or
late Feldman work would be reasonable today.
TomHendricks474
I'm trying for instance.
(You can hear some MP3 of both serious and fun work on my website)
Yet like one said before in an earlier post - if you imitate these masters you
aren't innovating anything. I think 'serious' music to match the achievements
of these masters, will not look the same - so search in other areas. And since
the modern era, you've almost always had some mix of popular music with
classical style.
And note the impact of rhythms in modern music - remember that is innovation
too.
Tom Hendricks, Musea zine ed.
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com"
Musea GUARANTEES every musician, painter, writer, etc.
a REVIEW - a tough review - a fair review.
Contact me for our policy. Samples:
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com/reviews1.html
Jerry Kohl
> In article <pan.2004.06.29....@nowhere.com>,
> Mahler <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > To quote Andrew Imbrie, people have always been harsh towards new music.
>
> Always? Until the mid-18th century, there WAS nothing but new music; old
> music was never performed. And even after, what people had trouble with
> was not new music per se, but new aesthetics.
The new-old dichotomy is of course relative. I suspect you are thinking of
a difference of 50 years or more. Think in terms of 20 years and the picture
is quite different. Consider Jacobus of Liège who, at the beginning of the
14th century chose very sour words indeed to express his opinion of the
new music of his day. Come to that, if *all* music was "new music", why
did they bother to refer to this newfangled stuff as "Ars Nova"?
The 14th century is of course a very big watershed, but there were earlier
instances, as well. The next really big eruption is at the end of the 16th
century. Have you forgotten the Monteverdi-Artusi controversy?
Throughout the history of the Church, Popes periodically found it
necessary to condemn innovations in church music, from tropes
to new chants to polyphony to dance rhythms to castrati.
It may well be true that resistence to the new in art music has changed
since the 18th century, but the nature and pace of innovation has
changed, as well. This has also manifested itself as a diversification
of styles, with consequent rivalry amongst competing camps, often
interpreted as "resistence to progress", but this is quite a different
thing to the process of "classicization"--that is, the making of a fixed
body of past literature into a more-or-less permanent standard against
which all subsequent art will be (mostly unfavorably) compared. It is
this classicization that, as you have said:
> This notion of canonical
> repertoire is really 19th-c.
marks off the difference between the 18th century and subsequent times.
> "There is no music, not written within the past 40 years, which is
> regarded by the learned as worth hearing"- Johannes Tinctoris, 15th c.
And there have always been champions of the new and recent. Nicolas
Slonimsky was a stellar example in the 20th century, but perhaps Boulez
would provide more apt comparisons for the Tinctoris quotation.
--
Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Jason Eckardt
> Jason Eckardt wrote:
>
> > A ha! Now I know what I must do to achieve universal success! Now,
> > excuse me while I powder my wig.
> >
> > JE
> > --
> > New CD on Mode: http://www.mode.com/catalog/137eckardt.html
>
> Congratulations on your wig, I mean CD! I'll be looking for it...
Thanks Samuel! If you (or anyone else in the NG) get a chance, do let
me -- or us -- know what you think.
JE
--
New CD on Mode: http://www.mode.com/catalog/137eckardt.html
Website: http://www.ensemble21.com/eckardt
Buster Mudd
> Listeners becoming familiar with the
> serial music of Schönberg for the first time are always surprised to discover
> how conservative and Brahmsian that corner of Schönberg's output proves to
> be.
>
When I first started studying Schoenberg I already had a passing
familiarity with & fondness for some music of Webern, Babbitt, Boulez,
& Wuorinen...and I was surprised by how much I *disliked* Schoenberg
in comparison.
It was only when I started studying Brahms that I realized "Aha, this
explains why I dislike Schoenberg!"
Buster Mudd
> That's WORK! It's a
> reasonable complaint, just as a complaint over the size of a Sorabji or
> late Feldman work would be reasonable today.
"Reasonable"??? I can see why a complaint over the size of a Feldman
work would be "understandable" today, but that still doesn't make it
"reasonable". Feldman's works justify their size by virtue of their
fundamental architecture; their very "aboutness", their raison d'etre
is based on the perception of macro-time.
To complain about the size of a Feldman piece is as "reasonable" as
complaining about a Bach invention's being "too tonal": It says
something about the listener, not about the work.
Jeffrey Quick
mr_fu...@mail.com (Buster Mudd) wrote:
Sure it does. But there's a sense in which the work is created by the
nexus between composition and listener. If the audience isn't used to a
particular span of time, a review is going to reflact that. Note that
reviews describe concerts as opposed to being definitive aethetic
evaluations of the performance and music contained therein. We hear
Beethoven 9 differently today because we are used to Mahler.
And what is the difference between "understandable" and "reasonable"
anyway? seems like they're nearly synonyms.
Samuel Vriezen
> In article <936ad1fd.04063...@posting.google.com>,
> mr_fu...@mail.com (Buster Mudd) wrote:
>
>
>>Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
>>news:<jaq-0C969E.1...@eeyore.ins.cwru.edu>...
>>
>>>That's WORK! It's a
>>>reasonable complaint, just as a complaint over the size of a Sorabji or
>>>late Feldman work would be reasonable today.
>>
>>
>>"Reasonable"??? I can see why a complaint over the size of a Feldman
>>work would be "understandable" today, but that still doesn't make it
>>"reasonable". Feldman's works justify their size by virtue of their
>>fundamental architecture; their very "aboutness", their raison d'etre
>>is based on the perception of macro-time.
>>
>>To complain about the size of a Feldman piece is as "reasonable" as
>>complaining about a Bach invention's being "too tonal": It says
>>something about the listener, not about the work.
>
>
> Sure it does. But there's a sense in which the work is created by the
> nexus between composition and listener. If the audience isn't used to a
> particular span of time, a review is going to reflact that.
I don't tend to think of reviews as paradigmatic of reason.
Jerry Kohl
D'you mean, you disliked Brahms and understood that the common factors
were the seat of your islike of Schoenberg, or that you found that, on closer
acquaintance, you preferred Brahms's use of those factors to the way
Schoenberg used them?
David7Gable
>familiarity with & fondness for some music of Webern, Babbitt, Boulez,
>& Wuorinen...and I was surprised by how much I *disliked* Schoenberg
>in comparison.
>
>It was only when I started studying Brahms that I realized "Aha, this
>explains why I dislike Schoenberg!"
It was the Brahms in the serial Schoenberg that made the young Boulez dislike
it. The pre-World War I Schoenberg of the Five Orchestral Pieces, Erwartung,
Pierrot lunaire, and Jakobsleiter was a very different composer.
-david gable
Jerry Kohl
Yes, I do know that. But what was it that Buster Mudd didn't like?
David7Gable
Jerry, on the evidence of the vast knowledge of Western traditions that you
have displayed on the internet, I assumed that you knew that Schoenberg was a
remarkably different composer before and after World War I. I wasn't sure that
Buster Mudd knew that, but I made the assumption that he was allergic to the
Brahmsian conservatism of the serial Schoenberg rather in the manner of the
young Boulez.
-david gable
Jerry Kohl
David, I imagine that you are probably correct about this, but I would still like
to hear it from Buster Mudd's own lips. This change in Schoenberg's style
is described by Charles Rosen as a turn to Neoclassicism--a turn provoked
by Schoenberg's dismay at the rawness of the expressionism of Erwartung.
Rosen's argument is entirely plausible, but I find it ironic that Schoenberg's
"neoclassicism" should be so redolent of Brahms (as it certainly is--at least,
in the later 12-tone works, like the Piano Concerto), while the neoclassicism
of Hindemith and Stravinsky is more precisely neo-Baroque.
As for the young Boulez, I had never thought of his pre-serial music (such as
Le Visage Nuptial) as particularly Brahmsian--more Wagnerian, I would have
said--but perhaps you have a point here. Was Boulez rejecting in Schoenberg
what it was that he found unacceptable in his own recent work at that time?
Ian Pace
"Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40E3C4E0...@comcast.net...
Boulez' referred to the allergy on Buster Mudd's part rather than the
conservatism of the serial Schoenberg.
Has Boulez's disdain for Brahms always continued abated up to the present
day? Has he ever conducted any?
Ian (whose problems with some later Boulez relate to the problems I have
with some of Wagner's more kitschy works :) )
Steve Layton
still like
> to hear it from Buster Mudd's own lips. This change in Schoenberg's style
> is described by Charles Rosen as a turn to Neoclassicism--a turn provoked
> by Schoenberg's dismay at the rawness of the expressionism of Erwartung.
> Rosen's argument is entirely plausible, but I find it ironic that
Schoenberg's
> "neoclassicism" should be so redolent of Brahms (as it certainly is--at
least,
> in the later 12-tone works, like the Piano Concerto), while the
neoclassicism
> of Hindemith and Stravinsky is more precisely neo-Baroque.
I always feel that by the 1930s there's more a "returning"; getting back to
something closer to pre-1910 Schoenberg's preoccupations, after trying
define his voice while riding some of the other currents that were big
general influences of the time. I certainly don't hold with the
"Neoclassical" change coming from a purely aesthetic reaction like you
mention; I just think that by and large he found himself getting to a
technical place, where he was having trouble seeing how to keep a piece
going in a way that felt convincing to him. The "Brahms" was there at the
beginning, and was there at the end.
--
Steve Layton
Four always useful links:
NetNewMusic: www.netnewmusic.net
Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar: www.kalvos.org
NewMusicBox: www.newmusicbox.org
Music Now: Worldwide, at CD Baby: http://cdbaby.com/group/musicnow
David7Gable
>Le Visage Nuptial) as particularly Brahmsian--more Wagnerian, I would have
>said--
Actually, it's unlikely that Boulez was terribly familiar with Wagner when he
wrote Visage nuptial. It's the greatest example of the French expressionist
style he developed before the experiment with "total serialism," but it might
better be described as his answer to Schoenberg's expressionist style. Then
again, Schoenberg's expressionist style was a post-Wagnerian development just
as his neoclassicizing serial works were post-Brahmsian. Just compare
Erwartung to one of its sources, Mime's little scene of terror following the
departure of the Wanderer in the first act of Siegfried.
Of course, Boulez had ambivalent feelings even toward Schoenberg's
expressionism and the late Romantic and expressionist literature it was related
to. He had a more unalloyed enthusiasm for Char's and Artaud's. When Boulez
says "seize the delirium and organize it" he is under Artaud's spell. (The
influence of Artaud is nowhere more apparent than in the world premiere of
Soleil des eaux, now available on CD. Désormière was the conductor, of course,
and the whole concert is on INA Mémoire Vive IMV 041.)
>Was Boulez rejecting in Schoenberg
>what it was that he found unacceptable in his own recent work at that time?
No. Both Boulez's first "expressionist" style and his post-total-serialist (as
I would put it) "impressionist" style (embodied in Marteau and Pli selon pli)
are attempts to do something different from Schoenberg's neoclassical serial
works.
One of the differences between Barraqué and Boulez is that Barraqué never
abandoned his first expressionist style for an "impressionist" style as Boulez
did.
-david gable
David7Gable
>Boulez' referred to the allergy on Buster Mudd's part rather than the
>conservatism of the serial Schoenberg.
Yes.
>Has Boulez's disdain for Brahms always continued abated up to the present
>day? Has he ever conducted any?
He conducted a little Brahms in both London and New York. Hard to escape when
you're the Music Director of a major orchestra. There's even a live recording
of the German Requiem. He's more enthusiastic about Brahms today than fifty
years ago.
>Ian (whose problems with some later Boulez relate to the problems I have
>with some of Wagner's more kitschy works :) )
Personally, I don't hear much Wagner in Répons, ...explosante/fixe..., Sur
incises, or Dérive II, the longest pieces he's written since 1979. Notation
VII seems to me to be Boulez's answer to Lulu (at a very great remove), which
brings you a little closer to Wagner. Curious what you think are Wagner's more
kitschy works.
-david gable
David7Gable
>something closer to pre-1910 Schoenberg's preoccupations, after trying
>define his voice while riding some of the other currents that were big
>general influences of the time.
It's hard not to see the neoclassicizing elements in the serial Schoenberg as a
part of the Zeitgeist. In France there was a reaction against a Debussy who
was perceived as being too amorphous, and Kandinsky, Mondrian, Webern, Picasso,
Eliot, Stravinsky, etc. etc. all changed their styles in ways analogous to
Schoenberg.
> The "Brahms" was there at the
>beginning, and was there at the end.
At the VERY beginning, pre-Opus 1, maybe, but already Verklärte Nacht has
everything to do with Wagner (Parsifal Act III Prelude).
-david gable
Jerry Kohl
> >As for the young Boulez, I had never thought of his pre-serial music (such as
> >Le Visage Nuptial) as particularly Brahmsian--more Wagnerian, I would have
> >said--
>
> Actually, it's unlikely that Boulez was terribly familiar with Wagner when he
> wrote Visage nuptial. It's the greatest example of the French expressionist
> style he developed before the experiment with "total serialism," but it might
> better be described as his answer to Schoenberg's expressionist style. Then
> again, Schoenberg's expressionist style was a post-Wagnerian development just
> as his neoclassicizing serial works were post-Brahmsian. Just compare
> Erwartung to one of its sources, Mime's little scene of terror following the
> departure of the Wanderer in the first act of Siegfried.
Yes, of course this is all perfectly true. I suspect that we may not get a
very clear picture of Boulez's early influences until we have better
access to the music of Leibowitz from that time. After all, it was from
Leibowitz that Boulez (and just about everybody else in Europe in
the immediate post-war years) learned about Schoenberg's style and
techniques--as well as Berg's and Webern's--but Leibowitz's own
compositions must have played a role as well, and these are almost
completely unknown today. I have never heard any of them performed,
and have only ever seen the score of his Four Pieces for Piano, op. 8.
Leibowitz's Chamber Symphony, op. 16, was premiered at Darmstadt
in 1948, and the style of pieces from around this time would more
likely have been what Boulez heard during his studies with Leibowitz--
even if by 1948 they had already had their falling out.
> One of the differences between Barraqué and Boulez is that Barraqué never
> abandoned his first expressionist style for an "impressionist" style as Boulez
> did.
Of course, Barraqué was three years younger than Boulez, and died in
1973, in his 45th year. However, you are correct in saying that his style
shows much less radical change than Boulez's does.
David7Gable
>1973, in his 45th year.
In short, he was born the same year as Stockhausen. And the developments under
discussion took place long before Barraqué died.
-david gable
Richard Crist
David7Gable <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040630022806...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> >Considering the universal success of the music of Bach, Beethoven,
>
> Universal? Does every teenager alive today listen to their music? Is it
the
> music most widely performed on the island of Bali?
I mean greatly esteemed, by many people, over a long period of time.
>
> >, why in the world, do you think, did people stop writing music like
> >that?
>
> Define music "like that."
perhaps: serious music that's tonal, with regular rhythms, and beautiful...
> >It seems to be assumed by everyone that the time for
> >baroque/classical/romantic music has passed, but how can such an
assumption
> >be justified?
>
> It's not an assumption that requires justification, it's the way of the
world.
> There is no assumption that the time for these styles has past. There is
only
> the fact that they have.
I really want to focus on "shoulds": what's implicitly being said, I think,
is: "new music in classical style should be held in contempt"--I wonder how
such a claim might be justified.
If you examine the traditions of Western music,
> literature, and painting, you discover that styles rise and styles fall.
> Styles develop in response to the needs--aesthetic needs--perceived by
artists
> in a given period, and the needs of later artists may not be the same.
There
> are periods when styles seem to answer all of the needs of the most
ambitious
> artists, who are also always the artists most responsible for the
development
> of these styles, and yet they never survive the deaths of those most
> responsible for them unchanged.
I'm concerned most with the aesthetic needs of the listener, I guess; if the
needs of artists of a particular period don't end up enriching the world,
there's something wrong. And if potentially enriching music is de facto
suppressed, there's something wrong.
Maybe a renaissance can't be prevented.
Jerry Kohl
Yes, I would have to agree that Barraqué remained truer to his original
aesthetic--or at least, the one that was in place at the time of composition
of his Piano Sonata--than Boulez did for the period from 1948 to 1960
or so. It is also true that Boulez was dissatisfied with quite a lot of the
music he composed between 1951 and 1958, and Barraqué seems not
to have had this problem--though there are also those scores that were
lost in the fire.
However, I'm not entirely sure I find the "expressionist/impressionist"
comparison entirely apt for Boulez's output. I'm more comfortable
with the former term as applied to the earliest scores than I am with
the latter as applied to almost anything, but certainly the "fervid" manner
of Le Visage and Soleil des Eaux gives way to something altogether
cooler by the time of Le Marteau and Pli selon Pli.
Jeffrey Quick
"Richard Crist" <pt...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> David7Gable <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040630022806...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> > >Considering the universal success of the music of Bach, Beethoven,
> >
> > Universal? Does every teenager alive today listen to their music? Is it
> the
> > music most widely performed on the island of Bali?
>
> I mean greatly esteemed, by many people, over a long period of time.
In that case we can't know whether people are writing it or not, since
"a long period of time" hasn't passed.
> >
> > >, why in the world, do you think, did people stop writing music like
> > >that?
> >
> > Define music "like that."
>
> perhaps: serious music that's tonal, with regular rhythms, and beautiful...
Like John Adams, Philip Glass, later Gorecki, Jeff Harrington?
> I really want to focus on "shoulds": what's implicitly being said, I think,
> is: "new music in classical style should be held in contempt"--I wonder how
> such a claim might be justified.
I don't know. I myself don't make that claim. There are some modern
American tonal composers who I think have a voice and who I enjoy
listening to sometimes: Robert Baksa, Arnold Rosner, Rick Sowash. Do I
think they are "for the ages"? No. Their music pleases, but it doesn't
amaze, in the way that say Beethoven or Mozart amazes. Is it possible
that somebody could write "tonal" "rhythmic" music (whatever that means)
and be amazing nowadays? Sure, if Beethoven was amazing doing that. In
certain ways, Conlon Nancarrow might be just such a person. It's hard if
you're limiting yourself to ground well-ploughed during the common
practice period. It's easier if you cross-fertilize periods. What
happens when you take renaissance counterpoint and cross it with modern
popular-based rhythms? One example of that is Moondog, but vastly much
more could be done with the same concept.
> I'm concerned most with the aesthetic needs of the listener, I guess; if the
> needs of artists of a particular period don't end up enriching the world,
> there's something wrong. And if potentially enriching music is de facto
> suppressed, there's something wrong.
I don't think music is being suppressed, even "de facto". Part of the
problem is in public patronage. A prince spends for music according to
his own tastes. A bureaucrat must keep his own tastes out of the process
as much as possible. So there's a tendency to go for easily-quantifyable
criteria: education (doctorates from "good" schools and teachers),
numbers of performances (inflatable if you're academically connected and
can take in other composers' laundry), race and gender. Combine this
with the conservatism (!) of the academy and of Europe (where too many
conductors of American orchestras still come from) and you have a
situation where people don't take risks on "what is not done". The
situation is MUCH improved from 30 years ago though.
OK, I want to challenge you. Let's assume for a moment that there are no
new Beethovens. Then who are the new Hummels, the guys who are coming
close to doing what you want to hear? Which living composers do you like
to listen to? If you say "None of them", you've just been lazy, because
there is music of every stile being written out there.
Samuel Vriezen
> I'm concerned most with the aesthetic needs of the listener, I guess; if the
> needs of artists of a particular period don't end up enriching the world,
> there's something wrong. And if potentially enriching music is de facto
> suppressed, there's something wrong.
Do you think this is the case? Myself, I have the impression that most
listeners' needs are brilliantly met by the industry; I'm not aware of
true suppression of any music (though I do know that not all interesting
music is solidly marketed).
David7Gable
No poet, composer, or writer owes it to you to write what you want to read,
look at, or hear.
> if the
>needs of artists of a particular period don't end up enriching the world,
>there's something wrong.
Who are the villains whose art hasn't enriched the world?
>And if potentially enriching music is de facto
>suppressed, there's something wrong.
Who's suppressing whom or what? Anybody can write what he or she wants to
write (assuming he or she has the chops to do so).
-david gable
David7Gable
>I'm more comfortable
>with the former term [expressionist] as applied to the earliest scores than I
am with
>the latter [impressionist] as applied to almost anything, but certainly the
"fervid" manner
>of Le Visage and Soleil des Eaux gives way to something altogether
>cooler by the time of Le Marteau and Pli selon Pli.
But it's not merely a question of "cooler" works written in the same style:
the works are "cooler" because they depend on a somewhat different KIND of
language that was developed to express something cooler. Visage nuptial is
still expressive/dynamic in a way that Pli selon pli is not. Pli selon pli
hovers and floats, depends on a kind of sustained tension remote from the
tension-release patterns that expression in Western music has traditionally
depended on, even the teeming last movement. Not that I consider the one
language superior to the other: I love 'em both. (For me, the problem with
Visage nuptial is that the 1951 version makes you realize the extent to which
the 1989 version is too slick, a partial betrayal of the savage original, while
the 1989 version makes you realize that the 1951 version is not quite polished
enough. What we needed was a revision made in the mid-60's. 1989 was too
late. IMO the "ideal" work underlying these two realizations, a work to which
these two versions are the only access, is one of the greatest things Boulez
ever did, the Pli selon pli of his expressionist style.)
Four reasons for using the term impressionist: (a) one does not have to invent
new terminology; (b) the term can easily be rendered comprehensible in context
especially as conveneniently opposed to expressionist; Pollock is occasionally
described as an abstract impressionist by those who rightly insist on how
different the classic poured Pollock's are from De Kooning's abstract
expressionism; (c) the label may in some respects have been an unfortunate
choice as applied to Debussy's music, but it is now the accepted convenient and
conventional label for Debussy's style, a style that, like Boulez's, was in
some respects dependent on German models, but nevertheless aspired to transcend
those models; (c) Impressionism originated (obviously) as a label for a body
of later 19th-century French painting that could not be more striking in its
difference from the late Romantic music of Austrian and German composers of the
period. Impressionist painting isn't Romantic at all. In temperament, both
Debussy and Boulez are closer to the impressionist painters than to the late
Romantic Austrian and German tradition in music, but there was no Monet of
French music, nobody on the level of Wagner or Mahler between Berlioz and
Debussy in France. In a sense, Debussy and Boulez both chose to be Monet's of
music, to make something as "strong" as the German music about which they had
ambivalent feelings yet "expressive" in an entirely different way: the way of
the impressionist painters, for example, whose art is cool, fresh, and
impersonal rather than fervent and overheated and expressive.
-david gable
Samuel Vriezen
> Not that I consider the one
> language superior to the other: I love 'em both. (For me, the problem with
> Visage nuptial is that the 1951 version makes you realize the extent to which
> the 1989 version is too slick, a partial betrayal of the savage original, [...]
Hmm... my girlfriend has been part of that piece a long time ago, she
showed me her vocal part recently... I have to say I found the vocal
melodic writing clumsy and pointless.
David7Gable
>showed me her vocal part recently...
Where and when did she sing it?
-david gable
Samuel Vriezen
Must have been about nine years ago with Koor Nieuwe Muziek.
TomHendricks474
the
> needs of artists of a particular period don't end up enriching the world,
> there's something wrong. And if potentially enriching music is de facto
> suppressed, there's something wrong.
Do you think this is the case? Myself, I have the impression that most
listeners' needs are brilliantly met by the industry; I'm not aware of
true suppression of any music (though I do know that not all interesting
music is solidly marketed).
>>
As a musician, I know that most new music is
suppressed - but only if its innovative and fresh.
Sounds topsy turvy doesn't it. It is and that's
why I've spent a decade opposing these 5
companies.
5 companies now dominate 80% of the music
industry: Warners, BMG, Viacom/Universal, Sony
and EMI (and two of those may merge)
These conglomerates have put profits ahead of
quality - They play it safe to insure max profits
now. There is no room to chance a new act that
the public may or may not like.
I would think in the classical music field it would
be even a tighter market with safe romantic
symphonies over new music. Yet I write new
music. And my work is very melodic and
accessible. But I'll never be given a chance, nor
will most other new composers.
(See my bagatelles such as Fractured Beethoven,
Circus, Skating, etc on my website - MP3)
Tom Hendricks, Musea zine ed.
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com"
Musea GUARANTEES every musician, painter, writer, etc.
a REVIEW - a tough review - a fair review.
Contact me for our policy. Samples:
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com/reviews1.html
TomHendricks474
What do people think of my
very very short song called
Fractured Beethoven
An MP3 that's free to all at
Musea
Samuel Vriezen
> Speaking of new Beethovens?
>
> What do people think of my
> very very short song called
>
> Fractured Beethoven
You might enjoy listening to or looking at Kagel's Chorbuch.
Samuel Vriezen
> << > I'm concerned most with the aesthetic needs of the listener, I guess; if
> the
>
>>needs of artists of a particular period don't end up enriching the world,
>>there's something wrong. And if potentially enriching music is de facto
>>suppressed, there's something wrong.
>
>
> Do you think this is the case? Myself, I have the impression that most
> listeners' needs are brilliantly met by the industry; I'm not aware of
> true suppression of any music (though I do know that not all interesting
> music is solidly marketed).
> >>
>
>
> As a musician, I know that most new music is
> suppressed - but only if its innovative and fresh.
They aren't suppressing it; it's just that big labels are not backing it
either.
> But I'll never be given a chance, nor
> will most other new composers.
You're giving yourself a chance, aren't you?
TomHendricks474
> suppressed - but only if its innovative and fresh.
They aren't suppressing it; it's just that big labels are not backing it
either.
TH
I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate their
rabid greed.
> But I'll never be given a chance, nor
> will most other new composers.
You're giving yourself a chance, aren't you?
TH
Yes but these 5 are not. And I've grown to hate
and oppose them at every turn for what they've
done to not only me but all indy artists.
Matter of fact I'm recording now, over the summer,
with a goal of recording 120 voice and guitar songs
in a new style that mimics a full band.
There are a few MP3's on my site that are in
the classical vein if interested:
Keyboards: Fractured Beethoven, The Circus,
Skating, Leaves, The Happy Flea, Sprite, Sparrow,
and for guitar only: "The Spanish Melody.
All free and unlike the RIAA, I welcome people
to download and share this music.
And tell me what they think.
Tom
Tom Hendricks, Musea zine ed.
Jeffrey Quick
tomhend...@cs.com (TomHendricks474) wrote:
> As a musician, I know that most new music is
> suppressed - but only if its innovative and fresh.
I don't think I'd use the term "suppressed" in this context. I think the
big 5 are largely giving people what they want, and the public isn't all
that musical. Are they "suppressing" acts by not signing them? No. If
they were buying up small labels solely to scuttle their acts, that
would be suppression, but I don't see any evidence that's happening. Or
if the government were censoring certain acts, that's definitely
suppression.
Think of the Big 5 as McDonald's. It's ubiquitous, cheap, functional,
filling, and relatively tasty. If you want gourmet food, well, that's a
niche market. New classical music is a niche market within a niche
market. That's a bitch to work with, but niche marketing is different
than Big 5 marketing. Product is getting out there, but it isn't on
every off-ramp-- you need to seek it out.
> Sounds topsy turvy doesn't it. It is and that's
> why I've spent a decade opposing these 5
> companies.
>
> 5 companies now dominate 80% of the music
> industry: Warners, BMG, Viacom/Universal, Sony
> and EMI (and two of those may merge)
>
> These conglomerates have put profits ahead of
> quality - They play it safe to insure max profits
> now. There is no room to chance a new act that
> the public may or may not like.
That's true. I despise the commodification of music, but given that the
damn stiff is ubiquitous, it's bound to happen. However, I know of no
way to stop the Big 5 that wouldn't be worse than having them, EXCEPT to
seek out and patronize smaller labels.
> I would think in the classical music field it would
> be even a tighter market with safe romantic
> symphonies over new music. Yet I write new
> music. And my work is very melodic and
> accessible. But I'll never be given a chance, nor
> will most other new composers.
Chances aren't out there to be given out. You've got to find them and
grab them. Sitting around doing "boo hoo poor me" isn't going to make it.
TomHendricks474
> suppressed - but only if its innovative and fresh.
I don't think I'd use the term "suppressed" in this context. I think the
big 5 are largely giving people what they want, and the public isn't all
that musical. Are they "suppressing" acts by not signing them? No. If
they were buying up small labels solely to scuttle their acts, that
would be suppression, but I don't see any evidence that's happening. Or
if the government were censoring certain acts, that's definitely
suppression.
TH
I would say its cultural genecide! This is the first generation in history that
has all their best arts
blocked by conglomerates consolidation and greed.
In the case of music, the best popular music used to
be on radio, now its not. It suggests that programmers
are either tone deaf or being paid to play bad music.
It's inexcusable and when these same parent companies
control the media, and put there greed spin on it (which they do),
we have a danger not only to our arts, but our media
as well. It's worse than most people think.
JQ
Think of the Big 5 as McDonald's. It's ubiquitous, cheap, functional,
filling, and relatively tasty. If you want gourmet food, well, that's a
niche market. New classical music is a niche market within a niche
market. That's a bitch to work with, but niche marketing is different
than Big 5 marketing. Product is getting out there, but it isn't on
every off-ramp-- you need to seek it out.
TH
This is the first time in history that nainstream
critics have not given reviews to the generations
great artists, and instead; we each have to seek it out
for ourselves. The media and its reviewers are culpable
too in this mess (and both the media and the arts companies are owned by the 6
or so conglomerates
Warners, Disney, Viacom, Bertelsmann, Fox, GE/NBC
and one or two more.
Reviewers are supposed to be honest - refusing to
review work because it isn't mainstream isn't honest
reviews - it makes them worthless.
> Sounds topsy turvy doesn't it. It is and that's
> why I've spent a decade opposing these 5
> companies.
>
> 5 companies now dominate 80% of the music
> industry: Warners, BMG, Viacom/Universal, Sony
> and EMI (and two of those may merge)
>
> These conglomerates have put profits ahead of
> quality - They play it safe to insure max profits
> now. There is no room to chance a new act that
> the public may or may not like.
That's true. I despise the commodification of music, but given that the
damn stiff is ubiquitous, it's bound to happen. However, I know of no
way to stop the Big 5 that wouldn't be worse than having them, EXCEPT to
seek out and patronize smaller labels.
TH
Monopoly is illegal. They call it synergy - its monopoly.
And all these music companies have been caught doing
illegal business at least twice in as many decades and
fined millions. It's not the file sharers that are the
big crooks around here.
And if the gov. doesn't stand up to them (and the
microsoft case is a good one to show how weak even the
gov. is in these matters) then there is no one to stop
their excessive control of the arts and media.
Again as an example look at the FCC problems and its
rush to grant more airwaves to fewer companies.
> I would think in the classical music field it would
> be even a tighter market with safe romantic
> symphonies over new music. Yet I write new
> music. And my work is very melodic and
> accessible. But I'll never be given a chance, nor
> will most other new composers.
JQ
Chances aren't out there to be given out. You've got to find them and
grab them. Sitting around doing "boo hoo poor me" isn't going to make it.
>>
TH
Nor is running away and saying I'll seek out my own alt
while I concede them total control over the airwaves,
the arts, and the media.
It is time to directly oppose consolidation of the arts and
media and attack and break it up.
There should be 1,000's of companies that make up the
mainstream arts - not 6.
I really think this is a more dangerous issue than you do.
Many who have been born since 70's don't know a time when the best music was on
the airwaves and the best
music was celebrated - not the worst.
Jeffrey Quick
tomhend...@cs.com (TomHendricks474) wrote:
> << > As a musician, I know that most new music is
> > suppressed - but only if its innovative and fresh.
>
> I don't think I'd use the term "suppressed" in this context. I think the
> big 5 are largely giving people what they want, and the public isn't all
> that musical. Are they "suppressing" acts by not signing them? No. If
> they were buying up small labels solely to scuttle their acts, that
> would be suppression, but I don't see any evidence that's happening. Or
> if the government were censoring certain acts, that's definitely
> suppression.
>
> TH
> I would say its cultural genecide!
Go to Sudan or Zimbabwe and tell me about cultural genocide.
This is the first generation in history
> that
> has all their best arts
> blocked by conglomerates consolidation and greed.
First generation is it? Let's see, Boccherini's patron wouldn't let his
stuff be disseminated, Haydn couldn't publish until the 1770s IIRC, the
Allegri Miserere was exclusive to the Papal chapel until Mozart broke
the embargo, Verdi had to dodge censors, the best German music of
1933-45 wasn't written in Germany...and those are just a few musical
examples, before we even get into the other arts. Oh, wait, I'm sorry,
you said first generation to be blocked by CORPORATIONS. Well, they're
doing a piss-poor job of it then, as I can buy the Allegri (which is not
a terribly commercial piece) with no trouble,and its contemporaries from
Cuba and Columbia with not much trouble, which is more than could be
said of ANYONE in the 1770s. So far, nobody is making me buy crappy
music at gunpoint, or keeping me from hearing good music at gunpoint.
Only governments can do that...the same governments you want to save you
from the Evil 5.
> In the case of music, the best popular music used to
> be on radio, now its not. It suggests that programmers
> are either tone deaf or being paid to play bad music.
Well, does any generation have an objective standard of the "best" in
popular music? Frankly, from what I hear, ranking pop is a bit like
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's all going down...
Certainly, the commercial stations have ALWAYS played crap music. Back
in the early 60s, I used to listen to CKLW in Windsor ONT do that. Then
during my adolescence, I started listening to college stations. Wayne
State U's signal out of Detroit was weird...not necessarily good, mind
you, but far more adventurous than almost anything now. We think of Alan
Freed and the guys who broke rock n roll in the 50s as playing "good
music", but that's with the value of hindsight and is a
historico-progressive rather than a purely aethetic judgement (i.e., it
won in the marketplace over the music it supplanted, which is a means of
judgement that you explicitly reject).
> It's inexcusable and when these same parent companies
> control the media, and put there greed spin on it (which they do),
What's wrong with greed? Aren't you greedy for good music?
> we have a danger not only to our arts, but our media
> as well. It's worse than most people think.
>
> JQ
> Think of the Big 5 as McDonald's. It's ubiquitous, cheap, functional,
> filling, and relatively tasty. If you want gourmet food, well, that's a
> niche market. New classical music is a niche market within a niche
> market. That's a bitch to work with, but niche marketing is different
> than Big 5 marketing. Product is getting out there, but it isn't on
> every off-ramp-- you need to seek it out.
>
> TH
> This is the first time in history that nainstream
> critics have not given reviews to the generations
> great artists,
What's a mainstream critic in pop music? Is there such a thing? We have
at least 2 tabloids in Cleveland reviewing indy bands.
and instead; we each have to seek it out
> for ourselves. The media and its reviewers are culpable
> too in this mess (and both the media and the arts companies are owned by the
> 6
> or so conglomerates
> Warners, Disney, Viacom, Bertelsmann, Fox, GE/NBC
> and one or two more.
> Reviewers are supposed to be honest - refusing to
> review work because it isn't mainstream isn't honest
> reviews - it makes them worthless.
Journalists in general are worthless nowadays. They can't be bothered to
do original investigation. Hell, half the time they can't even be
bothered to put an original spin on what they're given.
> > Sounds topsy turvy doesn't it. It is and that's
> > why I've spent a decade opposing these 5
> > companies.
> >
> > 5 companies now dominate 80% of the music
> > industry: Warners, BMG, Viacom/Universal, Sony
> > and EMI (and two of those may merge)
> >
> > These conglomerates have put profits ahead of
> > quality - They play it safe to insure max profits
> > now. There is no room to chance a new act that
> > the public may or may not like.
>
> That's true. I despise the commodification of music, but given that the
> damn stiff is ubiquitous, it's bound to happen. However, I know of no
> way to stop the Big 5 that wouldn't be worse than having them, EXCEPT to
> seek out and patronize smaller labels.
>
> TH
> Monopoly is illegal. They call it synergy - its monopoly.
Mono=one
You're talking about FIVE companies.
Does not compute.
> And all these music companies have been caught doing
> illegal business at least twice in as many decades and
> fined millions. It's not the file sharers that are the
> big crooks around here.
>
> And if the gov. doesn't stand up to them (and the
> microsoft case is a good one to show how weak even the
> gov. is in these matters) then there is no one to stop
> their excessive control of the arts and media.
And if the government DID stand up to them to exercise control over what
they broadcast, we would have one controlling authority, i.e., a
monopoly. Big improvement there.
> Again as an example look at the FCC problems and its
> rush to grant more airwaves to fewer companies.
The FCC needs to be abolished. Make frequencies into property (which
they quasi-are already) and let the market sort it out.
> > I would think in the classical music field it would
> > be even a tighter market with safe romantic
> > symphonies over new music. Yet I write new
> > music. And my work is very melodic and
> > accessible. But I'll never be given a chance, nor
> > will most other new composers.
>
> JQ
> Chances aren't out there to be given out. You've got to find them and
> grab them. Sitting around doing "boo hoo poor me" isn't going to make it.
> >>
>
> TH
> Nor is running away and saying I'll seek out my own alt
> while I concede them total control over the airwaves,
> the arts, and the media.
Who is conceding total control? They don't have anything like total
control. You want to give total control to an organization (government)
which historically has only been good at killing people and screwing up
everything it touches.
> It is time to directly oppose consolidation of the arts and
> media and attack and break it up.
What part of "own" don't you understand, Red?
> There should be 1,000's of companies that make up the
> mainstream arts - not 6.
>
You can't even support that number of Netcasters, where the startup
costs and capitalization are for practical purposes zero. Nobody knew
the most interesting music of the 50s either because it was on small
records without national distribution. You'll have the same thing with
your thousands of companies
>
>
> I really think this is a more dangerous issue than you do.
I think it's dangerous. I think your solution is infinitely more
dangerous. I know of no way to inject taste into the masses, besides
education. They might be exposed to more kinds of music from your
umpteen media companies. But what are theyu going to BUY?
> Many who have been born since 70's don't know a time when the best music was
> on
> the airwaves and the best
> music was celebrated - not the worst.
I'd like to see some concrete proof of that. It would be interesting to
get scholars and critics together to cite say the 10 best bands from
each decade, and then compare writings contemporary to the bands to see
if contemporaries agreed. Paul Whiteman was hot during the '20s; do we
consider him important now?
TomHendricks474
But I suggest this is a very special time when a handful of corporations have
too much control of too much of the arts and media.
I think that is clear to all.
If the gov. should support diversity that would be better.
It can help by supporting fairness. It can do this without monopolizing the
marketplace.
Herb Levy
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <20040708103522...@mb-m01.news.cs.com>,
TomHendricks474 <tomhend...@cs.com> wrote:
> But I suggest this is a very special time when a handful of corporations have
> too much control of too much of the arts and media.
> I think that is clear to all.
It's difficult for me to imagine a compelling legal/economic policy
that would require companies of any size to produce products that they
are unable to make a profit on. The economics of maintaining a company
with hundreds or thousands of employees etc, makes it a lot less
appealing for them to produce recordings which are unlikely to make
their expenses back. And the break even point for these huge companies
is quite high.
In the last 30-40 years, an increasing number of composers have been
very successful either by self-producing recordings or finding a small
label that is supportive of their work.
But it's up to you. Say you can sell 10,000 copies of a disc (which
would be VERY good sales for a CD by an unknown composer, regardless of
what it sounds like). Would you want to record for a company that loses
money on any release that fails to sell more than 250-500,000 copies,
in other words, a company that would lose a ton of money releasing your
music? Or would you want to record for a company that breaks even after
they sell 1-2,000 copies of a disc, in other words, a company that
would make money releasing your music and in turn, earn some money for
you too?
Read some biographies of, say, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. and see how
often they were concerned with where they were going to get their next
money and how often they were concerned with how many people heard
their music.
If you're more concerned with the kind of publicity that a huge company
can generate than you are in the kind of surplus/profit a smaller
company can generate for you, you may be in the wrong line of work.
> If the gov. should support diversity that would be better.
> It can help by supporting fairness. It can do this without monopolizing the
> marketplace.
I haven't been following too much of this thread but if, as seems
likely from some of the things you've written earlier, you live in the
US, government support for the arts at least in terms of the National
Endowment for the Arts, seems more and more inclined to focus on
organizations that primarily present actual old art rather than those
that present new works of art regardless of style. Some regional, state
and/or local arts agencies may be more supportive of new works.
Regardless of whether you're looking at national or more local support
for the arts, the issue then becomes whether you can create both music
AND an application that would be competitive in the field of artists
and works among which you'll be judged.
Jeffrey Quick
tomhend...@cs.com (TomHendricks474) wrote:
> Well your reply takes every side once or twice.
Well, not really. I certainly never argued for government intervention
in the arts marketplace.
> But I suggest this is a very special time when a handful of corporations have
> too much control of too much of the arts and media.
> I think that is clear to all.
>
> If the gov. should support diversity that would be better.
> It can help by supporting fairness. It can do this without monopolizing the
> marketplace.
"Support" is such a wonderful word. It sounds so nurturing. Too bad
there's always a jackboot involved when the government "supports"
anything.
TomHendricks474
that would require companies of any size to produce products that they
are unable to make a profit on.
TH
I certainly never said different. BUt I also know
that in 1948 the companies that owned both the
theaters and the film companies had that trust
busted.
It should happen again. We have consolidation
that is ruining the arts and media (Fox has become
a journalistic joke for ex.).
that's bad for us.
But their 'synergy' policy isn't paying off for them.
You'd think that AOL/WArner mergers would sink in
for the major mistake they are.
So its certainly bad for the us, fair media, and
quality in the arts (none of these behemouts are making
much good art for their libraries); but also bad
for the companies.
(snipped)
In the last 30-40 years, an increasing number of composers have been
very successful either by self-producing recordings or finding a small
label that is supportive of their work.
TH
Nobody in Dallas that I know of.
But it's up to you. Say you can sell 10,000 copies of a disc (which
would be VERY good sales for a CD by an unknown composer, regardless of
what it sounds like). Would you want to record for a company that loses
money on any release that fails to sell more than 250-500,000 copies,
in other words, a company that would lose a ton of money releasing your
music? Or would you want to record for a company that breaks even after
they sell 1-2,000 copies of a disc, in other words, a company that
would make money releasing your music and in turn, earn some money for
you too?
TH
Of course I'd want the indy. But I would resent the
policies of a trade group like the RIAA when they do
what seems to be illegal behavior (look at the times
they've had to pay millions for all kinds of abuses -
these in the last decade) for the Majors.
And when these same companies parent companies,
own the media that
reviews them with rave reviews while denying
reviews to indy's - then its IMO its time to bust
up some monopolistic companies.
Read some biographies of, say, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. and see how
often they were concerned with where they were going to get their next
money and how often they were concerned with how many people heard
their music.
If you're more concerned with the kind of publicity that a huge company
can generate than you are in the kind of surplus/profit a smaller
company can generate for you, you may be in the wrong line of work.
TH
You are missing the point. If the playing field was
anywhere close to fair (in airplay, in getting into
record stores, in reviews, etc.) I would like it and
lump it. But all this is based on a new, one time in
history, unfair scheme of things. And if its illegal
which many think it is - are you for illegle behavior
if its a big company?
These companies leaders aren't that far from Ken Lay'
characters - and we haven't even touched the issue
of new payola!
> If the gov. should support diversity that would be better.
> It can help by supporting fairness. It can do this without monopolizing the
> marketplace.
I haven't been following too much of this thread but if, as seems
likely from some of the things you've written earlier, you live in the
US, government support for the arts at least in terms of the National
Endowment for the Arts, seems more and more inclined to focus on
organizations that primarily present actual old art rather than those
that present new works of art regardless of style. Some regional, state
and/or local arts agencies may be more supportive of new works.
TH
This is a sore spot with me. I think the US should
support the arts by getting out of the group choosing
biz, and set up the money for COMMUNITY ART CENTERS.
That the community can decide who displays, plays,
acts, performs etc. The gov has no business deciding
what is art. They're terrible at it.
Regardless of whether you're looking at national or more local support
for the arts, the issue then becomes whether you can create both music
AND an application that would be competitive in the field of artists
and works among which you'll be judged.
I'll chance it in a fair playing field. But I won't allow
yahoos to ruin my career with illegal behavior that
they can hide behind slick lawyers with. And time and time again that is the
only real innovation these conglomerates have - suing the competition out of
business they control with product, distribution,
and reviews - its' a sweet monopoly by a handful.
If this challenges you and you want to read more,
please come visit my vast site on all the arts.
You are certainly welcome there.
TomHendricks474
in the arts marketplace. >>
So these companies should not have
had the indictements that state and feds have leveled at them
all over the place in the last two decades (which their parent companies that
own the media have quietly not talked about)?
And their illegal behavior should be allowed?
Since when should any company be able to break laws?
<< "Support" is such a wonderful word. It sounds so nurturing. Too bad
there's always a jackboot involved when the government "supports"
anything.
>>
So it should be the comapnies with the jackboot?
You don't see a way government can interfere with conglomerates to have more
fairness for all the indy buisness out there without turning to stormtroopers?
Uh there is plenty of middle grownd, and the US has broken
trusts before - and we're all the better for it!
Herb Levy
news:<20040708213103...@mb-m15.news.cs.com>...
> I certainly never said different. BUt I also know
> that in 1948 the companies that owned both the
> theaters and the film companies had that trust
> busted.
> It should happen again. We have consolidation
> that is ruining the arts and media (Fox has become
> a journalistic joke for ex.).
> that's bad for us.
> But their 'synergy' policy isn't paying off for them.
> You'd think that AOL/WArner mergers would sink in
> for the major mistake they are.
>
> So its certainly bad for the us, fair media, and
> quality in the arts (none of these behemouts are making
> much good art for their libraries); but also bad
> for the companies.
Whether there should be anti-monopoly actions taken against various
media corporations is largely irrelevant to the argument Iąm making.
The issue of how to find the audience for something that might be of
interest to one in a thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand
people at best (we are still writing at
rec.music.classical.contemporary, right?) is largely unaffected by
companies that are trying to market multi-million selling CDs. If
Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson and their product suddenly
disappeared tomorrow, there would not suddenly be huge audiences
clamoring for recordings by, say, Pamela Z or Amy X Neuburg. If Kenny G
and all of his recordings disappeared tomorrow, his audience wouldnąt
suddenly go looking for CDs by Evan Parker or John Zorn. If someone
looking for a version of Pachelbeląs Canon of Vivaldiąs 4 Seasons as
background music for a dinner party canąt find such a recording for
some unknowable reason, they will NOT be happy with string quartets by
John Cage or Elliott Carter. The market dynamics of łart˛ are not that
same as those of mass culture.
Just as there are independent films (to reply in the context of the
early Hollywood anti-trust case you raise above - Iąll continue to use
examples from this field cause itąs a good source for analogies) that
are able to earn significant returns on investment despite selling
significantly fewer tickets than movies that łearn˛ lots more revenue
but still lose money, the same model has and continues to work in other
art forms. There are equivalent record labels, book publishers, etc.
and they are able to sell hundreds and thousands of copies rather than
millions and still make money.
But, as is also true with independent film, there are enough labels,
presses, etc. that every recording, book, etc. will not be able to be
found by all of the market that might be interested. The smaller the
possible audience for say, a cellist playing with two bows, a vocalist
recreating text-sound works by Dada writers, a saxophonist whose music
is rooted in circular breathing techniques, etc. the more difficult it
is to find the 25-200 people who might be interested in a city the
size of Dallas. Clipping the wings of corporations making films in
which a lot of things blow up or animated characters tell jokes using
the voices of popular film actors, will do little if anything to make
it easier to market more esoteric work.
If Shrek 2 or Spiderman 2 didnąt exist along with all the related
marketing around them, would there really be a huge increase in the
audience for films by Guy Maddin or Abbas Kiarostami? I donąt think so.
But itąs still possible for Maddin and Kiarostami to reach an audience
for their work and make a living.
> But it's up to you. Say you can sell 10,000 copies of a disc (which
> would be VERY good sales for a CD by an unknown composer, regardless of
> what it sounds like). Would you want to record for a company that loses
> money on any release that fails to sell more than 250-500,000 copies,
> in other words, a company that would lose a ton of money releasing your
> music? Or would you want to record for a company that breaks even after
> they sell 1-2,000 copies of a disc, in other words, a company that
> would make money releasing your music and in turn, earn some money for
> you too?
>
> TH
> Of course I'd want the indy. But I would resent the
> policies of a trade group like the RIAA when they do
> what seems to be illegal behavior (look at the times
> they've had to pay millions for all kinds of abuses -
> these in the last decade) for the Majors.
>
> And when these same companies parent companies,
> own the media that
> reviews them with rave reviews while denying
> reviews to indy's - then its IMO its time to bust
> up some monopolistic companies.
Resent it all you want, itąs simply not relevant to the issue of
finding an audience for your own music UNLESS youąre trying to be a
multi-million selling international pop music super star. If whatever
trade consessions you wanted were all made, would there suddenly be
sections of something like People magazine devoted to women singers who
use digital delays in unsual ways, or composers who base their music on
the subharmonics of the undertone series, or whatever? I donąt think
so.
> Read some biographies of, say, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. and see how
> often they were concerned with where they were going to get their next
> money and how often they were concerned with how many people heard
> their music.
>
> If you're more concerned with the kind of publicity that a huge company
> can generate than you are in the kind of surplus/profit a smaller
> company can generate for you, you may be in the wrong line of work.
>
> TH
> You are missing the point. If the playing field was
> anywhere close to fair (in airplay, in getting into
> record stores, in reviews, etc.) I would like it and
> lump it. But all this is based on a new, one time in
> history, unfair scheme of things. And if its illegal
> which many think it is - are you for illegle behavior
> if its a big company?
> These companies leaders aren't that far from Ken Lay'
> characters - and we haven't even touched the issue
> of new payola!
It should be clear by now that regardless of how I think huge media
corporations should be treated in the legal system, I doubt it will
have any significant effect on the business of the vast majority of
artists working in non-mainstream styles and genres. A more level
playing field isnąt going to generate huge audiences for people making
weird music, writing weird books, making weird films, etc.
There might be some impact on the relative success of some particular
works by some artists who are doing things that arenąt TOO different
from popular forms, but it would be VERY spotty.
Every metropolitan area of more than a million people has artists
working in styles that have limited appeal. Marketing any artform that
might have an audience of 200 or even 2,000 people living in a
metropolitan area of 1-2 million people is extremely difficult. When
youąre talking about trying to reach audiences for this kind of work
across a country the size of the US or around the world, the odds of
finding your audience are even less likely.
I really donąt see how enforcing anti-trust laws more strictly would
make it easier to reach micro-minority audiences within
macro-populations. If Fox and all its ilk were each to be broken up
into 2 or more independent companies, it wouldnąt somehow create a
larger market for any of the music we discuss here in
rec.music.classical.contemporary.
Jeffrey Quick
tomhend...@cs.com (TomHendricks474) wrote:
> << Well, not really. I certainly never argued for government intervention
> in the arts marketplace. >>
>
>
> So these companies should not have
> had the indictements that state and feds have leveled at them
> all over the place in the last two decades (which their parent companies that
> own the media have quietly not talked about)?
> And their illegal behavior should be allowed?
> Since when should any company be able to break laws?
>
> << "Support" is such a wonderful word. It sounds so nurturing. Too bad
> there's always a jackboot involved when the government "supports"
> anything.
> >>
>
> So it should be the comapnies with the jackboot?
No. When Sony creates a private militia to force us to listen to crap,
I'll be shooting back. Until then, I wasn't aware that they were
preventing us from listening to anything.
> You don't see a way government can interfere with conglomerates to have more
> fairness for all the indy buisness out there without turning to stormtroopers?
Nope I don't. Because if the government intervenes in the marketplace to
"increase fairness" they will ipso facto increase UNfairness, by tilting
rules toward the indies and away from the Big 5. OTOH, if there are laws
that benefit the Big 5 at the expense of the indies, I would like to see
them repealed yesterday.
As for stormtroopers, we keep them dressed in velvet. We take property
by degrees, and if somebody seeks to defend it, THEN we send in the
stormtroopers.
Besides, if you're such a fan of "the little guy", why are you impugning
the little guy's taste in music?
> Uh there is plenty of middle grownd,
There's no middle ground on principle. Why not just nationalize the
music industry so that everyone can have the music they "should" have?
Or just tell people which artists they should sign? The first is
socialism, the second is fascism. What you seem to favor is a jigger of
both, and then you'll doubtless refer to the cocktail as "capitalism."
and the US has broken
> trusts before - and we're all the better for it!
Are we? I don't think so. Even Rockefeller's Standard Oil wasn't a
monopoly; he had such stiff competition from Russian kerosene suppliers
that he had to drop prices to below that for electric light.
Jeffrey Quick
tomhend...@cs.com (TomHendricks474) wrote:
> But their 'synergy' policy isn't paying off for them.
> You'd think that AOL/WArner mergers would sink in
> for the major mistake they are.
But that has nothing to do with monopoly per se. That was about two
companies that didn't understand each others' business, merging at the
worst possible time.
> Of course I'd want the indy. But I would resent the
> policies of a trade group like the RIAA when they do
> what seems to be illegal behavior (look at the times
> they've had to pay millions for all kinds of abuses -
> these in the last decade) for the Majors.
I'd like to see a boycott of RIAA labels and artists, and support of
people like Magnatune. And a revision of copyright law to remove the
bird-droppings of Disney's hired lackey Sonny Bono (bless that tree!)
> You are missing the point. If the playing field was
> anywhere close to fair (in airplay, in getting into
> record stores, in reviews, etc.) I would like it and
> lump it.
You're very hung up on this "fair" concept, which I don't understand,
since it seems to me that you want to make things UNfair. So...what
would constitute a "fair" music market?
> I haven't been following too much of this thread but if, as seems
> likely from some of the things you've written earlier, you live in the
> US, government support for the arts at least in terms of the National
> Endowment for the Arts, seems more and more inclined to focus on
> organizations that primarily present actual old art rather than those
> that present new works of art regardless of style. Some regional, state
> and/or local arts agencies may be more supportive of new works.
>
> TH
> This is a sore spot with me. I think the US should
> support the arts by getting out of the group choosing
> biz, and set up the money for COMMUNITY ART CENTERS.
> That the community can decide who displays, plays,
> acts, performs etc. The gov has no business deciding
> what is art. They're terrible at it.
Hey, something we can agree on!
But...
Who in "the community" decides who the "community art center" will
patronize? Won't this in practice devolve to local government? And aside
from making a better fit with the community, will they do a better job
of choosing art?
> I'll chance it in a fair playing field. But I won't allow
> yahoos to ruin my career with illegal behavior that
> they can hide behind slick lawyers with.
Uh, if they can hide behind slick lawyers, how is their behavior
illegal? I mean, it's the lawyers job to prove that the behavior is
legal, and if they don't and it isn't, then they haven't hid behind
them, have they? And don't they have the same right to legal
representation as anyone else?
TomHendricks474
The issue of how to find the audience for something that might be of
interest to one in a thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand
people at best (we are still writing at
rec.music.classical.contemporary, right?) is largely unaffected by
companies that are trying to market multi-million selling CDs. If
Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson and their product suddenly
disappeared tomorrow, there would not suddenly be huge audiences
clamoring for recordings by, say, Pamela Z or Amy X Neuburg. If Kenny G
suddenly go looking for CDs by Evan Parker or John Zorn. If someone
background music for a dinner party can1t find such a recording for
some unknowable reason, they will NOT be happy with string quartets by
same as those of mass culture.
TH
But you are taking for granted that better music is
not popular. I think also that you have this a bit
backward. It's not that music buyers want any of
these pop acts, and then the record companies cash in.
It's the other way around. The record companies
manufacture these artists and hits.
they're not popular - their promotional efforts
are no matter what act they back.
TH
So if its just money, why not back good? From
a buisness standpoint, I think that would make
more sense. And from an art standpoint, then you
would be thinking like a company that wants to
make profits again.
Just as there are independent films (to reply in the context of the
early Hollywood anti-trust case you raise above - I1ll continue to use
examples from this field cause it1s a good source for analogies) that
are able to earn significant returns on investment despite selling
significantly fewer tickets than movies that 3earn2 lots more revenue
but still lose money, the same model has and continues to work in other
art forms. There are equivalent record labels, book publishers, etc.
and they are able to sell hundreds and thousands of copies rather than
millions and still make money.
But, as is also true with independent film, there are enough labels,
presses, etc. that every recording, book, etc. will not be able to be
found by all of the market that might be interested. The smaller the
possible audience for say, a cellist playing with two bows, a vocalist
recreating text-sound works by Dada writers, a saxophonist whose music
is rooted in circular breathing techniques, etc. the more difficult it
is to find the 25-200 people who might be interested in a city the
size of Dallas. Clipping the wings of corporations making films in
which a lot of things blow up or animated characters tell jokes using
the voices of popular film actors, will do little if anything to make
it easier to market more esoteric work.
If Shrek 2 or Spiderman 2 didn1t exist along with all the related
marketing around them, would there really be a huge increase in the
audience for films by Guy Maddin or Abbas Kiarostami? I don1t think so.
But it1s still possible for Maddin and Kiarostami to reach an audience
for their work and make a living.
> But it's up to you. Say you can sell 10,000 copies of a disc (which
> would be VERY good sales for a CD by an unknown composer, regardless of
> what it sounds like). Would you want to record for a company that loses
> money on any release that fails to sell more than 250-500,000 copies,
> in other words, a company that would lose a ton of money releasing your
> music? Or would you want to record for a company that breaks even after
> they sell 1-2,000 copies of a disc, in other words, a company that
> would make money releasing your music and in turn, earn some money for
> you too?
>
> TH
> Of course I'd want the indy. But I would resent the
> policies of a trade group like the RIAA when they do
> what seems to be illegal behavior (look at the times
> they've had to pay millions for all kinds of abuses -
> these in the last decade) for the Majors.
>
> And when these same companies parent companies,
> own the media that
> reviews them with rave reviews while denying
> reviews to indy's - then its IMO its time to bust
> up some monopolistic companies.
Resent it all you want, it1s simply not relevant to the issue of
finding an audience for your own music UNLESS you1re trying to be a
multi-million selling international pop music super star. If whatever
trade consessions you wanted were all made, would there suddenly be
sections of something like People magazine devoted to women singers who
use digital delays in unsual ways, or composers who base their music on
the subharmonics of the undertone series, or whatever? I don1t think
so.
> Read some biographies of, say, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. and see how
> often they were concerned with where they were going to get their next
> money and how often they were concerned with how many people heard
> their music.
>
> If you're more concerned with the kind of publicity that a huge company
> can generate than you are in the kind of surplus/profit a smaller
> company can generate for you, you may be in the wrong line of work.
>
> TH
> You are missing the point. If the playing field was
> anywhere close to fair (in airplay, in getting into
> record stores, in reviews, etc.) I would like it and
> lump it. But all this is based on a new, one time in
> history, unfair scheme of things. And if its illegal
> which many think it is - are you for illegle behavior
> if its a big company?
> These companies leaders aren't that far from Ken Lay'
> characters - and we haven't even touched the issue
> of new payola!
It should be clear by now that regardless of how I think huge media
corporations should be treated in the legal system, I doubt it will
have any significant effect on the business of the vast majority of
artists working in non-mainstream styles and genres. A more level
playing field isn1t going to generate huge audiences for people making
weird music, writing weird books, making weird films, etc.
There might be some impact on the relative success of some particular
works by some artists who are doing things that aren1t TOO different
from popular forms, but it would be VERY spotty.
Every metropolitan area of more than a million people has artists
working in styles that have limited appeal. Marketing any artform that
might have an audience of 200 or even 2,000 people living in a
metropolitan area of 1-2 million people is extremely difficult. When
you1re talking about trying to reach audiences for this kind of work
across a country the size of the US or around the world, the odds of
finding your audience are even less likely.
I really don1t see how enforcing anti-trust laws more strictly would
make it easier to reach micro-minority audiences within
macro-populations. If Fox and all its ilk were each to be broken up
into 2 or more independent companies, it wouldn1t somehow create a
larger market for any of the music we discuss here in
rec.music.classical.contemporary.
How can you predict the future like that? Are you
saying that classical music could never be popular
again with a large segment of the audience, under any
conditions for the rest of time?
Time will tell - but I think great artists come out of
nowhere, rewrite all the rules, and defy predictions.
PS there are a few classical type very very short piano
pieces on my website MP3. All are welcome to download
and share. Try Fractured Beethoven, or Skating for starts.
TomHendricks474
that benefit the Big 5 at the expense of the indies, I would like to see
them repealed yesterday. >>
Welcome to the world of the RIAA.
That's their job to benefit the Big 5 at the expense of the indies -
(snipped)
<< Besides, if you're such a fan of "the little guy", why are you impugning
the little guy's taste in music?
>>
Because they haven't heard anything but crap to judge from - due to the
selective media/review/art system of these handfull.
If they have a fighting chance they'll do just fine.
<< There's no middle ground on principle. Why not just nationalize the
music industry so that everyone can have the music they "should" have?
Or just tell people which artists they should sign? The first is
socialism, the second is fascism.
And all of it is an argument that carries rationality to extremes to force a
point. The continual consolidation of the arts and media is not IMO good for
anyone.
I can't imagine why anyone would support it?
TomHendricks474
> You'd think that AOL/WArner mergers would sink in
> for the major mistake they are.
But that has nothing to do with monopoly per se. That was about two
companies that didn't understand each others' business, merging at the
worst possible time.
> Of course I'd want the indy. But I would resent the
> policies of a trade group like the RIAA when they do
> what seems to be illegal behavior (look at the times
> they've had to pay millions for all kinds of abuses -
> these in the last decade) for the Majors.
I'd like to see a boycott of RIAA labels and artists, and support of
people like Magnatune. And a revision of copyright law to remove the
bird-droppings of Disney's hired lackey Sonny Bono (bless that tree!)
>>
TH
Amen to all the above paragraph!!!
<< You're very hung up on this "fair" concept, which I don't understand,
since it seems to me that you want to make things UNfair. So...what
would constitute a "fair" music market?
TH
It's extremely simple:
No one or 5 companies can control the entire industry:
These handfull can do any ONE of the following
1. make the music
2. manufacture the music
3. distribute it
4. own the radio stations playing it, or the tv playing its videos.
5. own the media reviewing it
6. own the entertainmnet complex that's needed to promote it (like talk shows
etc.)
Don't you see how lopsided it is if these 5 own all the above, and an indy has
no access to any of it.
IF all the above were separate companies (or even broken up into two or 3
parts) then you would have a much fairer system.
> I haven't been following too much of this thread but if, as seems
> likely from some of the things you've written earlier, you live in the
> US, government support for the arts at least in terms of the National
> Endowment for the Arts, seems more and more inclined to focus on
> organizations that primarily present actual old art rather than those
> that present new works of art regardless of style. Some regional, state
> and/or local arts agencies may be more supportive of new works.
>
> TH
> This is a sore spot with me. I think the US should
> support the arts by getting out of the group choosing
> biz, and set up the money for COMMUNITY ART CENTERS.
> That the community can decide who displays, plays,
> acts, performs etc. The gov has no business deciding
> what is art. They're terrible at it.
Hey, something we can agree on!
But...
Who in "the community" decides who the "community art center" will
patronize? Won't this in practice devolve to local government?
TH
As opposed to a central fed committee? I would hope so.
And aside
from making a better fit with the community, will they do a better job
of choosing art?
TH
I think it's a better chance for a thousand communities to decide vs. one
hidden committee in DC.
> I'll chance it in a fair playing field. But I won't allow
> yahoos to ruin my career with illegal behavior that
> they can hide behind slick lawyers with.
Uh, if they can hide behind slick lawyers, how is their behavior
illegal? I mean, it's the lawyers job to prove that the behavior is
legal, and if they don't and it isn't, then they haven't hid behind
them, have they? And don't they have the same right to legal
representation as anyone else?
TH
Sounds like your talking "Lawyer Morals" that's when a company bases its
morality on what the lawyers say they can get away with.
I'm obviously opposed to that on moral grounds - who wouldn't be?
Jeffrey Quick
tomhend...@cs.com (TomHendricks474) wrote:
> << You're very hung up on this "fair" concept, which I don't understand,
> since it seems to me that you want to make things UNfair. So...what
> would constitute a "fair" music market?
>
>
> TH
> It's extremely simple:
> No one or 5 companies can control the entire industry:
>
> These handfull can do any ONE of the following
>
> 1. make the music
> 2. manufacture the music
> 3. distribute it
> 4. own the radio stations playing it, or the tv playing its videos.
> 5. own the media reviewing it
> 6. own the entertainmnet complex that's needed to promote it (like talk shows
> etc.)
>
> Don't you see how lopsided it is if these 5 own all the above, and an indy has
> no access to any of it.
> IF all the above were separate companies (or even broken up into two or 3
> parts) then you would have a much fairer system.
>
Certainly I see that it's a non-diverse system. But you haven't dealt
with the moral issue at all. And "fairness" IS a moral issue. why is it
fair or would lead to fairness if economic concentrations were broken up?
Do record companies have a right to do as they wish with their own
property, as long as it does not harm another human or their property?
Does a composer have a right to be heard? Do they have a right to the
soapbox that the music industry gives them? Does this right to free
performance depend on quality? Your equasion of "fairness" with access
leads me to believe that you believe in such rights.
Means of production are scarce.Are you suggesting access to them on
some other basis than market acceptablily? Let's say you have a new
music ensemble dedicated to playing new atonal music. It has been
claimed that there's a shortage of venues playing non-atonal new music.
So let's pass a law that states that every concert must contain a piece
in common-practice tonality. So you have to program somebody's drecky
neo-Tchaikovsky quartet. Or let's say you're a community orchestra and
the law says you need to give equal access to squeak-fart music. Do you
approve of these scenarios? You are actually proposing the same thing.
the main difference is that in one case, the new music group is being
divested of their property piecemeal and temporarily, while in your
case, you seem to say that the record companies should be divested of
their properties permanently.
> > This is a sore spot with me. I think the US should
> > support the arts by getting out of the group choosing
> > biz, and set up the money for COMMUNITY ART CENTERS.
> > That the community can decide who displays, plays,
> > acts, performs etc. The gov has no business deciding
> > what is art. They're terrible at it.
>
> Hey, something we can agree on!
> But...
> Who in "the community" decides who the "community art center" will
> patronize? Won't this in practice devolve to local government?
>
> TH
> As opposed to a central fed committee? I would hope so.
>
>
> And aside
> from making a better fit with the community, will they do a better job
> of choosing art?
>
> TH
> I think it's a better chance for a thousand communities to decide vs. one
> hidden committee in DC.
I have found that local governments can be just as oppressive, if not
more so, than the one in DC. Granted, with more diversity of choice, you
have more chance that SOME good music will get through.
> > I'll chance it in a fair playing field. But I won't allow
> > yahoos to ruin my career with illegal behavior that
> > they can hide behind slick lawyers with.
>
> Uh, if they can hide behind slick lawyers, how is their behavior
> illegal? I mean, it's the lawyers job to prove that the behavior is
> legal, and if they don't and it isn't, then they haven't hid behind
> them, have they? And don't they have the same right to legal
> representation as anyone else?
>
> TH
> Sounds like your talking "Lawyer Morals" that's when a company bases its
> morality on what the lawyers say they can get away with.
> I'm obviously opposed to that on moral grounds - who wouldn't be?
Well, I think you've been talking "Outcome morals", i.e., the end
justifies the means. Lawyers exist to interpret the law. If stockholders
want to get moral, let them...it's their money, after all.
Jeffrey Quick
tomhend...@cs.com (TomHendricks474) wrote:
> TH
> But you are taking for granted that better music is
> not popular.
Au contraire, I believe this is your position. I would say that wild
popularity is indicative of some kind of quality. It may not be the
quality I am looking for. But I've never seen advertising and
merchandising to effective as to persuade people to love the unloveable.
All any ad can do is make you want to try something.
Jeffrey Quick
tomhend...@cs.com (TomHendricks474) wrote:
> << There's no middle ground on principle. Why not just nationalize the
> music industry so that everyone can have the music they "should" have?
> Or just tell people which artists they should sign? The first is
> socialism, the second is fascism.
>
>
> And all of it is an argument that carries rationality to extremes to force a
> point. The continual consolidation of the arts and media is not IMO good for
> anyone.
>
> I can't imagine why anyone would support it?
I agree that it's not good. I see anti-trust as de facto
nationalization, i.e., monopolization. So why would you support that?
TomHendricks474
nationalization, i.e., monopolization. So why would you support that?
>>
Because a little regulation is not the extreme nationalization monopolization,
that you fear.
and the alternative of doing nothing is fearful because it directly leads to
monopoly (in this case about 6-opoly).
Also note that some of these behemouths are outside of the US companies
(Bertelsmann, and News Corp (FOX). So even the strictest US gov regulations
could not lead to the fears for the companies that you suggest.
A little trust busting goes a long way to helping all compete fairly.
Jeffrey Quick
tomhend...@cs.com (TomHendricks474) wrote:
> << I agree that it's not good. I see anti-trust as de facto
> nationalization, i.e., monopolization. So why would you support that?
> >>
>
> Because a little regulation is not the extreme nationalization
> monopolization,
> that you fear.
>
Morally, it desn't matter; it;s still a violation of property rights and
rights of free association. Practically,the first thing any government
does with power is seek more of it. It's like giving teenage boys cars
and whiskey.