Re: Hurwitz' Anti-Boulez rant
Tom Deacon
Muething" <tmuetBUGGER-OF...@t-online.de> wrote:
> from classicstoday.com:
>
> "Ah, the delicious irony of it all! Here we have Mr. Boulez, the guy
> whose battle cry of "Blow up the opera houses" in the 1950s branded him
> as the icon of the European musical avant-garde, becoming exactly what
> he most despised: the very symbol of the establishment. If he truly had
> the courage of his convictions, the only logical thing to do would be to
> destroy IRCAM as well as his own music--but that's not likely to happen.
> Boulez is far too adroit a politician, too comfortable with his ability
> to suck in millions of dollars in taxpayer arts subsidies, and too
> satisfied with his success in crushing the spirit of 20th century French
> musical culture, replacing its traditional openness and breezy
> eclecticism with the sort of emotionally sterile pedantries on display
> here." (Dave Hurwitz, reviewing a CD that contains, amongst other works,
> Boulez' "Notations"!)
>
> Any comments? I myself find it rather disturbing, especially having been
> written by someone who himself claims to be open-minded. ;)
Not really.
Just Hurwitz using the other opening in his body.
Irrelevant.
TD
Thomas Muething
"Ah, the delicious irony of it all! Here we have Mr. Boulez, the guy
whose battle cry of "Blow up the opera houses" in the 1950s branded him
as the icon of the European musical avant-garde, becoming exactly what
he most despised: the very symbol of the establishment. If he truly had
the courage of his convictions, the only logical thing to do would be to
destroy IRCAM as well as his own music--but that's not likely to happen.
Boulez is far too adroit a politician, too comfortable with his ability
to suck in millions of dollars in taxpayer arts subsidies, and too
satisfied with his success in crushing the spirit of 20th century French
musical culture, replacing its traditional openness and breezy
eclecticism with the sort of emotionally sterile pedantries on display
here." (Dave Hurwitz, reviewing a CD that contains, amongst other works,
Boulez' "Notations"!)
Any comments? I myself find it rather disturbing, especially having been
written by someone who himself claims to be open-minded. ;)
Thomas
Paul Ilechko
> from classicstoday.com:
>
> "Ah, the delicious irony of it all! Here we have Mr. Boulez, the guy
> whose battle cry of "Blow up the opera houses" in the 1950s branded him
> as the icon of the European musical avant-garde, becoming exactly what
> he most despised: the very symbol of the establishment. If he truly had
> the courage of his convictions, the only logical thing to do would be to
> destroy IRCAM as well as his own music--but that's not likely to happen.
> Boulez is far too adroit a politician, too comfortable with his ability
> to suck in millions of dollars in taxpayer arts subsidies, and too
> satisfied with his success in crushing the spirit of 20th century French
> musical culture, replacing its traditional openness and breezy
> eclecticism with the sort of emotionally sterile pedantries on display
> here." (Dave Hurwitz, reviewing a CD that contains, amongst other works,
> Boulez' "Notations"!)
I don't know a great deal about the music of Mr. Boulez, but I did
recently buy a CD with Repons and Dialogue de l'LOmbre Double that I
think is remarkably good, and that makes me want to explore a lot more.
I think some of his comments that I've seen quoted have been a little
inane, but that won't interfere with my listening pleasure.
Mr Hurwitz I admire for what he's done with Classics Today, and for his
great knowledge of classical music, but it does bother me that he is
so free to lavish praise on second rate performances of tonal music
written by third rate regional composers, just because they have avoided
the "difficult" modern music that he appears to loathe.
Samuel Vriezen
The "emotionally sterile pedantries" is mere critical
ineptitude - a cliché; the case could be made in a much more
eloquent way. The "Boulez is establishment" part is hardly
news; it's pretty clear that Boulez always wanted to be the
new establishment.
Forget Hurwitz, he's clearly a non-entity far too easy to
dismiss. Consider, instead, this interview fragment with
Morton Feldman:
- A world-famous composer said on television not long
ago that the one unforgivable thing in art is anarchy. ONe
must learn the rules, he said, if it's only to break them.
MF - Yes, everybody keeps saying that. I've never understood
it. I never understood what I was supposed to learn and what
I was supposed to break. What rules? Boulez wrote a letter
to John Cage in 1951. There was a line in that letter I will
never forget. "I must know everything in order to step off
the carpet." And for what purpose did he want to step off
the carpet? Only to realize the perennial Frenchman's
dream... to crown himself Emperor. Was it love of knowledge,
love of music, that obsessed our distinguished young
pronvincial in 1951? It was love of *analysis* - an analysis
he will pursue and use as an instrument of power.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html
Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that
was or will be, much less is.
- Charles Bernstein
abac...@att.net
you mean one of his ears :-)
AB
sidoze
Shostakovich, but he did get this one right. bravo hurwitz
david...@aol.com
has the five extant Notations on it.
-david gable
Jeffrey Quick
Thomas Muething <tmuetBUGGER-OF...@t-online.de> wrote:
> from classicstoday.com:
>
> Boulez is far too adroit a politician, too comfortable with his ability
> to suck in millions of dollars in taxpayer arts subsidies, and too
> satisfied with his success in crushing the spirit of 20th century French
> musical culture, replacing its traditional openness and breezy
> eclecticism with the sort of emotionally sterile pedantries on display
> here." (Dave Hurwitz, reviewing a CD that contains, amongst other works,
> Boulez' "Notations"!)
>
> Any comments? I myself find it rather disturbing, especially having been
> written by someone who himself claims to be open-minded. ;)
The tax-sucking comment is right on. As for crushing French musical
culture, that gives Boulez way too much power. I think what we saw there
is a collapse of traditional patronage and its replacement by socialist
culture drones. Boulez played only a small part in that.
Anyway, nowadays "French culture" MIGHT be an oxymoron.
Tom Deacon
1110482048.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "abac...@att.net"
<abac...@att.net> wrote:
Does he have ears, Arri? I thought that was ruled out a long time ago.
TD
audi...@aol.com
Vaneyes
david...@aol.com wrote:
> I'm curious what disc he's reviewing. The new Gielen Mahler 9? That
> has the five extant Notations on it.
http://uk.towerrecords.com/product.aspx?pfid=3188804
Regards
Paul Ilechko
Paul Ilechko
>
> The tax-sucking comment is right on. As for crushing French musical
> culture, that gives Boulez way too much power. I think what we saw there
> is a collapse of traditional patronage and its replacement by socialist
> culture drones. Boulez played only a small part in that.
>
> Anyway, nowadays "French culture" MIGHT be an oxymoron.
Whereas American culture grows in a petri dish ?
jaggedrhythm
think is excellent. (Caveat: the CD is probably even better with a
surround-sound system, to replicate Boulez's spatial effects.)
I like the colors in the piece, the swirling rhythms, and the timbres
he achieves with his electronic manipulations. The last time I
thought, "This is what Debussy might have written, were he to be alive
in the present day."
--Bruce
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Joseph Henry
"Thomas Muething" <tmuetBUGGER-OF...@t-online.de> wrote in
message news:d0ot84$fvf$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
John Adams and Pierre Boulez finally have something in common! But at least
in Adams' case, Hurwitz had the decency to assign someone else the
"official" review. ("Transmigration" got a 9/9 from ClassicsToday.)
If counting a reviewer's chichés were a drinking game, I'd be dead of
alcohol poisoning before I even finished the piece. First we have the
citation of some great cosmic "irony." (Actually, Hurwitz starts out with
no less than three ostensible ironies!) Then we get the
"don't-get-wrong-I've-been-known-to-like-some-modern-music" line, citing
such high praises as noticing a "timbral interest" and a "textural variety"
in Boulez' "other" music. Then there's the oh-so-subtle slip from "I" to
the Royal We in back-to-back sentences. Followed by the ol' "plink-plonk"
epithet, here updated as "squeak-bloop." And the standard claim of
"randomness." And the chimp-on-the-keyboard metaphor. Not to mention the
granddaddy of them all, the Emperor's New Clothes.
The only thing missing -- and shame on Hurwitz for forgetting it! -- would
be the "mathematical music" libel.
Most of Hurwitz' "criticisms" could've been cut and pasted from Slonimsky's
Lexicon. Isn't it time to admit, honestly, that this particular emperor...?
Oh, God, now he's got *me* doing it...
Joseph Henry
Joseph Henry
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:42305ac4$0$28975$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Thomas Muething wrote:
>
> >
> > "Ah, the delicious irony of it all! Here we have Mr. Boulez, the guy
> > whose battle cry of "Blow up the opera houses" in the 1950s branded him
> > as the icon of the European musical avant-garde, becoming exactly what
> > he most despised: the very symbol of the establishment. If he truly had
> > the courage of his convictions, the only logical thing to do would be to
> > destroy IRCAM as well as his own music--but that's not likely to happen.
> > Boulez is far too adroit a politician, too comfortable with his ability
> > to suck in millions of dollars in taxpayer arts subsidies, and too
> > satisfied with his success in crushing the spirit of 20th century French
> > musical culture, replacing its traditional openness and breezy
> > eclecticism with the sort of emotionally sterile pedantries on display
> > here." (Dave Hurwitz, reviewing a CD that contains, amongst other works,
> > Boulez' "Notations"!)
> >
> > Any comments? I myself find it rather disturbing, especially having been
> > written by someone who himself claims to be open-minded. ;)
> >
>
> The "emotionally sterile pedantries" is mere critical
> ineptitude - a cliché; the case could be made in a much more
> eloquent way. The "Boulez is establishment" part is hardly
> news; it's pretty clear that Boulez always wanted to be the
> new establishment.
>
> Forget Hurwitz, he's clearly a non-entity far too easy to
> dismiss. Consider, instead, this interview fragment with
> Morton Feldman:
His is a similarly stupid comment. Musical politics (and musical egos) can
make even the greatest of creative geniuses into complete morons sometimes.
(And Boulez himself is no exception!)
Joseph Henry
Samuel Vriezen
At least it's less and less dependent on tax dollars. :-)
Joseph Henry
> If counting a reviewer's chichés
Oops. I hope chiché isn't some horrible French cuss word... ;-)
Joseph Henry
Vaneyes
Samuel Vriezen
>> - A world-famous composer said on television not long
>>ago that the one unforgivable thing in art is anarchy. ONe
>>must learn the rules, he said, if it's only to break them.
>>
>>MF - Yes, everybody keeps saying that. I've never understood
>>it. I never understood what I was supposed to learn and what
>>I was supposed to break. What rules? Boulez wrote a letter
>>to John Cage in 1951. There was a line in that letter I will
>>never forget. "I must know everything in order to step off
>>the carpet." And for what purpose did he want to step off
>>the carpet? Only to realize the perennial Frenchman's
>>dream... to crown himself Emperor. Was it love of knowledge,
>>love of music, that obsessed our distinguished young
>>pronvincial in 1951? It was love of *analysis* - an analysis
>>he will pursue and use as an instrument of power.
> His is a similarly stupid comment. Musical politics
(and musical egos) can
> make even the greatest of creative geniuses into complete
morons sometimes.
> (And Boulez himself is no exception!)
Surely, Feldman was polemical and therefore political in his
views. However, I do think there's more than just stupidity
in them (though it's perfectly possible to see Boulez in a
different way, too). Don't forget that Feldman is not merely
talking music politics here, even if the Napoleon thing
might suggest so, but it's really about musical technique,
form, style - and the 'politics' of those - etc.
And to my ear it makes sense, by which I mean that Feldman's
comments 'vibe' with how I hear Boulez' music: technique
enough to make it uncontroversial (except to critical
nobodies like this Hurwitz) and thereby, in the end,
accepted by the powerful (in this case, a powerful arts
administration that still has to spend it responsibly
because it's part of a democracy); but (again, for me) less
real imagination than a lot of other European composers of
his generation, such as Stockhausen, Ligeti, Xenakis or even
a more conservative composer such as Maderna. In comparison
with them, Boulez sounds rather careful to me (and often a
little dull) - as if having a sense of harmony means writing
the same sort of chord throughout a piece - that's the sort
of thing this listener, at least, sometimes finds
unsatisfactory.
Sometimes, I do find it easier to hear certain attractive
aspects, but right now I can't really think of what they are.
(I have quite similar problems with Carter, BTW).
Vaneyes
Related Gielen 5 & 9 info...
http://www.klassi.org/mahler/viewtopic.php?t=741
http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/yellowlounge/comment.htms?LOUNGE=5&TOPIC=2946
Regards
sea...@gmail.com
IRCAM gave the world MAX/MSP, the only real-time audio development
environment out there in the mass market. If you go to a new music
concert with the ubiquitous Apple Powerbook on stage, chances are that
is the program that is running. Kaija Saariaho composed some beautiful
music using the technology there as well, including NoaNoa for flute
and electronics and Près for cello and electronics. Is that worth the
total cost? Ask a Frenchman, I suppose.
J
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:4230de29$0$43037
$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>> Jeffrey Quick wrote:
>>
>>> The tax-sucking comment is right on. As for crushing French musical
>>> culture, that gives Boulez way too much power. I think what we saw
>>> there is a collapse of traditional patronage and its replacement by
>>> socialist culture drones. Boulez played only a small part in that.
>>>
>>> Anyway, nowadays "French culture" MIGHT be an oxymoron.
>>
>> Whereas American culture grows in a petri dish ?
>
> At least it's less and less dependent on tax dollars. :-)
To a far too great extent (and growing greater all the time), American
culture is suppressed, withheld, and/or hidden from Americans. I find that
shameful beyond useful description.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Santiago de Compostela
<sea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110507513.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
J
I've heard some wild and wonderful compositions using MAX/MSP by Cort Lippe.
Are there any commercially available recordings by him?
sidoze
Paul Ilechko
> His review today of the three sonatas is even better.
>
You have to wonder when someone rates quasi-new age goop like Rautavaara
higher than Boulez ...
Vaneyes
Seems strange, alright.
Hurwitz reviewing piano? Did Jed Distler quit?
Regards
Mark Stratford
>>> His review today of the three sonatas is even better.
Oh yes - here it is
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=8692
"...music of vast intellectual and cultural pretensions, and no
substance whatsoever..."
I don't know if he still subscribes to this term, but I still like Sam
Vriezen's description of Boulez' works as being full of "10m Euro
engineering"....! ha
mark stratford
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>
>To a far too great extent (and growing greater all the time), American
>culture is suppressed, withheld, and/or hidden from Americans. I find that
>shameful beyond useful description.
>
What I find shameful is that so many share this ridiculous view at a time when
there has never been more "culture" available to more people, so easily, so
inexpensively, and in such variety. It is this "sky is falling" mentality that
turns so many people off, not the fact thay anything is suppressed, or withheld,
or hidden. That, and the fact that a lot of it (musically) still sounds like
Boulez, alas, and is shoved down people's throats by an arrogant, paternalistic,
performing arts mafia geared toward trying to shame people into flinging ever
more money at it so that it can do whatever it chooses, rather than what it
should, which is to offer a superior form of entertainment, and nothing more,
and let the "culture" bullshit take care of itself.
David Hurwitz
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
I'm sorry. I forgot about:
The many classical music programs on that bastion of culture, PBS;
Cable channels such as Bravo and Ovation;
The many classical radio stations which offer a choice to listeners,
particularly those in great cities such as Washington DC;
Great record labels such as Sony, BMG, and Warner, offering full catalogues
and constant new releases of a wide variety of classical music; and
Burgeoning chains of retailers such as Tower Records and Borders, with huge
selections of CDs, as well as knowledgeable help to guide the buyers.
You can be sure that I won't forget all of these wonderful things in the
future, with all of the marvellous choices they offer to the potential
audience for classical music in our country.
Samuel Vriezen
> What I find shameful is that so many share this ridiculous view at a time when
> there has never been more "culture" available to more people, so easily, so
> inexpensively, and in such variety. It is this "sky is falling" mentality that
> turns so many people off, not the fact thay anything is suppressed, or withheld,
> or hidden. That, and the fact that a lot of it (musically) still sounds like
> Boulez, alas, and is shoved down people's throats by an arrogant, paternalistic,
> performing arts mafia geared toward trying to shame people into flinging ever
> more money at it so that it can do whatever it chooses, rather than what it
> should, which is to offer a superior form of entertainment, and nothing more,
> and let the "culture" bullshit take care of itself.
What does that last thing mean, let the 'culture' bullshit
take care of itself? People shouldn't think about culture?
Performers shouldn't think about culture but leave it to,
say, the critics? We should abolish the word culture
altogether when talking about art? We should think about
culture only as something totally given and unproblematic?
Samuel Vriezen
Well...
It has been my experience that, with the exception of a few
chamber works in which transparency is hardly a problem (I
rather liked Structures, particularly the first book),
Boulez' pieces tend to sound good on CD - but never once
have I heard an acoustically satisfactory live performance.
Pli selon Pli these days is a vast boring blanket of
orchestral Undifferentiated Tissue. (And if the 50s
recording on Col Legno is something to go by, it used to be
different). So I've been wondering if Boulez might not
actually be a real classical studio composer, just like the
studio has been an important 'instrument' for many rock groups.
Jethro
http://www.music.buffalo.edu/faculty/lippe/lipperecordings.shtml
Enjoy!
J
David Hurwitz
>
>David Hurwitz wrote:
>
>
>What does that last thing mean, let the 'culture' bullshit
>take care of itself? People shouldn't think about culture?
>Performers shouldn't think about culture but leave it to,
>say, the critics? We should abolish the word culture
>altogether when talking about art? We should think about
>culture only as something totally given and unproblematic?
>
yes.
Dave H
david...@aol.com
aren't ramming it down anybody's throat any more than a performer of
any other music of any species. Nobody has to pay for a ticket to hear
it performed. As for the ludicrous notion that the sequences of notes
in ...explosante/fixe... may as well be random, they obviously don't
feel random to the marvelous performers in Boulez's recording who take
to the idiom like ducks to water. In fact they aren't random: the
piece is full of melody and nothing but melody. But Hurwitz wants to
ram the notion down these performers' throats that they shouldn't play
this music that they so obviously love.
And what a time for Hurwitz suddenly to go so violently anti-Boulez!
Boulez hasn't written a piece as complex as the first movement of the
Eroica in over forty years. ...explosante/fixe... is a delicious work
written in Boulez's relaxed and coloristic late style, gentle,
shimmering, and fantastical, while Boulez himself is an old man retired
from the job of music director of any orchestra and long since retired
from any official duties at IRCAM.
-david gable
MIFrost
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> David Hurwitz wrote:
>
> > and let the "culture" bullshit take care of itself.
>
> What does that last thing mean, let the 'culture' bullshit
> take care of itself? People shouldn't think about culture?
> Performers shouldn't think about culture but leave it to,
> say, the critics? We should abolish the word culture
> altogether when talking about art? We should think about
> culture only as something totally given and unproblematic?
>
> --
> samuel
If I may be so bold and to presume to clarify what I think Mr. Hurwitz
means, I think he means that there is, among a certain portion of the
population, a belief that "art" is either high-brow (cultural) or
low-brow (trash) or something in between. But often the high-brow stuff
is unpleasant (for most people) to listen to and is promoted and
subsidized (by the government and private foundations) because it is
considered "art" and therefore cultural and "good-for-you," however
horrible it may sound to your ears. Mr. Hurwitz is suggesting that art
is "worthy" if it appeals to peoples sensibilities and is up-lifting
and therefore shouldn't need a subsidy, as it will pay its own way in
the marketplace. And a society's "culture" will be reflective of the
types of entertainment people choose. And don't worry if the dominant
forms of entertainment are "high-brow" and hoity-toity enough. Just sit
back and relax and listen to what you like. That's what I read into
his comment.
MIFrost
Samuel Vriezen
> Mr. Hurwitz is suggesting that art
> is "worthy" if it appeals to peoples sensibilities and is up-lifting
> and therefore shouldn't need a subsidy, as it will pay its own way in
> the marketplace. And a society's "culture" will be reflective of the
> types of entertainment people choose. And don't worry if the dominant
> forms of entertainment are "high-brow" and hoity-toity enough. Just sit
> back and relax and listen to what you like. That's what I read into
> his comment.
I read all that, too, but OTOH I also read that you
shouldn't think about culture and only care about being
entertained. (By "superior" entertainment, whatever that means!)
Vaneyes
MIFrost wrote:
> If I may be so bold and to presume to clarify what I think Mr.
Hurwitz
> means....don't worry if the dominant
> forms of entertainment are "high-brow" and hoity-toity enough. Just
sit
> back and relax and listen to what you like. That's what I read into
> his comment.
Such attention to a reissue of a 1996 release? I smell agenda.
Regards
david...@aol.com
don't worry if it's highbrow, just enjoy whatever it is that you enjoy.
A not entirely unhealthy position. But Hurwitz doesn't stop there.
He implicitly and gratuitously adds that you should not perform or
listen to or like Boulez. You should like what you like and not worry
about it as long as it's not Boulez. Nor should you program it on a
concert or proselytize for it. He also seems to think that Boulez's
music is so ubiquitous, so widely recorded and performed, that it
prevents listeners from hearing anything else.
There's a wonderful story in the liner notes to the Folkways recording
of the Ives violin sonatas about how Paul Zukofsky and Gilbert Kalish
got together for the first time in the early 60's when they were in
their early 20's to play Ives' four then virtually unknown sonatas for
violin and piano before a tiny audience in a little church using an
out-of-tune piano after rehearsing for a year and a half. The
appreciation of--the audience for--Ives has grown a bit since then and
Z & K have recorded the sonatas twice (first for that major label
Folkways and then for Nonesuch), but in the beginning they weren't
deterred by the fact that Ives didn't have much of a following. (How
big is his following today? How big does an audience have to be for
Hurwitz to approve of the music that that audience likes?) They played
Ives because they found his music fascinating. End of story. Or,
rather, not quite the end of the story. Finding his music fascinating,
they thought others might be fascinated and put together a concert. A
few people came.
Boulez was in a similar position with a different repertory in the
mid-50's. He fought for music he believed in. How? By banding
together with other musicians who wanted to play it and performing it.
Should he be criticized for whatever success he's had in promoting it
as a performer, for fighting for what he believes in?
-david gable
Paul Ilechko
If you think that "culture" and "entertainment" are synonymous, then
yes, there has never been more. If you think that much of what is
classed as "entertainment" is actually diluting and overwhelming what is
good in "culture", then we're in a pretty sorry state. Now, I've never
been one of those people who regards all popular music as crap, like
some folks here. I have a pretty wide-ranging collection that includes a
lot of good rock and jazz and various other genres of popular music. The
key is that it is all music that I regard as being of a certain level of
quality, that typically gets little or no exposure anywhere other than
some obscure college or public radio stations. It's overwhelmed by the
sheer noise of the mass media trash that is inflicted on the public.
But I suppose Mr Hurwtiz thinks that we must regard framed Disney film
stills as being equivalent to Picasso or Caravaggio. Or the new Vin
Diesel movie as being on a par with anything by Orson Welles, Akira
Kurosawa or Jean Renoir.
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>
>>
>If I may be so bold and to presume to clarify what I think Mr. Hurwitz
>means, I think he means that there is, among a certain portion of the
>population, a belief that "art" is either high-brow (cultural) or
>low-brow (trash) or something in between. But often the high-brow stuff
>is unpleasant (for most people) to listen to and is promoted and
>subsidized (by the government and private foundations) because it is
>considered "art" and therefore cultural and "good-for-you," however
>horrible it may sound to your ears. Mr. Hurwitz is suggesting that art
>is "worthy" if it appeals to peoples sensibilities and is up-lifting
>and therefore shouldn't need a subsidy, as it will pay its own way in
>the marketplace. And a society's "culture" will be reflective of the
>types of entertainment people choose. And don't worry if the dominant
>forms of entertainment are "high-brow" and hoity-toity enough. Just sit
>back and relax and listen to what you like. That's what I read into
>his comment.
>
>MIFrost
>
Exactly.
Dave H
Vaneyes
david...@aol.com wrote:
> ....Should he be criticized for whatever success he's had in
promoting > it as a performer, for fighting for what he believes in?
Of course not...quite the contrary.
Regards
pdu...@hotmail.com
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> If you think that "culture" and "entertainment" are synonymous, then
> yes, there has never been more.
Requiem or Bruckner 5th symphony for instance are mere forms of
entertainement is simply ridiculous in my mind. Maybe Mr Hurwitz
should read Pascal more.
PD
jrs...@aol.com
I don't think you have to believe that Vin Diesel is the latest Orson
Welles to think that we're flooded with culture, or rather, "high-brow
art". It's a huge world and there's a tremendous amount of creative
activity going on and an unprecedented amount of serious, individual
expression and creation of artistic objects. The major classical labels
may be dead, for all practical purposes, but there are still a huge
number of fascinating offerings on the market.
The problem is the distribution does not quite keeping pace with the
activity itself, nor is the critical establishment doing its job
letting us know how to pick and choose and find (the Boulezian rant
aside, Hurwitz is one of the few who usually bucks the trend, even if
that Web site of his is only a small part of the overall solution).
There are tons of composition students in academia, but who ever hears
their stuff except the few who work and live near them? Who helps
identify the good from the not so good?
Tons of small-time videos, but how to find them and watch them? Tons of
galleries and but it's difficult to display the works effectively to
people from far away. The distances between potential appreciators of
interesting art are growing, not shrinking; it's hard to reach the
audience. The medium of distribution--the Web--requires different
solutions and different types of art, ultimately.
In classical music, radio is basically dead, the recording industry is
splintered, many major orchestras are sputtering for funding, but we're
still in a prolific age; the use of the Web hasn't caught up with the
audience or the product. There are tons of concerts in my area; I can't
get to more than a few. I'd love to see an alternative to setting aside
large blocks of time and schlepping through traffic to sample and
support this work.
In general, the audience for seriously interesting music is not growing
fast enough and it has many demands on it: leisure time and lifespan
and facility for patience and concentration are not growing
commensurately with the profusion of creativity. Formal education isn't
either; instead--the audience is there but isn't even aware of itself.
Instead, the marketing power of the not-so-creative entertainment biz
and celebrity machine is growing more formidable, crowding out so
called high-culture in the political and media spheres. If classical
music is to claim time from busy, hyperactive people, it's going to
have to fight through the noisy entertainment scene.
It is a challenge, but I do believe that some people in the arts
community will figure out ways of reminding us how exciting the
"cultural" scene really is.
--Jeff
Tom D.
Vaneyes wrote:
> Seems strange, alright.
> Hurwitz reviewing piano? Did Jed Distler quit?
If so, *very* recently. Distler reviewed an Andreas Staier fortepiano
disc yesterday, the same day as the Hurwitz screed that touched off
this thread. Rather a perfunctory review, though: he couldn't be
bothered to correctly spell the surname (Pauset) of one of the two
featured composers.
No doubt DH took on the Boulez review as part of the "agenda" referred
to elsewhere.
John Harrington
That may be an accurate translation of what Hurwitz was trying to say.
My comment is this: if we have to rely solely on what a market based on
maximizing profits for investors produces, we will end up with crap.
Anything other than that is a "subsidy" of some kind. Most great music
in history was subsidized by rarified elites who directed their wealth
not with the goal of maximizing return by appealing to the lowest
common denominator but maximizing what they viewed as artitistic value.
I'm sure had they directed their wealth toward beer production, porn,
prostitution, donut franchises, whatever, they could have wound up with
a hell of a lot more money in the end. By forgoing that, they were
"subsidizing" something that wouldn't appeal to a greater mass of
consumers, and thank goodness they did. I'm all for subsidizing and I
see a great quality difference between what the market produces and
what elites "subsidize".
J
Paul Ilechko
> That may be an accurate translation of what Hurwitz was trying to say.
> My comment is this: if we have to rely solely on what a market based on
> maximizing profits for investors produces, we will end up with crap.
> Anything other than that is a "subsidy" of some kind. Most great music
> in history was subsidized by rarified elites who directed their wealth
> not with the goal of maximizing return by appealing to the lowest
> common denominator but maximizing what they viewed as artitistic value.
> I'm sure had they directed their wealth toward beer production, porn,
> prostitution, donut franchises, whatever, they could have wound up with
> a hell of a lot more money in the end. By forgoing that, they were
> "subsidizing" something that wouldn't appeal to a greater mass of
> consumers, and thank goodness they did. I'm all for subsidizing and I
> see a great quality difference between what the market produces and
> what elites "subsidize".
"Elite" not necessarily having anything to do with wealth. Off-Broadway
is elitist compared to Broadway, certainly has more intellectual
content, but it ain't where the money is. Ditto alternative rock, indie
moviemaking, etc etc. It's the "thinking elite" that is at issue here.
Anyone who contributes to this n.g. (other than a few trolls) is pretty
much by definition a member.
Matthew B. Tepper
> That may be an accurate translation of what Hurwitz was trying to say.
> My comment is this: if we have to rely solely on what a market based on
> maximizing profits for investors produces, we will end up with crap.
> Anything other than that is a "subsidy" of some kind. Most great music
> in history was subsidized by rarified elites who directed their wealth
> not with the goal of maximizing return by appealing to the lowest
> common denominator but maximizing what they viewed as artitistic value.
> I'm sure had they directed their wealth toward beer production, porn,
> prostitution, donut franchises, whatever, they could have wound up with
> a hell of a lot more money in the end. By forgoing that, they were
> "subsidizing" something that wouldn't appeal to a greater mass of
> consumers, and thank goodness they did. I'm all for subsidizing and I
> see a great quality difference between what the market produces and
> what elites "subsidize".
My modest proposal: Let's find ways to persuade the biggest money-makers in
the music business (the rappers?) to subsidize the classical music industry,
WITHOUT feeling it necessary to engage closely hands-on with the artistic
decisions that are needed. If ABBA can bankroll recordings of Pettersson
symphonies, and if members of the Grateful Dead (via the Rex Foundation) can
support the music of Havergal Brian, surely we can get SOMETHING out of 'em.
MIFrost
John Harrington wrote:
> My comment is this: if we have to rely solely on what a market based
on
> maximizing profits for investors produces, we will end up with crap.
We rely on the free market system in literature. It has produced, aside
from porn, James Joyce, Hemmingway, Mailer, Roth, and countless other
wonderful writers. We rely on the the free market for films. It's given
us -- besides Animal House -- Citizen Kane, Casablanca and many others.
Why do you think that the profit motive will produce only crap? Private
colleges rely of the profit motive. Are they all crap too? Not everyone
who produces a product for profit wants to sell a zillion items to
morons. Otherwise, why would anyone open an up-scale French restaurant?
> Anything other than that is a "subsidy" of some kind. Most great
music
> in history was subsidized by rarified elites who directed their
wealth
> not with the goal of maximizing return by appealing to the lowest
> common denominator but maximizing what they viewed as artitistic
value.
They supported composers who wrote music they liked.
> I'm sure had they directed their wealth toward beer production,
porn,
> prostitution, donut franchises, whatever, they could have wound up
with
> a hell of a lot more money in the end.
People don't "direct their wealth" toward the above endeavors. Beer
production is a business that people can "invest their capital" in and
many do and some succeed and some fail and many eke out a modest
living. Prostitution? How does one "direct [one's] wealth" toward that?
Actually, I believe Brahms did. But patrons of the arts subsidized
artists for their own pleasure and at a cost to themselves. You can't
compare it to investing in a business. They're apples and oranges.
By forgoing that, they were
> "subsidizing" something that wouldn't appeal to a greater mass of
> consumers,
Maybe, maybe not.
and thank goodness they did.
Agree.
I'm all for subsidizing
by purchasing concert tickets and CDs
and I
> see a great quality difference between what the market produces and
> what elites "subsidize".
What elites subsidize? Meaning what? I buy CDs and attend the opera. Am
I an elite who subsidizes culture? Joe Millionaire donates to the city
museum. Is that what you mean? Museums are around only because of
millionaire's gifts and government subsidies? I doubt that. A free
market produces many, many wonderful things of value, far better than
what a bunch of beaurocrats in Washington choose to subsidize. You
think your congressman or senator is responsible for the high quality
of culture in this country (assuming we're both in the US)? I don't
think so.
Finally, I write this without the slightest shred of animosity and in
the spirit of friendly intercourse.
MIFrost
>
MIFrost
MIFrost wrote:
>
> and thank goodness they did.
>
> Agree.
>
> I'm all for subsidizing
>
> by purchasing concert tickets and CDs
>
Sorry for the screw-up here. I was commenting on statements and must
have deleted them by mistake.
MIFrost
David Hurwitz
Harrington says...
>
>
>
>My comment is this: if we have to rely solely on what a market based on
>maximizing profits for investors produces, we will end up with crap.
There is so little point in disucssing "the market" with people who have no idea
what it is or how it works. But I will try, one last time. This is no such thing
as "the market" in the way you describe it. There are many markets. You are
surrounded by high-end, high quality products for which people are happy to pay;
they may not be mass market products. They may be "boutique" products that
appeal to a select few. But they pay their way, and they are not "crap." That
contention is simply stupid. Shakespeare was not "crap," but was enjoyed as
popular entertainment by all strata of society. So was opera for most of its
history; so is HBO, a non-commercial pay-per-view service dedicated to making
high-quality, cutting-edge programming. And it works. Handel's productions paid
their way. If the nobility lent their patronage to an enterprise, it was not for
the purpose of giving the artist a perpetual indulgence to suck in money by the
fistful creating works and productions that the vast majority of people would
detest.
THAT, my friend, is what produces "crap." Like Boulez, for example, and all of
the other tenured, academic non-entities bereft of talent or any sense of social
responsibility to the culture (yes "culture") that puts food on their tables,
never mind the audiences that deserve to have their tastes and preferences
catered to in exchange for the largesse that they bestow. That is the social
contract that has broken down as subsidy has become institutionalized, and
severed the artist and the performer from any connection with the world at
large, sheltering him forever from the consequences of creating, as you say,
crap. The arts, in fact, have not historically been "subsidized" at all in the
way that you describe. That's the problem.
If today's artists were told: "OK, we will support you as long as you produce
what WE like because we recognize that we're not likely to get it OUR WAY unless
we PAY FOR IT DIRECTLY, and if you don't give us what we want to hear you can
take your so-called "art," choke on it, and starve to death," I'd be all for it.
Subsidize away! The result would be a musical culture such as that prevailing in
the 18th and early 19th centuries. It had its problems, but one great point in
its favor is that artists produced for immediately consumption, with little
concern for "posterity," and let future generations decide what would survive
and what would not. So please, enough foolishness about "the market"--there's
enough paranoia and misinformation about music here without compounding it with
nonsense on the subject of economics.
Dave H
John Harrington
I immodestly made this modest proposal years ago when I was told the
San Diego Symphony was going to be run "as a business" and that that
was code for inserting a lot of crap in the programs, including Las
Vegas lounge-type singers during the winter season. The acting CEO at
the time was of the opinion that classical music should be a profit
making operation, and that, in order to make it a profit making
operation it should be anything but classical music. Certainly things
like Mahler and Bruckner were simply too "hard" for our audiences. And
anything with a chorus had to be either Messiah or the Beeth 9.
My argument at the time was that the SDS was most appropriately
considered a charity, not a business. Sure enough, a few years later,
the SDS was given a $100M legacy and now operates more or less free of
the bankruptcy threat it suffered under, and periodically succumed to,
for so many years. And this season, though they're still doing "winter
pops", they're playing the Bruckner 7th, among other things it was once
suggested to me were unthinkable.
John
Paul Ilechko
<snip>
> THAT, my friend, is what produces "crap." Like Boulez, for example ...
Strangely, there is even a market for "crap" like Boulez, or you can be
damned sure that DG wouldn't be recording and releasing so much of his
music. Surprisingly, there are people who enjoy it. Then again, there
are also people who enjoy "Metal Machine Music" or "Interstellar Space",
compared to which Boulez is easy listening.
James Kahn
>My comment is this: if we have to rely solely on what a market based on
>maximizing profits for investors produces, we will end up with crap.
>Anything other than that is a "subsidy" of some kind. Most great music
>in history was subsidized by rarified elites who directed their wealth
>not with the goal of maximizing return by appealing to the lowest
>common denominator but maximizing what they viewed as artitistic value.
> I'm sure had they directed their wealth toward beer production, porn,
>prostitution, donut franchises, whatever, they could have wound up with
>a hell of a lot more money in the end. By forgoing that, they were
>"subsidizing" something that wouldn't appeal to a greater mass of
>consumers, and thank goodness they did. I'm all for subsidizing and I
>see a great quality difference between what the market produces and
>what elites "subsidize".
I don't think subsidy vs. market is the appropriate terminology.
Those "rarified elites" paid for the production of that music because
they liked it, and they were wealthy enough to be able to do so.
I doubt they saw it as investment. They were the market for
music, especially given that there were no recordings or other
ways for music to reach a broader audience. And there were few
enough of them that they exercised a disproportionate influence
on the market. The analogy to today is if Bill Gates or Warren Buffett
were to start commissioning classical music compositions, but even
they are small compared to the size of the industry. So it's no
surpise if that industry produces mostly 'crap' today given that it's
a mass market industry. The question is whether classical can survive
as a niche supported by educated elites. And the problem is that the
educated elites in this society seem to have almost as bad taste
as everyone else.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Johannes Roehl
That's a very good summary of the main difference between the situation
in Handel's and Haydn's time and today. (And I may add that quite a few
composers, Bach for instance, had something very close to a tenure
position and he didn't have to ask the congregational folks if they
liked his cantatas as long as he provided music for the services)
Classical music was never ever a mass market product in the modern sense.
In former times an educated elite was willing to pay for it, so it's a
small wonder that nowadays either wealthy sponsors or the general
taxpayer should pay for it. I actually fail to see the difference
between sponsoring music, only a few experts are interested in and
sponsoring theoretical physics or art history research only a few
experts are interested in. We certainly should do both.
Johannes
David Hurwitz
Yes, there is a market for Boulez, a tiny one, but then, as Mr. Harrington
points out, most people like crap, do they not? I would beware of this
justification. After all, if it's true, then I am completely correct and subsidy
should be eliminated forthwith. After all, there is a market. It makes money.
Let Boulez live on what he can legitimately earn, on what you and your buddies
will pay to listen to him. I'd love to hear his answer to that proposition
almost as much as I would enjoy knowing the truth about the depth of your own
support for the cause and financial investment in it.
Somehow I suspect that philosophical considerations loom a tad larger for you
than actual hours spent listening, not to mention cash out the door, but then
I'm cycnical in this regard, particularly here. Besides, I see no reason to give
Boulez a pass on the "crap" test just because he's difficult. There's plenty of
difficult crap out there, and if you like it, that's your right. Enjoy.
The culprit here is not corporate America, consumer culture, "hype," popular
taste or any other such bogey men. It's really quite simple. There's too much
money out there, too much support, not too little. As soon as the arts become a
means of securing a comfortable living on minimal or no talent, then opportunism
will replace integrity or a true calling as the reason people go into the
profession. That's all there is to it, and it is inevitable as soon as one
separates what a composer writes from whether or not he can eat as a result of
it.
Don't kid yourself: had Boulez not taken up conducting and additionally had his
living as a composer guaranteed by the state, he would have been a toll
collector, a used car salesman, or perhaps, on a good day, a music teacher, and
we would not be having this conversation. Certainly "culture" would be none the
worse without him. And if he had become a composer anyway, he would either have
died in obscurity, deservedly, or become a very different artist from the one we
know now, and that's not a bad thing because it is a historical fact that great
art arises not in isolation, but in dialog between the artist and the widest
possible audience.
As I said previously, I don't begrudge Boulez a nickel: he's used the system to
his advantage, and must be a smart man to that extent. I think he's also a
terrific conductor. But that's not the problem. The problem is that there was a
"system" to be used in the first place.
David Hurwitz
David Hurwitz
P.S. I second MIFrost's comment, that none of this is written in the spirit of
animousity (to Messrs. Harrington, Ilechko, Tepper, etc)--it is vigorous
discussion. Nothing more. Obviously one doesn't throw out a controversial
opinion without expecting controversy. What would be nice, though, is if all of
the people who have had such a good time jumping all over my views, and reviews,
would at least admit that they're having fun. That is one of criticims'
primarily purpose: to encourage an exchange of opinion on the subject of music
and recordings. So whether anyone here admits it or not, I take full credit for
at least instigating a real disucssion about a musical subject--a sadly
increasing rarity in these parts, where threads on politics and the middle east
generate hundreds of replies, while most musical topics barely attract notice.
Davie Hurwitz
alanwa...@aol.com
It's the sounds you know, just as he sorts out sounds as a "terrific
conductor" in Ravel, Debussy and Mahler for starters.
Therefore I suppose I am overtly sympathetic to sounds having met many
people who could not, in fact, sort them out.
Come on. It's just a job. We are not changing history here.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Jack Campin - bogus address
> a musical subject--a sadly increasing rarity in these parts
Fuck that. Mean-spirited vindictive attacks on someone who's spent
his life creating beautiful sounds that inspire tens of thousands of
people all over the world are always going to produce exasperated
responses. So does throwing Big Mac boxes in a fountain. Is it
anything to be proud of?
Back to my question, that nobody's answered yet: what recordings of
Xenakis's "Evryali" would people here recommend?
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
Joseph Henry
"Vaneyes" <van...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1110561977....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Did Hurwitz get turned down for an interview or something? ;-)
Joseph Henry
John Harrington
David Hurwitz wrote:
> In article <1110570501.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
John
> Harrington says...
> >My comment is this: if we have to rely solely on what a market based
on
> >maximizing profits for investors produces, we will end up with crap.
>
> There is so little point in disucssing "the market"
If you had bothered to read my comment rather than snipping it, and
launching into another of your insulting rampages, you would have
perhaps paused to realize that I didn't say "the market", but "a market
based on maximizing profits for investors." Were I an investor seeking
to maximize profit, I wouldn't invest in Hyperion or Chandos. I'd
invest in whoever markets whatever music is selling to the most people.
It is not a matter of merely paying the way. And, as I pointed out in
the part you snipped before you stupidly started lecturing me about
"boutique" products, any compromise in the goal to maximize profits is
essentially a subsidy.
> THAT, my friend, is what produces "crap." Like Boulez<snip>
But Boulez isn't crap, and almost everything that is mass-marketed is.
> If today's artists were told: "OK, we wil<snip>
Thank goodness that no matter what your personal opinions may be, art
and music will continute to be subsidized, as they always have been,
and our culture will be the better for it.
J
John Harrington
This was, of course, exactly my point when I pointed out that they paid
for the production of the music because they saw it as maximizing
non-lucrative value.
> They were the market for
> music, especially given that there were no recordings or other
> ways for music to reach a broader audience. And there were few
> enough of them that they exercised a disproportionate influence
> on the market.
Yes, just as the NEA doesn't grant funds to just any old artist or
musician who comes along just because they want funds.... The NEA is
also a "market", if you insist.
> The analogy to today is if Bill Gates or Warren Buffett
> were to start commissioning classical music compositions, but even
> they are small compared to the size of the industry.
No, that is not an appropriate analogy. Bill and Warren are not
emperors or princes or even aristocracy who gathered their money from
taxation and/or fiefdom.
A more appropriate analogy is, for one, the French bureaucracy that
awards grants or establishes instituties based on what they view as
promising artistic merit. The major difference is that the French
bureaucracy exists in a democracy, of course.
J
Jethro
> environment out there in the mass market.
A bit of irony I just received from someone close to the subject:
"When Miller Puckette was developing MAX at IRCAM, it was a completely
underground project, not an "official" IRCAM project. They only jumped
on it when they realized its potential."
Go figure.
J
John Harrington
Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
> > I take full credit for at least instigating a real disucssion about
> > a musical subject--a sadly increasing rarity in these parts
>
Ditto.
Dave, you're an asshole, pure and simple. Like most critics, you
contribute nothing to the arts you criticize other than fatuous
opinion, and, as such, you're worthless.
It may be a pleasure to answer the likes of you with the truth, but you
are not "fun" at all.
J
Raymond Hall
news:1110584081.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Josef Haydn was effectively subsidised. And we are still listening to his
music? N'est-ce pas?
Carter isn't, and for the life of me, I cannot find one ounce of any
pleasure listening to 68 different things going on at once. My brain craps
out at anything past an 8 part fugue.
So it all comes down to what we as individuals like. You (who afaik long
since plonked me - mercifully) have a complete aversion to rock music. For
some reason or other. Anyway, as you aren't listening, and never do to
others either, who really gives a toss.
Ray H
Taree
John Harrington
MIFrost wrote:
><snip>
> I buy CDs and attend the opera. Am
> I an elite who subsidizes culture?
By definition, no.
> Joe Millionaire donates to the city
> museum. Is that what you mean?
Yes, of course that's what I mean.
> Museums are around only because of
> millionaire's gifts and government subsidies? I doubt that. A free
> market produces many, many wonderful things of value, far better than
> what a bunch of beaurocrats in Washington choose to subsidize. You
> think your congressman or senator is responsible for the high quality
> of culture in this country (assuming we're both in the US)? I don't
> think so.
No, I think subsidies, as I defined them, are responsible for great
culture, and I'm right. These subsidies take many forms. In the past,
they took the form of patronage by monied elites (often in government)
who sought to subsidize art that could not survive, for one reason or
another, on popular support. Today, they take the form...well the form
of subsidies by wealthy elites (often in government) who seek to
subsidize art that could not survive on popular support alone.
Yes, I believe museums could survive on popular support (mass
marketing) alone, but they would become stupid, as stupid as Disney
Land, Hollywood, Sony "music", or just about any other entity that
survives on mass marketing alone. And, even if they did "survive", the
decision to invest in them rather than something more lucrative would
still be a form of subsidy.
J
John Harrington
<snip>
> So it all comes down to what we as individuals like. You (who afaik
long
> since plonked me - mercifully) have a complete aversion to rock
music.
No, it was you who (supposedly) plonked me. And, after having
ostentatiously "plonked" me, you then had the gall to read and reply to
me. When I pointed out that you therefore must not understand what the
word "plonk" means, you made the lame excuse that you hadn't had time
to plonk me and therefore evidently relied on your computer to control
your impulses. Now, here you are reading and replying to me yet again
after having "plonked" me long ago.
I do have a complete aversion to rock music. And for some reason that
infuriates you. That really is "fun". ;-) Please keep me unplonked.
Or "plonked", if you wish. With you it apparently doesn't much
matter.
J
David Hurwitz
Harrington says...
>
>
>Dave, you're an asshole, pure and simple. Like most critics, you
>contribute nothing to the arts you criticize other than fatuous
>opinion, and, as such, you're worthless.
>
>It may be a pleasure to answer the likes of you with the truth, but you
>are not "fun" at all.
>
>J
>
OK, then you should thank me for the opportunity to get on your soap-box, make a
bunch of ignorant generalizations, and display your self-righteous hypocrisy to
the cyber-universe--whatever wets your whistle.
Dave H
Dave Hurwitz
Harrington says...
>
>
>If you had bothered to read my comment rather than snipping it, and
>launching into another of your insulting rampages, you would have
>perhaps paused to realize that I didn't say "the market", but "a market
>based on maximizing profits for investors."
Fine, then what you are speaking of is completely irrelevant as regards the
subject at hand.
Were I an investor seeking
>to maximize profit, I wouldn't invest in Hyperion or Chandos. I'd
>invest in whoever markets whatever music is selling to the most people.
> It is not a matter of merely paying the way. And, as I pointed out in
>the part you snipped before you stupidly started lecturing me about
>"boutique" products, any compromise in the goal to maximize profits is
>essentially a subsidy.
>
Like I said, it's was hopeless going in. Not only do you have no idea what you
are talking about, it's impossible to even has a dicussion if you choose to
define your terms as you please rather than in accordance with standard usage.
You may call whatever you like a 'subsidy,' but that does not make it so.
>> THAT, my friend, is what produces "crap." Like Boulez<snip>
>
>But Boulez isn't crap, and almost everything that is mass-marketed is.
>
That say more about you than it does about reality. And what it says isn't
pretty.
Dave H
David Hurwitz
>
So it's no
>surpise if that industry produces mostly 'crap' today given that it's
>a mass market industry.
I do wish you would stop insisting that anything created for the mass market is
"mostly crap." That is nonsense. Crap is everywhere, and so it quality, and
whether something is "Mass Market" or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Dave H
MIFrost
John Harrington wrote:
>
> Yes, I believe museums could survive on popular support (mass
> marketing) alone, but they would become stupid, as stupid as Disney
> Land, Hollywood, Sony "music", or just about any other entity that
> survives on mass marketing alone.
You use the phrase "mass marketing." I'm talking about "free market
capitalism." They're not the same thing, I'm sure you know. Not all
private enterprises rely on mass marketing and perhaps high-brow
artistic endeavors would not either. They have a niche appeal and would
likely market themselves to a specific audience. Free enterprise has
proven itself to be the most efficient way to satisfy the diverse wants
and needs of the disparate population anywhere it's been tried
throughout the world.
And what does "[museums] would become stupid" mean anyway? I don't get
that. Without subsidies they would take down the Monets and Degas and
put up velvet Elvises and Dogs Playing Poker instead? I don't get it.
Why? Do you mean something else? And why are Disneyland, Hollywood and
Sony "stupid"? Are you just on a generalized rant of some sort? You
seem to be picking businesses at random and calling them stupid for
some reason. Maybe we just let this go. Sorry to drag this out. Have a
good evening. Listen to some relaxing music. Read some Adam Smith and
Milton Friedman and have a nice cup of Decaf. Ahhhhh .....
MIFrost
Paul Ilechko
> In article <39ehjhF...@individual.net>, Paul Ilechko says...
>
>>David Hurwitz wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>THAT, my friend, is what produces "crap." Like Boulez, for example ...
>>
>>Strangely, there is even a market for "crap" like Boulez, or you can be
>>damned sure that DG wouldn't be recording and releasing so much of his
>>music. Surprisingly, there are people who enjoy it. Then again, there
>>are also people who enjoy "Metal Machine Music" or "Interstellar Space",
>>compared to which Boulez is easy listening.
>>
>
>
> Yes, there is a market for Boulez, a tiny one, but then, as Mr. Harrington
> points out, most people like crap, do they not? I would beware of this
> justification. After all, if it's true, then I am completely correct and subsidy
> should be eliminated forthwith. After all, there is a market. It makes money.
I'm OK with that.
> Let Boulez live on what he can legitimately earn, on what you and your buddies
> will pay to listen to him. I'd love to hear his answer to that proposition
> almost as much as I would enjoy knowing the truth about the depth of your own
> support for the cause and financial investment in it.
No cause, I've enjoyed some of his music. Not as much as I enjoy Bach,
Beethoven and Mahler, but enough to spend a little money.
>
> Somehow I suspect that philosophical considerations loom a tad larger for you
> than actual hours spent listening, not to mention cash out the door, but then
> I'm cycnical in this regard, particularly here.
Not at all. I'm very used to atonal music, having grown up listening to
the most alternative of alternative rock music, as well as modern jazz.
I had a problem with classical initially because it was *too* melodic -
it seemed pretty and trivial until I figured out more about what was
really going on.
>
> The culprit here is not corporate America, consumer culture, "hype," popular
> taste or any other such bogey men. It's really quite simple. There's too much
> money out there, too much support, not too little. As soon as the arts become a
> means of securing a comfortable living on minimal or no talent, then opportunism
> will replace integrity or a true calling as the reason people go into the
> profession. That's all there is to it, and it is inevitable as soon as one
> separates what a composer writes from whether or not he can eat as a result of
> it.
Probably. I just don't agree with your opinion on Boulez. Or probably
Carter, either.
>
> Don't kid yourself: had Boulez not taken up conducting and additionally had his
> living as a composer guaranteed by the state, he would have been a toll
> collector, a used car salesman, or perhaps, on a good day, a music teacher, and
> we would not be having this conversation. Certainly "culture" would be none the
> worse without him. And if he had become a composer anyway, he would either have
> died in obscurity, deservedly, or become a very different artist from the one we
> know now, and that's not a bad thing because it is a historical fact that great
> art arises not in isolation, but in dialog between the artist and the widest
> possible audience.
No, great art arises in dialog with other artists, the audience is
irrelevant. Think Picasso and Braque; Mozart and Haydn.
>
> As I said previously, I don't begrudge Boulez a nickel: he's used the system to
> his advantage, and must be a smart man to that extent. I think he's also a
> terrific conductor.
If he's such a terrific conductor (and I agree that he is), he probably
wouldn't need to sell used cars.
Paul Ilechko
> In article <120579509.0...@drn.newsguy.com>, David Hurwitz says...
>
>>In article <39ehjhF...@individual.net>, Paul Ilechko says...
>>
>
> P.S. I second MIFrost's comment, that none of this is written in the spirit of
> animousity (to Messrs. Harrington, Ilechko, Tepper, etc)--it is vigorous
> discussion.
ditto
Paul Ilechko
> Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
>
>>>I take full credit for at least instigating a real disucssion about
>>>a musical subject--a sadly increasing rarity in these parts
>>
>>Fuck that. Mean-spirited vindictive attacks on <snip>..etc.
>
>
> Ditto.
>
> Dave, you're an asshole, pure and simple.
I'll take his opinions over yours, any day. Even when you're agreeing
with me.
Raymond Hall
No. Quite correct, it doesn't matter one jot to me. I don't plonk anymore,
but feel free to do likewise to me again if you wish. And yes, I don't have
an aversion to *some* rock. Infinitely more intelligent than some classical
music I can think of.
Ray H
Taree
Ian Pace
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:120574909.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
In the context of this thread, some of you might find an essay 'Government
and the Value of Culture', by the British Culture Secretary of interest - it
can be read here -
http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_2004/Government_Value_of_Culture.htm?properties=archive_2004%2C%2Fglobal%2Fpublications%2Farchive_2004%2F%2C&month=
A lot of weak points in the argument that a populist would hone in on, but a
number of good ones as well, I feel.
Ian
Ian Pace
according to some notion of supporting and encouraging artistic merit (what
else would they do?).
Ian
John Harrington
> And what does "[museums] would become stupid" mean anyway?
It means they would become boring, bland, superficial, obvious,
sensational, venal, gross, cheap, in just the same way that the sort of
corporate "culture" I describe makes everything so. It may be true
that a market based on values other than maximizing profit can produce
something of quality. But you have to make a decision to invest
capital in something that is going to be only a "niche" market. Once
you've done so, unless you can charge more for that product or
otherwise make a profit that compensates for the nicheness of the
market, you have chosen to make less money. In other words, you are
subsidizing the art you are producing. You may not wish to call this a
subsidy, I understand, but it differs in no significant way from one.
Either way, you are taking money and giving it to the arts for reasons
other than profit. This is the way great art has always been produced,
and it is the way it will always be produced, because great art, by its
very nature, can almost never be a big seller.
J
John Harrington
<snip>
> ... opportunity to get on ... soap-box, make a
> bunch of ignorant generalizations, and display ... self-righteous
hypocrisy to
> the cyber-universe
A perfect summation of your posting history on rmcr.
J
Herb Levy
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <1110507513.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
<sea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The tax-sucking comment is right on.
>
> IRCAM gave the world MAX/MSP, the only real-time audio development
> environment out there in the mass market. If you go to a new music
> concert with the ubiquitous Apple Powerbook on stage, chances are that
> is the program that is running. Kaija Saariaho composed some beautiful
> music using the technology there as well, including NoaNoa for flute
> and electronics and Près for cello and electronics. Is that worth the
> total cost? Ask a Frenchman, I suppose.
>
It may be true that IRCAM sped up the development of MAX/MSP, but
software development at IRCAM was focused on mainframe computers long
after other composers/engineers had been working on interactive
software systems on small systems. Some of the centers for this area of
research were STEIM in Amsterdam and Mills College in Oakland,
California, some of the composers working with early interactive
programs included Martin Bartlett, David Behrman, Paul De Marinis, Rich
Gold, Jim Horton, George E Lewis, and Michel Waiswicz.
Earlier versions of software similar to the most recent versions of
MAX/MSP (and designed by the same crew) were powerful enough that it's
clear that something very much like the current product would have come
about with or without the support of IRCAM. At the time, it sure looked
as if IRCAM was supporting MAX to make up for the time they'd lost by
not working with small system computers earlier.
Kaija Saariaho certainly has made interesting works for electronics at
IRCAM and elsewhere, but it should be noted that her first work there
was done in off hours because they hadn't accepted her into the
program. It was only after Le jardin secret (created at IRCAM) won some
prizes that she was officially accepted at IRCAM.
Folks interested in reading more about the operations at IRCAM might
want to look at Georgina Born's Rationalizing Culture (published by U
of California Press), which looks at the institution from an
anthropological point of view during the period when Saariaho was still
composing off the clock and George Lewis was having trouble getting his
interactive programming on an Amiga (I think, it was before he was
using a Mac anyway) taken seriously.
Ian Pace
might claim some copyright on a certain mention of 'Stockholm Syndrome'
:) ), but I'm sure most of us think that with regard to some critics.
Critics (which is in essence what many of us are becoming when we post here)
do fulfil some role, and it's ridiculous to expect, as some often argue,
that they should be able to produce art themselves in order to be allowed to
write about it. There is something to be said for a degree of independence
between the composer/performer and the listener, in the sense that the
latter doesn't necessarily have the same priorities as the two former
categories. Criticise the critics for particular work and opinions by all
means, but if one posts here, how are we any different to those who do so on
a website, and what therefore gives us a right to decry their profession?
They're entitled to their opinions just as we are.
Ian
John Harrington
Raymond Hall wrote:
<snip>
> No. Quite correct, it doesn't matter one jot to me. I don't plonk
anymore,
You never did plonk, at least not really.
> but feel free to do likewise to me again if you wish.
Don't you speak English down under? I never did plonk you, as I
already explained.
> And yes, I don't have
> an aversion to *some* rock.
And, for yet another opinion, rock, all of it, is crap.
> Infinitely more intelligent than some classical
> music I can think of.
Some classical music is crap, too. That doesn't make it "infinitely"
stupider than rock...it just makes it the same.
J
John Harrington
Dave Hurwitz wrote:
> In article <1110583257.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
John
> Harrington says...
> >
> >
> >If you had bothered to read my comment rather than snipping it, and
> >launching into another of your insulting rampages, you would have
> >perhaps paused to realize that I didn't say "the market", but "a
market
> >based on maximizing profits for investors."
>
...apparently beyond your ability to accurately characterize.
J
John Harrington
Unlike professional critics, I offer my opinions for precisely what
they're worth.
J
Ian Pace
"MIFrost" <sfr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1110587014....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> John Harrington wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I believe museums could survive on popular support (mass
>> marketing) alone, but they would become stupid, as stupid as Disney
>> Land, Hollywood, Sony "music", or just about any other entity that
>> survives on mass marketing alone.
>
> You use the phrase "mass marketing." I'm talking about "free market
> capitalism." They're not the same thing, I'm sure you know. Not all
> private enterprises rely on mass marketing and perhaps high-brow
> artistic endeavors would not either. They have a niche appeal and would
> likely market themselves to a specific audience. Free enterprise has
> proven itself to be the most efficient way to satisfy the diverse wants
> and needs of the disparate population anywhere it's been tried
> throughout the world.
Now there's a loaded statement! I'm sure the starving children of the third
world, who are tied into the processes of world capitalism (as the World
Bank, IMF, etc., dictate conditions that prevent governments from
instituting the sorts of social policies that might save more of their
lives) would be less convinced that this system satisfies 'the diverse wants
and needs of the disparate population'. Not to die of malnutrition seems a
pretty reasonable 'need' to me.
>
> And what does "[museums] would become stupid" mean anyway? I don't get
> that. Without subsidies they would take down the Monets and Degas and
> put up velvet Elvises and Dogs Playing Poker instead?
The Monets and the Degases have already been created - though of course
maintenance and insurance of these isn't cheap of course by any means. The
museums primarily hold and maintain art works (and other things) rather than
instigate their production. Subsidy allows for a level of artistic freedom
not dictated by the (always short-term) interests of the mass market, that
might allow other Monets and Degases to emerge.
Ian
John Harrington
<snip>
> Every government or local institution that subsidises culture does so
> according to some notion of supporting and encouraging artistic merit
(what
> else would they do?).
I didn't propose they would do anything else. What you say is
precisely correct, and precisely what I argued.
J
Raymond Hall
Ray H
Taree
"John Harrington" <bear...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110591077....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Xul
print, I wouldn't dignify it by using it for toilet paper.
David Hurwitz
>
>>
>Every government or local institution that subsidises culture does so
>according to some notion of supporting and encouraging artistic merit (what
>else would they do?).
>
>Ian
>
For the reason most European governments do anything: keeping up with other
European governments. In other words, nationalism (or regionalism with a
country, because everyone wants his piece of the pie). That's why the
overwhelming majority of what is produced, mass marketed or not, is crap.
Dave H
Vaneyes
Raymond Hall wrote:
> Sigh. Why waste my time any further?
It's no waste of time, Ray. This is your hobby/life. <:-]
Regards
David Hurwitz
Harrington says...
>
>MIFrost wrote:
>> And what does "[museums] would become stupid" mean anyway?
>
The only thinb boring, bland, superficial, obvious, sensational, venal, gross,
and cheap here is the specious logic by which you draw your spurious conclusions
from your equally irrational premises. For example:
>It means they would become boring, bland, superficial, obvious,
>sensational, venal, gross, cheap, in just the same way that the sort of
>corporate "culture" I describe makes everything so.
You have not described anything. You have merely made an assertion supported by
not a shred of evidence--either that the corporate culture you describe actually
exists anywhere but in your imagination, or that it has the effect that you
claim it does.
It may be true
>that a market based on values other than maximizing profit can produce
>something of quality.
As if you would know. All markets are based on values in addition to the single
concern of maximizing proft. That's where the Marxists always screw up. Markets,
in fact, are not about "maximizing profits" at all. Markets are, FYI, the entire
web of relationships between producers and consumers, including the mechanisms
by which consumers communicate to consumers what they wish to purchase, and at
what price, and producers determine how best to stay in business while meeting
that demand. In sum, you have no idea what you are talking about. Markets are
not based on "values." They have no values. They are simply economic
relationships that exist fluidly, in time.
>But you have to make a decision to invest
>capital in something that is going to be only a "niche" market. Once
>you've done so, unless you can charge more for that product or
>otherwise make a profit that compensates for the nicheness of the
>market, you have chosen to make less money. In other words, you are
>subsidizing the art you are producing. You may not wish to call this a
>subsidy, I understand, but it differs in no significant way from one.
Of course it does. You simply refuse to acknowledge or understand the
difference. Neither people, nor corporations, nor institutions make major
decisions based solely on your neanderthal conception of the profit motive. And
the extent to which they take other criteria into account is not "subsidy." It
is simply strategic decision making based on perceived needs, some of which may
in fact outweight the desire to maximize profits at all times. The need to think
long term, to plan for the future, and to anticipate bumps in the road
necessitates a far more nuanced strategy than you seem willing to accept.
For example, the ideal growth strategy often conflicts with the ideal profit
strategy, yet many companies are more than willing to forego profits in exchange
for growth, or consolidation, or increasing market share, or investing in
alternative technologies, or taking reserves against possible losses, etc. A
healthy company needs to pay its bills, but it does not need to "maximize
profits" at all times. Indeed, any business that acted that way would not be in
business for long. If you choose to insist on all such non-maximizing behavior
as "subsidy" then go right ahead, but it renders your larger point meaningless
because this is the way all businesses behave, and so nothing of your argument
remains relevant to the arts as distinct from any other type of economic
activity.
>Either way, you are taking money and giving it to the arts for reasons
>other than profit. This is the way great art has always been produced,
>and it is the way it will always be produced, because great art, by its
>very nature, can almost never be a big seller.
>
Again, an assertion unsupported by a shred of evidence, while there is ample
evidence to the contrary, be it in the field of literature, the plastic arts,
theater, or music. I don't think anyone on the planet with at least a minimal
awareness of the physical universe would define "great art" as you do here, as
that which "by its very nature, can almost never be a big seller." That is as
ridiculous an assertion as it is irrelevant to the question of the art's
greatness in the first place.
David Hurwitz
John Harrington
> The only thinb boring, bland, superfici<snip a sea of crap signifying
nothing>
David, to the extent that you understand what I've said you've only,
and apparently unwittingly, supported precisely my point.
J
Ian Pace
> In article <1110590775.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, John
> Harrington says...
>>
>>MIFrost wrote:
> It may be true
>>that a market based on values other than maximizing profit can produce
>>something of quality.
>
> As if you would know. All markets are based on values in addition to the
> single
> concern of maximizing proft. That's where the Marxists always screw up.
> Markets,
> in fact, are not about "maximizing profits" at all.
What other motivations take priority over the profit incentive?
>Markets are, FYI, the entire
> web of relationships between producers and consumers, including the
> mechanisms
> by which consumers communicate to consumers what they wish to purchase,
> and at
> what price, and producers determine how best to stay in business while
> meeting
> that demand.
And they have to maximise profit in order to stay in business.
> In sum, you have no idea what you are talking about. Markets are
> not based on "values." They have no values.
Very true indeed!
> They are simply economic
> relationships that exist fluidly, in time.
They are abstract metaphors for economic processes.
>
>>But you have to make a decision to invest
>>capital in something that is going to be only a "niche" market. Once
>>you've done so, unless you can charge more for that product or
>>otherwise make a profit that compensates for the nicheness of the
>>market, you have chosen to make less money. In other words, you are
>>subsidizing the art you are producing. You may not wish to call this a
>>subsidy, I understand, but it differs in no significant way from one.
And if you make too many losses, eventually you will go under.
>
> Of course it does. You simply refuse to acknowledge or understand the
> difference. Neither people, nor corporations, nor institutions make major
> decisions based solely on your neanderthal conception of the profit
> motive. And
> the extent to which they take other criteria into account is not
> "subsidy." It
> is simply strategic decision making based on perceived needs, some of
> which may
> in fact outweight the desire to maximize profits at all times. The need to
> think
> long term, to plan for the future, and to anticipate bumps in the road
> necessitates a far more nuanced strategy than you seem willing to accept.
Simply a difference between short-term and long-term profits. There may be
some more altrustic motivations on the part of individual businessmen/women
and corporations, but they would never survive without submitting to the
profit motive first and foremost. Private patronage is a different matter
entirely.
>
> For example, the ideal growth strategy often conflicts with the ideal
> profit
> strategy, yet many companies are more than willing to forego profits in
> exchange
> for growth, or consolidation, or increasing market share, or investing in
> alternative technologies, or taking reserves against possible losses, etc.
> A
> healthy company needs to pay its bills, but it does not need to "maximize
> profits" at all times.
Again, just the difference between short- and long-term thinking. The profit
motive still reigns supreme.
> Indeed, any business that acted that way would not be in
> business for long. If you choose to insist on all such non-maximizing
> behavior
> as "subsidy" then go right ahead, but it renders your larger point
> meaningless
> because this is the way all businesses behave, and so nothing of your
> argument
> remains relevant to the arts as distinct from any other type of economic
> activity.
Some of us think that the arts and culture have an importance to society
which is something distinct from their entertainment value as measured by
popularity and audience figures in the short and long term. The maintenance
of the possibility of more small-scale forms of artistic production, those
which are unlikely by their nature to become a powerful economic force, is
an obvious example. The sums of money involved dwindle into insignificance
compared to those spent on defence, education, social security, etc. There
are many, at least in Europe, who recognize this need even if they
themselves don't have any particular wish to partake of the results. I don't
believe many of the major political parties in Europe find that this is a
top issue on the doorstep when they are campaigning for votes.
>
>>Either way, you are taking money and giving it to the arts for reasons
>>other than profit. This is the way great art has always been produced,
>>and it is the way it will always be produced, because great art, by its
>>very nature, can almost never be a big seller.
>>
>
> Again, an assertion unsupported by a shred of evidence, while there is
> ample
> evidence to the contrary, be it in the field of literature, the plastic
> arts,
> theater, or music.
There's plenty of evidence that the strictures of the market in an age of
monopoly capitalism reduce and inhibit the possibilities for production that
isn't a 'big sell'. Even the Three Tenors, Vanessa-Mae, Charlotte Church,
etc., can't quite reach the profit levels of the biggest rock stars. In
times of economic downturn, the possibilities become ever more constrained,
and even the more 'popular' forms of 'high art' feel the pinch. Subsidy
allows a degree of freedom for artistic production in such circumstances.
> I don't think anyone on the planet with at least a minimal
> awareness of the physical universe would define "great art" as you do
> here, as
> that which "by its very nature, can almost never be a big seller." That is
> as
> ridiculous an assertion as it is irrelevant to the question of the art's
> greatness in the first place.
>
It is certainly a self-servingly elitist position to value art precisely
because of its aloofness to most people. But being a "big seller" is by no
means the same thing as being something meaningful to a wide range of
people, whose abilities to partake of and attitudes towards culture
(requiring some form of distraction to alleviate the tedium of other parts
of their wage-slave existence) are highly constrained in an unfree world.
Ian
Samuel Vriezen
> Not everyone
> who produces a product for profit wants to sell a zillion items to
> morons. Otherwise, why would anyone open an up-scale French restaurant?
Somehow, restaurants always creep into these discussions of
music.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html
Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that
was or will be, much less is.
- Charles Bernstein
Samuel Vriezen
> Free enterprise has
> proven itself to be the most efficient way to satisfy the diverse wants
> and needs of the disparate population anywhere it's been tried
> throughout the world.
In its most strict form, it hasn't been implemented anywhere
really.
BTW, I don't really see how Free Enterprise is going to
serve community interests. Community interests are not
hardwired into the premisses.
Vaneyes
John Harrington wrote:
> Unlike professional critics, I offer my opinions for precisely what
> they're worth.
Good price...I'll take a doz.
Regards
Samuel Vriezen
> THAT, my friend, is what produces "crap." Like Boulez, for example, and all of
> the other tenured,
I don't think Boulez has tenure.
> academic non-entities bereft of talent or any sense of social
> responsibility to the culture (yes "culture") that puts food on their tables,
OK, tell me about your sense of social responsiblity.