Our children and music
Richard A. Schulman
education program has stood up well in the psychology laboratory,
notably in studies of children's intellectual development. See the
recent _Newsweek_ article, "Music on the Mind":
http://www.msnbc.com/news/433442.asp?cp1=1
I don't know of any good research exploring a possible correlation
between classical music training and intellectual and moral
development, but on an anecdotal level I've certainly observed the
correlation, both among my son's cohort and adults of my acquaintance.
So, obviously, had the late University of Chicago Platonist, Allan
Bloom, when he wrote his refreshing and delightful attack on rock
music in _The Closing of the American Mind_.
---
Richard Schulman
To email me, remove the "XYZ"
Richard A. Schulman
> The emphasis on music and mathematics (geometry) in the Platonic
> education program has stood up well in the psychology laboratory,
> notably in studies of children's intellectual development. See the
> recent _Newsweek_ article, "Music on the Mind":
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/433442.asp?cp1=1
Plato focused on the harmonic "modes" as the suspicious
element. But listening to rock, the harmony is not
important-- even deliberately non-existent sometimes.
Lyrics sometimes more for parental shock value and an
exercise in cipher breaking. But it's the poly rhythmic
quality of modern "rock" music that seems to be its
strength. Hip Hop, rap, and good old rock and roll all have
multiple overlapping rhythms, something Plato didn't
discuss. So let's extend his ideas here: What kind of
social structures do these rhythms help create, or hinder
the creation of?
I'd say that these poly rhythmic structures help define a
clear tribal feeling; there are those who participate in the
rhythms and those who don't. The "barbarians" who can't
take their place in the chorus, Perl Jamming away, are
excluded, while those who can listen for these patterns
are the new Greeks. Music pretty much has the same meaning
today as it did in Plato's time, but the objection made to
Perl Jam was that the culture being created wasn't the
"right" culture. The question then becomes, can those same
polyrhythems be used for the same goals as classical music,
which is sometimes polyphonic but rarely poly rhythmic. My
guess is that there is nothing about the music itself that
makes it subversive; I could well imagine another history
where "classical" music was poly rhythmic and the music of
rebellion was polyphonic. It would take my 53-year-old ears
quite a bit of training to listen to Perl Jam with the level
of sophistication that I can bring to Bach, but I don't
think modern music is always simpler or more barbaric.
So (leaving aside the question of lyrics), could Plato have
approved Perl Jam's musicality?
-------------------------------------------------
"Never attribute to malice that which can be
explained by incompetence and ignorance."
-------------------------------------------------
John Wager jwa...@mediaone.net
Dr.Matt
Richard A. Schulman <RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
>So, obviously, had the late University of Chicago Platonist, Allan
>Bloom, when he wrote his refreshing and delightful attack on rock
>music in _The Closing of the American Mind_.
|
Attacks on genres of music are banal commonalities.
--
For spammers: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/uce.htm
More for spammers: http://www.goldinc.com/cgi-bin/harvest_this.cgi
My CD "Kabala": http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/cd.html
Matt Fields DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
Richard A. Schulman
<jwa...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Plato focused on the harmonic "modes" as the suspicious element. But
>listening to rock, the harmony is not important-- even deliberately
>non-existent sometimes.
No major disagreement with you on the above but certainly
disagreement with you on the implications. Allow me to quote
from one of the best commentators on this subject since
Allan Bloom:
"The ancient theory of music that we owe to the
Pythagoreans, which is endorsed by Plato in the _Timaeus_
and by Plotinus, St Augustine, and Boethius in their
treatises on music, and which survives in Al-Farabi, in
Aquinas, and even in such Renaissance theorists as Zarlino,
is centred on the experience of harmony. Having noticed that
the elementary concords -- octave, fifth, and fourth -- are
produced by strings whose lengths are proportioned according
to perfect fractions, those writers concluded that our
experience of music is an experience of number. Number, and
the relations of number, provide the hidden order of the
universe; and numbers are known through the intellect, and
known with a certainty that pertains to no other thing. When
understanding mathematics we have access to the order of
creation, and this order is eternal, like the numbers
themselves. In music we know through experience,and in time,
what is also revealed to the intellect as outside time and
change. Just as time is, for Plato and Plotinus, the moving
image of eternity, so is the experience of music the
revelation in time of the eternal order. The beauty of music
is the beauty of the world itself, revealed to the sense of
hearing -- a 'point of intersections of the timeless with
time'. [Roger Scruton, _The Aesthetics of Music_ (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 63-64]
Music in which harmony is missing or unimportant does not
participate in this eternal order but in an order that is
merely transient and base.
>[I]t's the poly rhythmic quality of
>modern "rock" music that seems to be its strength.
Polyrhythm as a contrapuntal element -- employed with
sophistication and not at the expense of harmony -- long
antedates modern "rock." It can be found in the "ars
subtilior" composers of the late 14th century, in Charles
Ives' compositions at the end of the 19th century and
beginning of the 20th, in the neo-classical music of Igor
Stravinsky, etc.
> Hip Hop, rap, and good
>old rock and roll all have multiple overlapping rhythms, something Plato
>didn't discuss.
No, but it's clear that his criticisms were directed against
a dithythrambic contemporary equivalent.
> So let's extend his ideas here: What kind of social
>structures do these rhythms help create, or hinder the creation of?
>
>I'd say that these poly rhythmic structures help define a clear tribal
>feeling; there are those who participate in the rhythms and those who
>don't. The "barbarians" who can't take their place in the chorus, Perl
>Jamming away, are excluded, while those who can listen for these patterns
>are the new Greeks. Music pretty much has the same meaning today as it
>did in Plato's time, but the objection made to Perl Jam was that the
>culture being created wasn't the "right" culture. The question then
>becomes, can those same polyrhythems be used for the same goals as
>classical music, which is sometimes polyphonic but rarely poly rhythmic.
>My guess is that there is nothing about the music itself that makes it
>subversive; I could well imagine another history where "classical" music
>was poly rhythmic and the music of rebellion was polyphonic.
I don't think so. The brain is pre-wired to perceive complex
harmonic relations in a way that far exceeds its capacity to
perceive polyrhythms. Please go back and read again the
Newsweek article I referred to earlier
http://www.msnbc.com/news/433442.asp?cp1=1
then re-read the Scruton quote above.
> It would
>take my 53-year-old ears quite a bit of training to listen to Perl Jam
>with the level of sophistication that I can bring to Bach, but I don't
>think modern music is always simpler or more barbaric.
Let's not throw all modern music into one Jam pot.
>So (leaving aside the question of lyrics), could Plato have approved Perl
>Jam's musicality?
I think you know the answer to that.
I'd like to close with another quote from Scruton which
addresses, albeit at one remove (via dance music rather than
instrumental) the question of music and the moral order. It
also features some insightful criticism of our contemporary
mores, taken for granted by so many, especially those born
after the Age of Ballroom Dancing:
"Plato, the reader will recall, wished to ban certain kinds
of music from his Republic -- particularly those associated
with the wild dances of the corybants. In Plato's view,
abandoned movement bespeaks an abandoned soul, and the 'care
of the soul' is the first task of politics. Aristotle was
not so keen on banning things. Nevertheless, he too believed
that music has character, and that when singing or dancing
we imitate this character and make it our own. Few matters
are more important to the educator than the music which his
pupils sing or dance to. In this, the Greeks thought, as in
every habit, we must separate virtue from vice, which means
distinguishing music that fulfill our nature, from music
which destroys it." [op. cit., p. 496]
"We can best understand the point by once again returning
music to its hypothetical origins in dance. It is obvious
that dancing has social consequences -- particularly on the
attitudes through which men and women come together in quest
of a partner. Traditional dances had to be _learned_ --
often by a long process which began in childhood. (Think of
the gavotte, the gig, or the stately saraband.) They were
not forms of abandon, but exercises in self-control....In
formation dancing, you also relinquish your partner to dance
with others whom you may not know. In this way the sexual
motive is moderated in its very invocation. The dancer may
be prompted by desire; but he is dancing with people for
whom he has no such emotion, acknowledging their existence
as sexual beings with gestures of innocent courtesy....
"Formation dances gave way, in time, to the paired forms of
waltz, polka, and schottische, in which only the steps need
to be learned. These forms were at first regarded as
immoral. Even so, they permitted the dancer to take a
partner of any age or status, to dance without hint of a
sexual motive, and to represent himself as an embodied
person, rather than an abandoned body. The conception of the
dance as a social rather than a sexual occasion lasted well
into our century. It survives in the ballroom waltz, the
foxtrot, and even the tango and the Charleston, which
require such knowledge and control as to become a display
more of skill than of sexuality -- and also occasions of
innocent fun....
"There are now few occasions when a young man can dance with
his aunt, or a young girl with her boyfriend's father.
Dancing has become a sexual exhibition, since the music
available for dancing has no other meaning besides release.
It requires neither knowledge nor self-control, for these
would impede the democratic right of everyone to enter the
fray; instead, each dancer exudes a kind of narcissistic
excitement which requires no acknowledgement from a partner
besides similar gestures of display....
"...The gestures that attend the new forms of dancing
require an abdication of music to sound: to the dominating
beat of the percussion, and to such antiharmonic devices as
the 'power chord', produced by electronic distortion.
Melodies become brief exhalations, which cannot develop
since they are swamped by rhythm, and have no voice-leading
role....In the soup of amplified overtones, inner voices are
drowned out..." [op. cit., pp. 496-499]
Richard A. Schulman
>>So, obviously, had the late University of Chicago Platonist, Allan
>>Bloom, when he wrote his refreshing and delightful attack on rock
>>music in _The Closing of the American Mind_.
^
> Attacks on genres of music are banal commonalities.
An eight-word post and already a pleonasm! Another proof of
Rock's damage to individual cognitive powers.
Dr.Matt
On the basis cited above, the music accused of missing harmony
has more nearly the "armonia" of Plato than any classical music
after Dufay.
>>[I]t's the poly rhythmic quality of
>>modern "rock" music that seems to be its strength.
>
>Polyrhythm as a contrapuntal element -- employed with
>sophistication and not at the expense of harmony -- long
>antedates modern "rock." It can be found in the "ars
>subtilior" composers of the late 14th century, in Charles
>Ives' compositions at the end of the 19th century and
>beginning of the 20th, in the neo-classical music of Igor
>Stravinsky, etc.
>
>> Hip Hop, rap, and good
>>old rock and roll all have multiple overlapping rhythms, something Plato
>>didn't discuss.
>No, but it's clear that his criticisms were directed against
>a dithythrambic contemporary equivalent.
And Lao Tsu, and David, and lots of other ancient sources mention
music. Plato, in particular, feels that Phrygian mode (probably
our Lydian mode, but something gets lost in translation) is
wimpy and unfit for upstanding men. All these great abstractions
go to the winds when you say something like this.
>> So let's extend his ideas here: What kind of social
>>structures do these rhythms help create, or hinder the creation of?
>>I'd say that these poly rhythmic structures help define a clear tribal
>>feeling; there are those who participate in the rhythms and those who
>>don't.
And this is not true of Beethoven's music?
>> The "barbarians" who can't take their place in the chorus, Perl
>>Jamming
Good pun, though.
>I don't think so. The brain is pre-wired
Aye captain, she's reaching rhythmic complexity maximum, I dinna
think she can hold!
to perceive complex
>harmonic relations in a way that far exceeds its capacity to
>perceive polyrhythms. Please go back and read again the
>Newsweek article I referred to earlier
Right, this is why some people can't make any sense of the harmony in
late Schoenberg....
>Let's not throw all modern music into one Jam pot.
And I'm supposed to be the clown. Wow.
Greg Recco
>fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) writes (in entirety):
>
>> Attacks on genres of music are banal commonalities.
>
>An eight-word post and already a pleonasm! Another proof of
>Rock's damage to individual cognitive powers.
I thought it worth calling to your attention that your conversation with "Dr.
Matt," however interesting on its own merits, is potentially confusing to
outsiders like myself who were not following it on two separate newsgroups at
once. It's rather like hearing one side of a telephone conversation, and
having the absent party's comments reported by the other in asides.
Strictly FYI,
Greg
Dr.Matt
>>>So, obviously, had the late University of Chicago Platonist, Allan
>>>Bloom, when he wrote his refreshing and delightful attack on rock
>>>music in _The Closing of the American Mind_.
> ^
>
>> Attacks on genres of music are banal commonalities.
>
>An eight-word post and already a pleonasm! Another proof of
>Rock's damage to individual cognitive powers.
Good joke.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> The emphasis on music and mathematics (geometry) in the Platonic
> education program has stood up well in the psychology laboratory,
> notably in studies of children's intellectual development. See the
> recent _Newsweek_ article, "Music on the Mind":
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/433442.asp?cp1=1
>
> between classical music training and intellectual and moral
> development, but on an anecdotal level I've certainly observed the
> correlation, both among my son's cohort and adults of my acquaintance.
> Bloom, when he wrote his refreshing and delightful attack on rock
> music in _The Closing of the American Mind_.
You mean the late U of C Pederast* and Hypocrite Allan(sp.?) Bloom.
*In the Classical sense.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Greg Recco
<RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
>Music in which harmony is missing or unimportant does not
>participate in this eternal order but in an order that is
>merely transient and base.
As a self-styled Socratic educator, though not a father, I must take issue
with this. In the first place, the music you deride is not without harmony.
(Perhaps Scruton ought to have sought those missing 'inner voices' in what he
calls the 'swamp' of overtones; afficianadoes of electric-guitar feedback or
of the breathy, plaintive or shrill edges of the human voice might well
consider themselves to be searching for something elusive and special in those
previously uninhabited regions.) A second point, however, does not require
your assent to the first.
What you call "transient and base" must nonetheless serve as the starting
point for musical education. In fact, whatever terribly unpromising
attachments someone brings to the table are the ONLY avenues by which to
improve their taste. One must SHOW them that whatever peculiar pleasure or
enjoyment they get out of their undeveloped musical sense can be had, in an
even better form, in music that is better. And one should expect that the
affection that they developed for this music in their youth would persist as
an occasional reminder in later life of youthful pleasures. You might
remember an especially sweet lullaby and remain moved by its "transient and
base" melody many years hence, even if it is being mangled by a pathetic
drunk lying in an alleyway. Perhaps this is because it served as your
introduction into the pleasures of music, one of which may simply be the
articulate, vocally expressive presence of another human being. This happy
memory, which the drunk, too, is trying to evoke, is IMNSHO the true "point of
contact" between time and eternity.
It is good that you have mentioned dance, and the quote you provided certainly
does paint a dismal picture of the development of this other essential and
allied sphere of human expression and interaction.
Scruton wrote:
>Dancing has become a sexual exhibition, since the music
>available for dancing has no other meaning besides release.
>It requires neither knowledge nor self-control, for these
>would impede the democratic right of everyone to enter the
>fray; instead, each dancer exudes a kind of narcissistic
>excitement which requires no acknowledgement from a partner
>besides similar gestures of display....
Having ventured into "dance clubs" myself, and having seen the way many people
take up the fact of their sexuality, I find myself having to agree on the
points of exhibition and narcissism. (This is proved also by the typical
personal ad: "Man seeks sex.") As for the relative merits of release and
self-control, I don't think I can agree, again, on Platonic grounds.
In the _Laws_, the Athenian Stranger (any idea who?) talks with a Cretan and a
Spartan, and convinces them in a short time of two things we might expect
would be very difficulty for them to accept: they must permit drinking
parties, and the education of children must begin in play. I'm sorry I don't
have the precise references to hand, but I think the first is in Book I and
the second in Book II. I especially like the second demonstration, which
begins something like this: "it is the nature of all living things, when they
are young, to leap around and make noises." It is from this 'ignoble'
beginning that music and dance are to be born. To move children along towards
those forms of expression that will benefit them and the city, the wise
legislator must take note of this innate tendency and _encourage_ it. If
children are required to hold their voices and bodies in check, those
capacities which would be beneficial will never develop. This seems to be
what happened in my elementary school: lots of sitting still and keeping quiet
(several teachers even used turning out the lights and making us be still and
quiet as a _punishment_, making it clear what we should think about those
postures), and when we were released from the bondage of our cramped,
uncomfortable desks, when it was time for free movement (physical education),
we were sent off to learn the arts of competition and domination, as were
those Spartan youths trained in guerilla tactics from early childhood.
Two more shorter points.
First, Plato was also the philosopher of erotic mania. Aside from the loftier
examples (e.g., the whole of the Phaedrus and the Symposium), we might think
of the Charmides (a dialogue on sophrosunE, no less!) where Socrates struggles
to get a look inside the beautiful youth's toga.
Second, with regard to self-control, it is extremely counterproductive to put
this forward as a criticism of modern practices. I have already suggested the
circumstances under which it might be good to be uncontrolled, but not how
excessive "self-control" can be harmful. The most vivid portrait of this is
that offered in Book VIII of the Republic, where the "oligarchic man," that
is, stated as precisely as possible, the man for whom the most important
distinction in the world is that between 'necessary' and 'unnecessary'
desires, harbors a mass of lawless desires within himself which grow strong
in direct proportion to the rigidity of his insistence on this distinction.
Again, it is not on the basis of criticisms like this that one is going to
change anything. But perhaps that is not the goal.
What is most troubling about the oligarch is that he has no basis for
preferring the necessary to the unnecessary; his greatest fear, which he
may be unlucky enough to realize through a tyrannical son (and which he is
sure to realize through a wasted life), is that there is none. He is wrong,
of course, but the _reasons_ for his actions tend to obscure this.
Eu prattein,
Greg
David
RichardAS...@att.net (Richard A. Schulman) wrote:
> Richard A. Schulman:
> >>So, obviously, had the late University of Chicago Platonist, Allan
> >>Bloom, when he wrote his refreshing and delightful attack on rock
> >>music in _The Closing of the American Mind_.
> ^
> fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) writes (in entirety):
>
> > Attacks on genres of music are banal commonalities.
>
> An eight-word post and already a pleonasm! Another proof of
> Rock's damage to individual cognitive powers.
> ---
> Richard Schulman
> To email me, remove the "XYZ"
>
Rock music is nice!
(four words)
David
David
> "Richard A. Schulman" wrote:
>
> > The emphasis on music and mathematics (geometry) in the Platonic
> > education program has stood up well in the psychology laboratory,
> > notably in studies of children's intellectual development. See the
> > recent _Newsweek_ article, "Music on the Mind":
>
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/433442.asp?cp1=1
>
> Plato focused on the harmonic "modes" as the suspicious
> element. But listening to rock, the harmony is not
> important-- even deliberately non-existent sometimes.
> Lyrics sometimes more for parental shock value and an
> exercise in cipher breaking. But it's the poly rhythmic
> quality of modern "rock" music that seems to be its
> strength. Hip Hop, rap, and good old rock and roll all have
> multiple overlapping rhythms, something Plato didn't
> discuss. So let's extend his ideas here: What kind of
> social structures do these rhythms help create, or hinder
> the creation of?
>
> I'd say that these poly rhythmic structures help define a
> clear tribal feeling; there are those who participate in the
> rhythms and those who don't. The "barbarians" who can't
> take their place in the chorus, Perl Jamming away, are
> excluded, while those who can listen for these patterns
> are the new Greeks. Music pretty much has the same meaning
> today as it did in Plato's time, but the objection made to
> Perl Jam was that the culture being created wasn't the
> "right" culture. The question then becomes, can those same
> polyrhythems be used for the same goals as classical music,
> which is sometimes polyphonic but rarely poly rhythmic. My
> guess is that there is nothing about the music itself that
> makes it subversive; I could well imagine another history
> where "classical" music was poly rhythmic and the music of
> rebellion was polyphonic. It would take my 53-year-old ears
> quite a bit of training to listen to Perl Jam with the level
> of sophistication that I can bring to Bach, but I don't
> think modern music is always simpler or more barbaric.
>
> So (leaving aside the question of lyrics), could Plato have
> approved Perl Jam's musicality?
He would have liked it, had he lived.
David
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: In article <b6d9os8gic8e8phds...@4ax.com>,:>fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) writes (in entirety):
:>> Attacks on genres of music are banal commonalities.
:>An eight-word post and already a pleonasm! Another proof of
:>Rock's damage to individual cognitive powers.
: Good joke.
Especially since it wasn't a pleonasm. I guess Mr. Schulman has been
listening to too much rock music.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In rec.music.classical Dr.Matt <fie...@login.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
> : In article <b6d9os8gic8e8phds...@4ax.com>,
> : Richard A. Schulman <RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
> :>fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) writes (in entirety):
>
> :>> Attacks on genres of music are banal commonalities.
>
> :>An eight-word post and already a pleonasm! Another proof of
> :>Rock's damage to individual cognitive powers.
>
> : Good joke.
>
> Especially since it wasn't a pleonasm. I guess Mr. Schulman has been
> listening to too much rock music.
Hum.classics, you'll have to pardon Mr. Schultz -- he fancies himself an
expert on all aspects of philology. (He thinks Semitists should be
called Semiticists.)
Schultzie, look up "pleonasm" in a dictionary. Not a chemicist's
dictionary.
> -----
> Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
> Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
Richard A. Schulman
>>...
>> I don't know of any good research exploring a possible correlation
>> between classical music training and intellectual and moral
>> development, but on an anecdotal level I've certainly observed the
>> correlation, both among my son's cohort and adults of my acquaintance.
>> Bloom, when he wrote his refreshing and delightful attack on rock
>> music in _The Closing of the American Mind_.
Peter T. Daniels:
>You mean the late U of C Pederast* and Hypocrite Allan(sp.?) Bloom.
>
>*In the Classical sense.
Among the ten superficial responses to my post thus far,
this was certainly the most obnoxious. I have several
questions for you, Mr. Daniels.
1. I'm aware of reliable reports that Allan Bloom was a
homosexual, which is a personal misfortune but not a felony.
What is your evidence for the serious charge that he was a
pederast, which is a felony? (Your "In the Classical sense"
makes no sense, so don't use that to try to wiggle out of
this demand for evidence.)
2. Are you in the general habit of rejecting a man's public
ideas because some aspect of his private behavior does not
meet your standards? I can't think of a single genius whose
ideas could survive such a superhuman standard, unless it
were some author whose personal life is unknown to us. Or do
you just snidely apply your standard to those whose ideas or
politics you dislike?
3. Please explain how Allan Bloom was a hypocrite? More
importantly, tell us whether you also despise and dismiss
the Declaration of Independence -- for surely its author,
Thomas Jefferson, was a hypocrite in declaring that men are
born free and equal while himself maintaining slaves? And by
your logic that must make the ideas he expressed worthless,
right?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Richard A. Schulman:
> >>...
> >> I don't know of any good research exploring a possible correlation
> >> between classical music training and intellectual and moral
> >> development, but on an anecdotal level I've certainly observed the
> >> correlation, both among my son's cohort and adults of my acquaintance.
> >> So, obviously, had the late University of Chicago Platonist, Allan
> >> Bloom, when he wrote his refreshing and delightful attack on rock
> >> music in _The Closing of the American Mind_.
> >>...
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> >You mean the late U of C Pederast* and Hypocrite Allan(sp.?) Bloom.
> >
> >*In the Classical sense.
>
> Among the ten superficial responses to my post thus far,
> this was certainly the most obnoxious. I have several
> questions for you, Mr. Daniels.
>
> 1. I'm aware of reliable reports that Allan Bloom was a
> homosexual, which is a personal misfortune but not a felony.
> What is your evidence for the serious charge that he was a
> pederast, which is a felony? (Your "In the Classical sense"
> makes no sense, so don't use that to try to wiggle out of
> this demand for evidence.)
You must have an odd definition of felony.
It was well known that each year or so, he took a lover from among that
year's crop of freshman male students. That's the Classical sense of
pederast. Maybe you're thinking of pedophile, which is something else;
but clearly the subtleties of English vocabulary sometimes escape you.
> 2. Are you in the general habit of rejecting a man's public
> ideas because some aspect of his private behavior does not
> meet your standards? I can't think of a single genius whose
> ideas could survive such a superhuman standard, unless it
> were some author whose personal life is unknown to us. Or do
> you just snidely apply your standard to those whose ideas or
> politics you dislike?
Hypocrisy is loathsome.
> 3. Please explain how Allan Bloom was a hypocrite? More
> importantly, tell us whether you also despise and dismiss
> the Declaration of Independence -- for surely its author,
> Thomas Jefferson, was a hypocrite in declaring that men are
> born free and equal while himself maintaining slaves? And by
> your logic that must make the ideas he expressed worthless,
> right?
It was well known that he died from AIDS; this was not publicly spoken
until Saul Bellow's new book. While Bellow was not the most admirable
Chicago faculty member, either, at least he does not shrink from
speaking the truth.
How is it "more important" for me to discuss "logic" that emerges purely
from your fantasies?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Richard A. Schulman:
> 1. I'm aware of reliable reports that Allan Bloom was a
> homosexual, which is a personal misfortune but not a felony.
Whoops, I missed this one the first time. Why is homosexuality a
"misfortune," "personal" or otherwise? His own attitude to his
homosexuality was unfortunate, to be sure.
Richard A. Schulman
>> >> I don't know of any good research exploring a possible correlation
>> >> between classical music training and intellectual and moral
>> >> development, but on an anecdotal level I've certainly observed the
>> >> correlation, both among my son's cohort and adults of my acquaintance.
>> >> So, obviously, had the late University of Chicago Platonist, Allan
>> >> Bloom, when he wrote his refreshing and delightful attack on rock
>> >> music in _The Closing of the American Mind_.
Peter T. Daniels:
>> >You mean the late U of C Pederast* and Hypocrite Allan(sp.?) Bloom.
>> >
>> >*In the Classical sense.
Schulman:
>> Among the ten superficial responses to my post thus far,
>> this was certainly the most obnoxious. I have several
>> questions for you, Mr. Daniels.
>> 1. I'm aware of reliable reports that Allan Bloom was a
>> homosexual, which is a personal misfortune but not a felony.
>> What is your evidence for the serious charge that he was a
>> pederast, which is a felony? (Your "In the Classical sense"
>> makes no sense, so don't use that to try to wiggle out of
>> this demand for evidence.)
Daniels:
>You must have an odd definition of felony.
My definition of felony coincides with that of the
dictionary in front of me: "Law. 1. Any of several crimes,
such as murder, rape, or burglary, considered more serious
than a misdemeanor and punishable by a more stringent
sentence."
You are indeed an odd fellow to think my use of the word to
be odd.
Daniels:
>It was well known that each year or so, he took a lover from among that
>year's crop of freshman male students.
I asked for evidence. You have provided none. Your claim is
that Allan Bloom, an adult, had homosexual intercourse with
minors, one each year. That is a felony in most if not all
jurisdictions in the United States. If made public, it would
almost certainly have resulted in Bloom's summary dismissal
from the University of Chicago. Either present your evidence
or concede the fact that you are a malevolent slanderer of
the man.
Daniels:
>"That's the Classical sense of
>pederast. Maybe you're thinking of pedophile, which is something else;
>but clearly the subtleties of English vocabulary sometimes escape you.
No, it's you who are ignorant of the English language.
Pedophilia is a proclivity which may or may not lead to
overt acts, which may or may not be legally actionable.
Pederasty, by contrast, implies actual acts; these are
felonious in most jurisdictions.
And, as I said earlier, your use of the term "Classical,"
especially with an upper case "C," further underlines your
ignorance of English usage. There is one well-understood
meaning of pederasty, not one contemporary meaning alongside
an older "Classical" (ancient Greek or Latin) meaning.
Schulman:
>> 2. Are you in the general habit of rejecting a man's public
>> ideas because some aspect of his private behavior does not
>> meet your standards? I can't think of a single genius whose
>> ideas could survive such a superhuman standard, unless it
>> were some author whose personal life is unknown to us. Or do
>> you just snidely apply your standard to those whose ideas or
>> politics you dislike?
Daniels:
>Hypocrisy is loathsome.
Schulman:
>> 3. Please explain how Allan Bloom was a hypocrite? More
>> importantly, tell us whether you also despise and dismiss
>> the Declaration of Independence -- for surely its author,
>> Thomas Jefferson, was a hypocrite in declaring that men are
>> born free and equal while himself maintaining slaves? And by
>> your logic that must make the ideas he expressed worthless,
>> right?
You have failed to demonstrate that Allan Bloom was a
pederast. You have failed to answer my question as to how he
was a hypocrite. Most importantly, you have failed to answer
my comment about appreciating a man's ideas independent of
his personal fallibility.
Daniels:
>It was well known that he died from AIDS; this was not publicly spoken
>until Saul Bellow's new book.
Bellow's recent book is a fictionalized account based on
Allan Bloom, but it is not an exact memoire. When questioned
specifically on the AIDS diagnosis presented in the novel,
Bellow admitted that he had assumed this was the case but
wasn't sure of the fact. I seem to recall that he may have
expressed some regret at having presented the case thus.
Daniels:
> While Bellow was not the most admirable
>Chicago faculty member, either, at least he does not shrink from
>speaking the truth.
Given your careful scholarly attention to providing evidence
for your assertions and your no less discriminating
understanding of English word usage, who can express how
indebted we must be to you for your authoritative
assessments of the University of Chicago faculty.
>How is it "more important" for me to discuss "logic" that emerges purely
>from your fantasies?
Eh, wot, old 'Net trash? Insults with no context? You start
a quarrel on the most peripheral aspect of my original post,
which was about classical music and mathematics, and you
can't even maintain credibility and focus on your egregious
malignant diversion?
Richard A. Schulman
>> 1. I'm aware of reliable reports that Allan Bloom was a
>> homosexual, which is a personal misfortune but not a felony.
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net>:
>Whoops, I missed this one the first time.
Your inability to read before vomiting had already been
noted by me.
Daniels:
> Why is homosexuality a
>"misfortune," "personal" or otherwise? His own attitude to his
>homosexuality was unfortunate, to be sure.
I will not further indulge your propensity for
unsubstantiated bile against individuals who are giants by
comparison with yourself.
Dr.Matt
"..and I'm the king of Michigan!"
Can yall take it to alt.flame already?
>---
>Richard Schulman
>To email me, remove the "XYZ"
Peter T. Daniels
Minors? Who said anything about minors? If you don't know the age of
American college students, then you are ignorant as well as foolish. Do
you also know the age of consent in the State of Illinois?
> Daniels:
> >"That's the Classical sense of
> >pederast. Maybe you're thinking of pedophile, which is something else;
> >but clearly the subtleties of English vocabulary sometimes escape you.
>
> No, it's you who are ignorant of the English language.
> Pedophilia is a proclivity which may or may not lead to
> overt acts, which may or may not be legally actionable.
> Pederasty, by contrast, implies actual acts; these are
> felonious in most jurisdictions.
Can you find laws using the term "pederasty" or some grammatical form
thereof? Specifically, in this case, laws of the State of Illinois?
> And, as I said earlier, your use of the term "Classical,"
> especially with an upper case "C," further underlines your
> ignorance of English usage. There is one well-understood
> meaning of pederasty, not one contemporary meaning alongside
> an older "Classical" (ancient Greek or Latin) meaning.
More ignorance.
> Daniels:
> >It was well known that he died from AIDS; this was not publicly spoken
> >until Saul Bellow's new book.
>
> Bellow's recent book is a fictionalized account based on
> Allan Bloom, but it is not an exact memoire. When questioned
> specifically on the AIDS diagnosis presented in the novel,
> Bellow admitted that he had assumed this was the case but
> wasn't sure of the fact. I seem to recall that he may have
> expressed some regret at having presented the case thus.
Bellow was also rather cowardly in the face of accusations of racism by
a former student who published a memoir of his Chicago days.
Everyone knew Bloom's story, but the University would have been
"embarrassed" if it had been acknowledged publicly.
Now: Why is homosexuality a "personal misfortune"?
dok...@tiac.net
<RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
>
>With regard to your not knowing who Allan Bloom was -- he
>having been the most influential figure in American
>intellectual life during the late 1980s -- I can only guess
>that you are either a youth or recently emerged from a time
>capsule. Am I mistaken in supposing that classicists should
>be more worldly than mathematicians?
>
Most influential? Overstating the case just a tad. "Closing of the
American Mind", got talked up at a few cocktail parties and then made
its way quietly to the back of the bookshelf.
-Seth Deitch
Richard A. Schulman
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[diversions deleted]
Mr. Daniels, you have studiously skirted the principal
demands that were placed upon you, demands that would have
been imposed on you not just by me but by any reasonable
scholarly community. Here's your chance to try again. Don't
expect me to debate you on secondary issues if you won't
address the primary ones.
1) What is your evidence -- not the hearsay testimony you
have provided thus far but the kind of solid evidence that
would have protected you from a possible libel conviction
had the matter been taken to court by your now defenseless,
because deceased, target, that he was a pederast?
2) More importantly, how do you justify dismissing a man's
ideas on the basis of what you imagine to have been
unacceptable personal behavior? I emphasize again, by your
logic the Declaration of Independence would have to be
rejected because drafted by a slaveholder and ratified by
other slaveholders.
3) You have dismissed Allan Bloom as a hypocrite but have
yet to explain in what his hypocrisy consists. Please do so.
Kindly answer the three points above in a manner that would
satisfy a reasonable scholarly community.
Richard A. Schulman
>>Among the ten superficial responses to my post thus far...
Greg Recco:
>Superficial? Really, you might have tried a little harder.
>
>I, for one, tried to engage you on your territory in a good-faith attempt to
>initiate conversation. Your replies to others, however, suggest that you have
>NO interest in conversation.
Perhaps I've missed something, Mr. Recco, but I've seen two
posts from you thus far and may have only seen the first of
these from you at the time I complained of the responses
thus far.
Your first post complained that you were getting some quotes
at second-hand because parts of dialogues were appearing in
one newsgroup but not the other. I have tried to rectify
that by posting to what I thought were the two most relevant
newsgroups. You, in point of fact, may be inadvertently
aggravating the problem you complained of inasmuch as you
seem to have deleted one of these newsgroups from your
latest reply.
Your second post referenced an article, "Musical Tastes and
The Imminent Downfall" at http://www.ratmeat.com/. It
provided some information on the ubiquity of Pearl Jam, but
that was merely the occasion for the original thread and
hardly of relevance to my own post, which was about the
relationship between music and mathematics, Plato's
education program, and music, dancing, and morality.
If you have something interesting and substantive to say on
these subjects, that will certainly receive my respectful
attention.
Richard A. Schulman
>>With regard to your not knowing who Allan Bloom was -- he
>>having been the most influential figure in American
>>intellectual life during the late 1980s -- I can only guess
>>that you are either a youth or recently emerged from a time
>>capsule. Am I mistaken in supposing that classicists should
>>be more worldly than mathematicians?
Seth Deitch:
> Most influential? Overstating the case just a tad. "Closing of the
>American Mind", got talked up at a few cocktail parties and then made
>its way quietly to the back of the bookshelf.
Books talked up at a few cocktail parties don't make it to
the #1 Best Seller list of the NY Times, as this book did.
Even at this late date, Bloom's 1987 work remains the best
known of cultural critiques of the American university and
post 1960s intellectual and moral trends.
His literary criticism in Love & Friendship and his editions
of Plato's The Republic and Rousseau's Emile also continue
to be read and respected, albeit among a far more restricted
audience than his wildly successful Closing of the American
Mind.
Clearly Bellow's Ravelstein has hurt Bloom's posthumous
reputation and in that sense his published work has become
fodder for the School of Envy, a school that delights in
tearing down the works of giants via kiss-and-tell
biographies. So too, in recent memory, Trilling, Picasso,
Einstein, T.S. Eliot, etc., etc.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:13:58 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [diversions deleted]
>
> Mr. Daniels, you have studiously skirted the principal
> demands that were placed upon you, demands that would have
> been imposed on you not just by me but by any reasonable
> scholarly community. Here's your chance to try again. Don't
> expect me to debate you on secondary issues if you won't
> address the primary ones.
>
> 1) What is your evidence -- not the hearsay testimony you
> have provided thus far but the kind of solid evidence that
> would have protected you from a possible libel conviction
> had the matter been taken to court by your now defenseless,
> because deceased, target, that he was a pederast?
Common knowledge.
> 2) More importantly, how do you justify dismissing a man's
> ideas on the basis of what you imagine to have been
> unacceptable personal behavior? I emphasize again, by your
> logic the Declaration of Independence would have to be
> rejected because drafted by a slaveholder and ratified by
> other slaveholders.
Is hypocrisy "personal behavior"?
In case you can't tell, I have no problem with homosexuality. I am a bit
disturbed by serial monogamy -- using one boy for a year or so and
discarding him for fresh meat, but I have to assume the boys involved
were not dissatisfied.
> 3) You have dismissed Allan Bloom as a hypocrite but have
> yet to explain in what his hypocrisy consists. Please do so.
Being homosexual and attempting to conceal that fact. In the 1990s.
I don't know whether he explicitly preached against "the homosexual
lifestyle" like his comrades William Bennett and such, so I won't
immediately add that to the charge.
If you knew anything about musicology, I'd name the most prominent
musicologist in America (male), whose husband was also on the U of C
faculty. For several decades. When the latter died suddenly, the former
died -- almost literally of a broken heart; he was very much broken in
spirit -- less than a year later.
> Kindly answer the three points above in a manner that would
> satisfy a reasonable scholarly community.
Once more: Why is homosexuality a "personal misfortune"?
And again: Where did "minors" come from in your previous posting?
And have you located "pederasty" anywhere in the legal codes of the
State of Illinois -- and have you determined whether the age of consent
there is 16 or 18? And whether Bloom checked boys' IDs to be sure they
weren't 17 1/2 before he took up with them?
Matthew Montchalin
|Matthew Montchalin:
|>If he was protective and paternal of them, what difference
|>does it make if they were his slaves, children, or best
|>of friends?
|
|I suggest you try to sell that idea to the Afro-American
|community. Bring along a police guard if you do!
<snip>
|My point, which you seem to have missed, is that men's ideas
|shouldn't be dismissed just because there is a disjunct,
|apparent or real, in their behavior.
So why are you dismissing the possibility that Thomas Jefferson
may well have been a gentleman, and decent to the people that
he associated with on a daily basis?
Matthew Montchalin
|On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:31:25 GMT, Richard A. Schulman
|<RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
|>having been the most influential figure in American
|>intellectual life during the late 1980s -- I can only guess
|>that you are either a youth or recently emerged from a time
|>capsule. Am I mistaken in supposing that classicists should
|>be more worldly than mathematicians?
|
|of the American Mind", got talked up at a few cocktail parties
|and then made its way quietly to the back of the bookshelf.
So who the heck is he?
Matthew Montchalin
|Books talked up at a few cocktail parties don't make it to
|the #1 Best Seller list of the NY Times, as this book did.
Hmm. NY TImes. I don't read that magazine.
Richard A. Schulman
<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
>So who the heck is he [Allan Bloom]?
Mr. Montchalin, even a Martian, emerging from a time capsule
as you seem to have, would know how to rectify his ignorance
in the time elapsed since a previous profession of
ignorance.
If you don't know how to use a library, or a search engine,
try stumbling about http://www.amazon.com.
Richard A. Schulman
>|Books talked up at a few cocktail parties don't make it to
>|the #1 Best Seller list of the NY Times, as this book did.
Matthew Montchalin:
>Hmm. NY TImes. I don't read that magazine.
It's a newspaper, not a magazine (albeit with Sunday
inserts). Didn't anything pass through the walls of your
time capsule other than gamma rays and neutrinos?
Richard A. Schulman
libels against Allan Bloom. Three strikes and now you're
out.
The evidence of your strikeout follows:
Richard Schulman:
>> 1) What is your evidence -- not the hearsay testimony you
>> have provided thus far but the kind of solid evidence that
>> would have protected you from a possible libel conviction
>> had the matter been taken to court by your now defenseless,
>> because deceased, target, that he was a pederast?
Peter T. Daniels:
>Common knowledge.
Bzzzzzt. This wouldn't even pass for the National Enquirer.
You were asked to provide evidence that would satisfy a
reasonable scholarly community. Your flip comment
unquestionably fails to measure up to that standard.
Schulman:
>> 2) More importantly, how do you justify dismissing a man's
>> ideas on the basis of what you imagine to have been
>> unacceptable personal behavior? I emphasize again, by your
>> logic the Declaration of Independence would have to be
>> rejected because drafted by a slaveholder and ratified by
>> other slaveholders.
Daniels:
>Is hypocrisy "personal behavior"?
>In case you can't tell, I have no problem with homosexuality. I am a bit
>disturbed by serial monogamy -- using one boy for a year or so and
>discarding him for fresh meat, but I have to assume the boys involved
>were not dissatisfied.
Bzzzt. You don't even attempt to answer the question posed
above, though it has been clearly posed to you several times
now. You merely add new unsubstantiated libels. Bile and
dishonesty seem to be your salient personal characteristics.
Schulman:
>> 3) You have dismissed Allan Bloom as a hypocrite but have
>> yet to explain in what his hypocrisy consists. Please do so.
Daniels:
>Being homosexual and attempting to conceal that fact. In the 1990s.
Perhaps you should visit a dictionary, since you clearly
haven't the foggiest as to what hypocrisy actually is, or
you don't care, so determined you are to libel. Bloom would
be a hypocrite in your intended terms if his written work
actively and prominently denounced homosexuality while he
simultaneously was secretly carrying on a very active
homosexual life. Not proclaiming oneself a part of the Queer
Movement, as you seem to have demanded of Bloom, is not
hypocrisy. It's called privacy, and it's a fundamental human
right.
>I don't know whether he explicitly preached against "the homosexual
>lifestyle" like his comrades William Bennett and such, so I won't
>immediately add that to the charge.
But only if he had done that would your charge of hypocrisy
have been sustainable. By admitting that you have no
knowledge of such preaching by Allan Bloom, you confirm that
you are a dishonest, slanderous fraud.
Peter T. Daniels
other writings, does he simply ignore counterevidence and continue to
assert groundless assertions and fail to substantiate his charges or
retract erroneous statements?
Richard A. Schulman wrote:
>
> Same old crap, Mr. Daniels. Still no substantiation of your
> libels against Allan Bloom. Three strikes and now you're
> out.
While you're researching law codes, you might also check the definition
of "libel." (In the US. Hint: Truth is relevant.)
> The evidence of your strikeout follows:
>
> Richard Schulman:
> >> 1) What is your evidence -- not the hearsay testimony you
> >> have provided thus far but the kind of solid evidence that
> >> would have protected you from a possible libel conviction
> >> had the matter been taken to court by your now defenseless,
> >> because deceased, target, that he was a pederast?
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> >Common knowledge.
>
> Bzzzzzt. This wouldn't even pass for the National Enquirer.
> You were asked to provide evidence that would satisfy a
> reasonable scholarly community. Your flip comment
> unquestionably fails to measure up to that standard.
Obviously, if it came to a legal action, witnesses would be legion.
Since I'm no longer in Chicago, I can't make inquiries.
> Schulman:
> >> 2) More importantly, how do you justify dismissing a man's
> >> ideas on the basis of what you imagine to have been
> >> unacceptable personal behavior? I emphasize again, by your
> >> logic the Declaration of Independence would have to be
> >> rejected because drafted by a slaveholder and ratified by
> >> other slaveholders.
>
> Daniels:
> >Is hypocrisy "personal behavior"?
>
> >In case you can't tell, I have no problem with homosexuality. I am a bit
> >disturbed by serial monogamy -- using one boy for a year or so and
> >discarding him for fresh meat, but I have to assume the boys involved
> >were not dissatisfied.
>
> Bzzzt. You don't even attempt to answer the question posed
> above, though it has been clearly posed to you several times
> now. You merely add new unsubstantiated libels. Bile and
> dishonesty seem to be your salient personal characteristics.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Or your catamite, whichever applies?
Question 2 assumes many invalid premisses.
> Schulman:
> >> 3) You have dismissed Allan Bloom as a hypocrite but have
> >> yet to explain in what his hypocrisy consists. Please do so.
>
> Daniels:
> >Being homosexual and attempting to conceal that fact. In the 1990s.
>
> Perhaps you should visit a dictionary, since you clearly
> haven't the foggiest as to what hypocrisy actually is, or
> you don't care, so determined you are to libel. Bloom would
> be a hypocrite in your intended terms if his written work
> actively and prominently denounced homosexuality while he
> simultaneously was secretly carrying on a very active
> homosexual life. Not proclaiming oneself a part of the Queer
> Movement, as you seem to have demanded of Bloom, is not
> hypocrisy. It's called privacy, and it's a fundamental human
> right.
The professors of whom I spoke were not "part of the Queer movement" --
no such thing existed for the majority of their tenure -- yet their home
and their counsel were open and available to College students (and the
rest of the University community) who were troubled by their
homosexuality. The University of Chicago found a position on the faculty
for the lover of the man they were eager to hire -- nearly fifty years
ago. Being openly gay at the U of C campus was hardly stigmatic.
> >I don't know whether he explicitly preached against "the homosexual
> >lifestyle" like his comrades William Bennett and such, so I won't
> >immediately add that to the charge.
>
> But only if he had done that would your charge of hypocrisy
> have been sustainable. By admitting that you have no
> knowledge of such preaching by Allan Bloom, you confirm that
> you are a dishonest, slanderous fraud.
If you have studied all his works, why don't you tell us?
And, Mister Classicist, what do you make of Dover's *Greek
Homosexuality*? From that work, and many others, you would learn of the
institution of erastos/eromenos, the sort of relationship Bloom pursued
with students.
Once more: Why is homosexuality a "personal misfortune"?
Where did you get "minors" from?
And where in the State of Illinois's legal code does "pederasty" occur?
dok...@tiac.net
<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
>So who the heck is he?
>
My point exactly
Richard A. Schulman
intelligent people in these newsgroups by repeating what has
already been proved against you -- that you have no evidence
whatever to substantiate your charges that Allan Bloom was a
pederast and hypocrite and that your motivation for making
these charges is a mean-spirited, malicious political
hostility to the man's ideas and influence.
You may go crawl back under your rock now.
Richard A. Schulman
Plato, music, and mathematics, which I missed at the time
because it was under a new thread name. This is a belated
response.
Richard Schulman:
>>Music in which harmony is missing or unimportant does not
>>participate in this eternal order but in an order that is
>>merely transient and base.
Greg Recco:
>As a self-styled Socratic educator, though not a father, I must take issue
>with this. In the first place, the music you deride is not without harmony.
Harmony in Pearl Jam is occasional but hardly salient or
noteworthy. In the ruins of some ancient Mediterranean
latrine one can probably find hexameter doggerel. Would
anyone wish to compare this to Homer?
>(Perhaps Scruton ought to have sought those missing 'inner voices' in what he
>calls the 'swamp' of overtones; afficianadoes of electric-guitar feedback or
>of the breathy, plaintive or shrill edges of the human voice might well
>consider themselves to be searching for something elusive and special in those
>previously uninhabited regions.) A second point, however, does not require
>your assent to the first.
I think a similar comment applies here. Anyone who tried to
compare the inner voices of a Pearl Jam piece to Bach's
polyphony or Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues, opus 87,
say, would make a laughing stock of himself in any musically
literate circles.
>What you call "transient and base" must nonetheless serve as the starting
>point for musical education....You might
>remember an especially sweet lullaby and remain moved by its "transient and
>base" melody many years hence, even if it is being mangled by a pathetic
>drunk lying in an alleyway.
You are right about melody being an important starting
point, but let's take one such melody, "Twinkle, twinkle,
little star." Here is a melody recognized and beloved by
children the world over, but it would be a stretch to say of
this simple tune that through it "we have access to the
order of creation, and this order is eternal" or that,
through its agency "we know through experience, and in time,
what is also revealed to the intellect as outside time and
change."
On the other hand, such phrases would be entirely
appropriate in relation to Mozart's "Variations on 'Ah vous
dirai-je, maman'" (K. 265), which consists of twelve
variations on that same childhood tune. What constitutes the
difference between the bare tune and the transcendent
variations? Harmony!
>Perhaps this is because it served as your
>introduction into the pleasures of music, one of which may simply be the
>articulate, vocally expressive presence of another human being. This happy
>memory, which the drunk, too, is trying to evoke, is IMNSHO the true "point of
>contact" between time and eternity.
I think you're setting the bar too low. The Socratic
educator would do better to lead his charges to Mozart than
to the local pub at closing hour on Saturday night.
>It is good that you have mentioned dance, and the quote you provided certainly
>does paint a dismal picture of the development of this other essential and
>allied sphere of human expression and interaction.
>
>Scruton wrote:
>>Dancing has become a sexual exhibition, since the music
>>available for dancing has no other meaning besides release.
>>It requires neither knowledge nor self-control, for these
>>would impede the democratic right of everyone to enter the
>>fray; instead, each dancer exudes a kind of narcissistic
>>excitement which requires no acknowledgement from a partner
>>besides similar gestures of display....
>
>Having ventured into "dance clubs" myself, and having seen the way many people
>take up the fact of their sexuality, I find myself having to agree on the
>points of exhibition and narcissism. (This is proved also by the typical
>personal ad: "Man seeks sex.") As for the relative merits of release and
>self-control, I don't think I can agree, again, on Platonic grounds.
Think of what sexual release completely independent of
self-control amounts to -- rape, masturbation, or the
extremities explored by de Sade.
>In the _Laws_, the Athenian Stranger (any idea who?) talks with a Cretan and a
>Spartan, and convinces them in a short time of two things we might expect
>would be very difficulty for them to accept: they must permit drinking
>parties, and the education of children must begin in play. I'm sorry I don't
>have the precise references to hand, but I think the first is in Book I and
>the second in Book II. I especially like the second demonstration, which
>begins something like this: "it is the nature of all living things, when they
>are young, to leap around and make noises." It is from this 'ignoble'
>beginning that music and dance are to be born.
But recall the important point that the Athenian Stranger
insists upon here (Laws, II, 656): "the lover of vicious
dances or songs" is morally damaged in the same way he would
be if he "associates with bad characters."
That is the point that Plato, Allan Bloom, and Roger Scruton
are all making, and which is hinted at in the recent
laboratory finds of a strong developmental relationship
between the growth of the musical portion of the brain and
the mathematical.
>If
>children are required to hold their voices and bodies in check, those
>capacities which would be beneficial will never develop. This seems to be
>what happened in my elementary school: lots of sitting still and keeping quiet
>(several teachers even used turning out the lights and making us be still and
>quiet as a _punishment_, making it clear what we should think about those
>postures), and when we were released from the bondage of our cramped,
>uncomfortable desks, when it was time for free movement (physical education),
>we were sent off to learn the arts of competition and domination, as were
>those Spartan youths trained in guerilla tactics from early childhood.
You're presenting the matter as though it's a choice between
repressing the schoolchildren so that they remain motionless
in their seats vs. encouraging them to do wild orgiastic
dances in the aisles and on the playground. I'm advocating
channeling a portion of those energies into music and dance.
All children should be able to play classical music on an
instrument by the time they finish elementary school and to
dance a good sampling of the group dances that accompanied
this music during the 17th through 19th centuries. If this
is done, the children, when they are a bit older, will at
least be able to view the dreck of contemporary popular
culture (such as Pearl Jam), with a modicum of ironic
detachment.
>Second, with regard to self-control, it is extremely counterproductive to put
>this forward as a criticism of modern practices.
To the contrary, I think Odysseus is an excellent modern
role model for this virtue. Don't confuse external
repression (teachers forbidding you to move from your desk
when you were young) with genuine self-control, which is
internally generated.
> I have already suggested the
>circumstances under which it might be good to be uncontrolled, but not how
>excessive "self-control" can be harmful.
Isn't Plato's idea of self-control summed up by the word
so:phrosune:, and is this not something quite different than
Freudian repression? Is it really possible to have excessive
so:phrosune:?
> The most vivid portrait of this is
>that offered in Book VIII of the Republic, where the "oligarchic man," that
>is, stated as precisely as possible, the man for whom the most important
>distinction in the world is that between 'necessary' and 'unnecessary'
>desires, harbors a mass of lawless desires within himself which grow strong
>in direct proportion to the rigidity of his insistence on this distinction.
Oligarchic man's problem isn't excessive self-control; it's
that he lacks a "soul in unison and harmony with itself"
(Shorey):
homonoêtikês de kai hêrmosmenês tês psuchês alêthês aretê
porrô poi ekpheugoi an auton. [554d]
This harmony comes from taming the wayward desires by
reason, not force. [loc. cit.]
Note Shorey's reliance on two musical terms, "unison" and
"harmony," to render the Greek concept. The harmonies of
fine music present a model of the soul's sought after
harmony, whereas Pearl Jam and its congeners present a model
of the adolescent beset by wayward desires.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Thank you, Mr. Daniels. I'm not going to waste the time of
> intelligent people in these newsgroups by repeating what has
> already been proved against you -- that you have no evidence
> whatever to substantiate your charges that Allan Bloom was a
> pederast and hypocrite and that your motivation for making
> these charges is a mean-spirited, malicious political
> hostility to the man's ideas and influence.
>
> You may go crawl back under your rock now.
How can I be hostile to his ideas if I don't know what they were?
As for "influence," two of your colleagues -- and those are just the
ones who have cross-posted -- have already stated they've never heard of
the fellow.
Would you be equally harsh on Bloom's U of C colleague Richard P.
McKeon, whose interest ran in the direction of the girl freshman
students?
A pity homophobes like you continue to spout your ignorant homophobia on
the world's free netwaves.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Greg Recco posted a very thoughtful response to my post on
> Plato, music, and mathematics, which I missed at the time
> because it was under a new thread name. This is a belated
> response.
>
> Richard Schulman:
> >>Music in which harmony is missing or unimportant does not
> >>participate in this eternal order but in an order that is
> >>merely transient and base.
>
> Greg Recco:
> >As a self-styled Socratic educator, though not a father, I must take issue
> >with this. In the first place, the music you deride is not without harmony.
>
> Harmony in Pearl Jam is occasional but hardly salient or
> noteworthy. In the ruins of some ancient Mediterranean
> latrine one can probably find hexameter doggerel. Would
> anyone wish to compare this to Homer?
Actually B. Barry Powell has built his entire scholarly reputation doing
exactly that; if you were actually a professional Classicist, you would
know that.
He is not, however, correct in his claim that the Greek alphabet was
invented for the purpose of recording the works of Homer.
Richard A. Schulman
>> Thank you, Mr. Daniels. I'm not going to waste the time of
>> intelligent people in these newsgroups by repeating what has
>> already been proved against you -- that you have no evidence
>> whatever to substantiate your charges that Allan Bloom was a
>> pederast and hypocrite and that your motivation for making
>> these charges is a mean-spirited, malicious political
>> hostility to the man's ideas and influence.
>> You may go crawl back under your rock now.
Peter T. Daniels:
>How can I be hostile to his ideas if I don't know what they were?
Ah, your case is even worse than I suspected. Wilfully
ignorant of his ideas, you merely respond maliciously
against his influence.
>As for "influence," two of your colleagues -- and those are just the
>ones who have cross-posted -- have already stated they've never heard of
>the fellow.
Given your view that a request for evidence satisfying
judicial or scholarly standards may be satisfied by merely
intoning the phrase, "It's common knowledge," it will hardly
come as a surprise that your standard for assessing
intellectual influence is based on a count of noses in that
society of brilliant, responsible, and well-informed
individuals, the Typical Usenet Poster.
>Would you be equally harsh on Bloom's U of C colleague Richard P.
>McKeon, whose interest ran in the direction of the girl freshman
>students?
Unlike you, I would judge his ideas independently from his
alleged personal behavior. Also unlike you, I would not make
damaging comments on a man's personal behavior unless I
could back the accusations with evidence, not the malicious
hearsay you euphemize by the phrase, "common knowledge."
"Common knowledge" is nothing better than the rallying cry
of an ignorant lynch mob.
>A pity homophobes like you continue to spout your ignorant homophobia on
>the world's free netwaves.
Your wits must have entirely departed from you if you
thought such a parting comment could find any resonance with
the intelligent readers of this thread. What could be more
malicious and homophobic than to libel, with no evidence and
out of sheer political malice, a distinguished scholar,
Allan Bloom, who happened to have been a homosexual?
Back under your rock, Mr. Daniels -- back to that abode that
you share with other creeping, lowly creatures.
Musca Volitans
Richard A. Schulman wrote in message ...
>Richard A. Schulman:
[balatus excisi]
>
>>> You may go crawl back under your rock now.
>
>Peter T. Daniels:
>>How can I be hostile to his ideas if I don't know what they were?
>
[balatus excisi]
>
>>A pity homophobes like you continue to spout your ignorant homophobia on
>>the world's free netwaves.
>
>Your wits must have entirely departed from you if you
>thought such a parting comment could find any resonance with
>the intelligent readers of this thread. What could be more
>malicious and homophobic than to libel, with no evidence and
>out of sheer political malice, a distinguished scholar,
>Allan Bloom, who happened to have been a homosexual?
>
>Back under your rock, Mr. Daniels -- back to that abode that
>you share with other creeping, lowly creatures.
Dis gratulemur. Utinam hoc iugum irrumatorum
pedicatorumque sub saxa sua iam dudum repserint.
Di hos arceant pecori.
M.V.
Richard A. Schulman
>> Harmony in Pearl Jam is occasional but hardly salient or
>> noteworthy. In the ruins of some ancient Mediterranean
>> latrine one can probably find hexameter doggerel. Would
>> anyone wish to compare this to Homer?
Peter T. Daniels:
>Actually B. Barry Powell has built his entire scholarly reputation doing
>exactly that; if you were actually a professional Classicist, you would
>know that.
I'm not surprised that you should be so interested in erotic
graffiti on public toilet walls. That was likely the source
of your "common knowledge" libels against Allan Bloom.
Martial and Catullus would have been glad to speculate as to
what else you do in that venue, especially in the light of
your over-eager attempts to homophobe-bait me.
Richard A. Schulman
<mu...@mail.com> wrote:
>Dis gratulemur. Utinam hoc iugum irrumatorum
>pedicatorumque sub saxa sua iam dudum repserint.
>Di hos arceant pecori.
The fly flits about from turd to turd.
Its meal over, it coughs up brown words.
Greg Recco
corny thread title.) I will respond to those points from which a "modicum of
ironic detachment" (one supposed benefit of classical music education) is not
conspicuously absent.
In article <svthoscm86l90544h...@4ax.com>,
Richard A. Schulman <RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
>Greg Recco <gw...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>> I have already suggested the
>>circumstances under which it might be good to be uncontrolled, but not how
>>excessive "self-control" can be harmful.
>
>Isn't Plato's idea of self-control summed up by the word
>so:phrosune:, and is this not something quite different than
>Freudian repression? Is it really possible to have excessive
>so:phrosune:?
*Malista ge.* Especially since the distinction between "necessary" and
"unnecessary" desires is very nearly incoherent. SOphrosunE "sums up"
nothing. If anything, Book VIII shows how incapable this so-called virtue is
of standing on its own. That this is the case for *all* virtues is shown in
Book VI, I believe (sorry, I don't have the book to hand), where Socrates
notes that without perfect virtue (which he has the good sense not to claim to
possess) any virtue may be harmful.
>> The most vivid portrait of this is
>>that offered in Book VIII of the Republic, where the "oligarchic man," that
>>is, stated as precisely as possible, the man for whom the most important
>>distinction in the world is that between 'necessary' and 'unnecessary'
>>desires, harbors a mass of lawless desires within himself which grow strong
>>in direct proportion to the rigidity of his insistence on this distinction.
>
>Oligarchic man's problem isn't excessive self-control; it's
>that he lacks a "soul in unison and harmony with itself"
Why, then, is the democratic man (who presumably also lacks this harmony,
ostensibly to a greater degree, and who "lacks" self-control) not said to be
beset by criminal (paranomoi) desires as is the oligarchic?
You've snipped a lot of other things, in particular a sincere attempt to
understand the plight of the oligarchic man (the man ruled by "necessity"),
which is very much a propos of your criticism above. Perhaps you will not
agree, but I find in the Republic, alongside an exhortation to virtue, a harsh
criticism of the mindset that thinks itself virtuous when it is not. Without
mentioning its other advantages, let me just note that the democratic turn of
mind is at least free of the evils perpetrated in the name of "necessity." I
think it is Plato well before (and in many respects better than) Freud who
gives us to understand the dangers of undue "repression," be it psychic or
political.
While I agree wholeheartedly that children ought to be given the best musical
education our tradition can afford them, we must also recognize the bases from
which an appreciation of music or of any other subject grows. (Rep. VII:
"No forced study abides in a soul.") The encouragement of play must allow for
more than a little silliness, something your derisive attitude would surely
demolish. Sir, I see a lot of concern with being better than the next guy
(let's call it *philotimia*) in your educational program, but no *erOs*.
Nothing is less erotic than the attitude that says: "I will not touch that,
for it is wholly filthy. I will remain uncontaminated." Freud has a few
things to teach here, perhaps, as do the flies.
---
Greg Recco
Richard A. Schulman
wrote:
>While I agree wholeheartedly that children ought to be given the best musical
>education our tradition can afford them, we must also recognize the bases from
>which an appreciation of music or of any other subject grows. (Rep. VII:
>"No forced study abides in a soul.")
You say they should be given the best, but your heart isn't
really in it. You keep implying that this would necessarily
be a forced study. You have read your classical Plato, but
on the subject of education it is Rousseau the romantic that
issues forth.
> The encouragement of play must allow for
>more than a little silliness, something your derisive attitude would surely
>demolish.
It's the silliness of some adults that I have been derisive
of, not that of children. I've seen too many five and
six-year-olds playing Beethoven, Bach, and Schumann with
gusto not to realize how underestimated their capabilities
and tastes are by so many adults. Very young children would
rather hear Mozart than Pearl Jam unless they've really been
brought up badly. Pearl Jam and its noisy cousins are an
acquired distaste.
> Sir, I see a lot of concern with being better than the next guy
>(let's call it *philotimia*) in your educational program, but no *erOs*.
Plato gave a good deal of thought to the optimal education
of youth in his desired republic. Music and mathematics
played a central role in this education. He recognized that
different kinds of music had different effects on character,
some better and some worse, and sought to orient education
toward the better music. This was an intellectual insight of
the first order.
If you wish to raise children in whom love and creativity
are dominant rather than selfish ambition, they must be
nourished with a desire for that which is enduring and above
vicissitude. Mathematics and great music are central to such
an education. That is also the contemporary message of Roger
Scruton's _Aesthetics_ and the laboratory studies of early
musical training's effect on mathematical cognition.
It is a commonplace that that childhood learning comes
easiest that is most play-like. You, however, seem to
believe that children can only be playful with nursery music
or music that is banal.
>Nothing is less erotic than the attitude that says: "I will not touch that,
>for it is wholly filthy. I will remain uncontaminated." Freud has a few
>things to teach here, perhaps, as do the flies.
Manure is only useful to the extent that it becomes
nourishment for fruit trees and flowers. I puzzle at your
hankering for the Dung an sich.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Richard Schulman:
> >> Harmony in Pearl Jam is occasional but hardly salient or
> >> noteworthy. In the ruins of some ancient Mediterranean
> >> latrine one can probably find hexameter doggerel. Would
> >> anyone wish to compare this to Homer?
>
> >Actually B. Barry Powell has built his entire scholarly reputation doing
> >exactly that; if you were actually a professional Classicist, you would
> >know that.
>
> I'm not surprised that you should be so interested in erotic
> graffiti on public toilet walls. That was likely the source
> of your "common knowledge" libels against Allan Bloom.
So what *do* you do, and why are you trolling hum.classics, if you're so
ignorant about the field? B. Barry Powell, *Homer and the Origin of the
Greek Alphabet* (Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1991), includes a complete corpus
of the hexametric graffiti that comprise almost all the earliest Greek
inscriptions, and I suppose someone like you would indeed get off on
sneaking a look at them -- just think, you can read erotic inscriptions
without being seen holding something so scandalous as Dover's *Greek
Homosexuality*!
What a poseur.
Note, BTW, that it was not I who resurrected the previous discussion in
which the non-Classicist refused to discuss his mistakes.
> Martial and Catullus would have been glad to speculate as to
> what else you do in that venue, especially in the light of
> your over-eager attempts to homophobe-bait me.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels:
> >How can I be hostile to his ideas if I don't know what they were?
>
> Ah, your case is even worse than I suspected. Wilfully
> ignorant of his ideas, you merely respond maliciously
> against his influence.
You, the expert on Bloom, know whether he ever spoke against
homosexuality, yet you refuse to say. So you're an obscurantist as well
as a homophobe.
> Your wits must have entirely departed from you if you
> thought such a parting comment could find any resonance with
> the intelligent readers of this thread. What could be more
> malicious and homophobic than to libel, with no evidence and
> out of sheer political malice, a distinguished scholar,
> Allan Bloom, who happened to have been a homosexual?
Once again, you throw around that word "libel." Once again: Do you know
the definition of the word "libel"?
So. You finally admit that he was homosexual. Why is that a "personal
misfortune"?
And, one more time, why do you think he had sex with minors?
And why do you think "pederasty" is a crime in the State of Illinois?
David
(Musca Volitans) wrote:
>
> Richard A. Schulman wrote in message ...
> >Richard A. Schulman:
>
> [balatus excisi]
>
> >
> >>> You may go crawl back under your rock now.
> >
> >Peter T. Daniels:
> >>How can I be hostile to his ideas if I don't know what they were?
> >
> [balatus excisi]
> >
> >>A pity homophobes like you continue to spout your ignorant homophobia
> on
> >>the world's free netwaves.
> >
> >Your wits must have entirely departed from you if you
> >thought such a parting comment could find any resonance with
> >the intelligent readers of this thread. What could be more
> >malicious and homophobic than to libel, with no evidence and
> >out of sheer political malice, a distinguished scholar,
> >Allan Bloom, who happened to have been a homosexual?
> >
> >Back under your rock, Mr. Daniels -- back to that abode that
> >you share with other creeping, lowly creatures.
>
>
> Dis gratulemur. Utinam hoc iugum irrumatorum
> pedicatorumque sub saxa sua iam dudum repserint.
> Di hos arceant pecori.
>
> M.V.
>
>
Sumus Upus Pompeius?
DAVIDVS
Richard A. Schulman
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>So what *do* you do, and why are you trolling hum.classics...
If you cared anything about the classics, Mr. Daniels, you
would not be maliciously libeling Allan Bloom. He certainly
made a much greater contribution to the love and study of
the classics than you, stewing in partisan bile, will ever
do.
Richard A. Schulman
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>You, the expert on Bloom, know whether he ever spoke against
>homosexuality, yet you refuse to say. So you're an obscurantist as well
>as a homophobe.
Your opening comments above, the comments which follow that
I have mercifully deleted, and your Deja Vu archive
generally, show you to be a typical Internet junkie who sits
all day at the computer screen seeking out pedantic quibbles
and quarrels. In previous posts you accused Bloom of being a
pederast and hypocrite and were unable to substantiate
either charge; now you blame me for not providing evidence
to save you from the judgment that your behavior is that of
a malicious and irresponsible slanderer.
I suggest you abandon your keyboard and computer screen for
a day in order to read Bloom's _The Closing of the American
Mind_ or Scruton's _Aesthetics_. This would make for a much
more interesting discussion for those of us interested in
the classics, classical music, and the education of youth.
Greg Recco
proved your thoroughgoing dishonesty, however, you have made it clear that
there is no point in talking to you, which comes as a great relief. Dis
gratulemur, indeed. It should have been obvious from the unironic oxymoron
"delightful and refreshing attack" (among other warnings) that you are a
thoroughly unsociable human being. Oh, there is one more thing. Just try to
found an elitist charter school in my neighborhood one day and you'll find out
how "uncivilized" I'm willing to be.
Adieu.
Musca Volitans
Richard A. Schulman wrote in message ...
>>pedicatorumque sub saxa sua iam dudum repserint.
>>Di hos arceant pecori.
>
>Its meal over, it coughs up brown words.
Spoken like the precious esthete you undoubtedly think
yourself to be. Do you get such thoughts from Bach
and Schoenberg?
But your reply betrays not only a latent propensity
to coprophagy but also a misperception of the Latin.
You might want to re-read it and ask for help if you
do not understand it. Your sick attempt to belittle my
pseudonym also reveals your ignorance of a common
Latin medical term.
As to your fetish, you will have to seek professional
treatment to overcome it. I have colleagues
in the field who have treated such as you with
some success. Extensive followup is always
advisable, however, to prevent relapses.
M.V.
Richard A. Schulman
wrote:
>Goodbye, Mr. Schulman. I can't say it was nice knowing you. Since you've
>proved your thoroughgoing dishonesty,
Your demonstration of that point has been on a par with
Peter Daniels' demonstration that Allan Bloom was a pederast
and hypocrite, namely, as an exercise in impotent fiction.
>Just try to
>found an elitist charter school in my neighborhood one day and you'll find out
>how "uncivilized" I'm willing to be.
How could anyone take seriously the threat of a wimp who
runs away from the first hint of debate?
Richard A. Schulman
>>The fly flits about from turd to turd.
>>Its meal over, it coughs up brown words.
"Musca Volitans":
>Spoken like the precious esthete you undoubtedly think
>yourself to be. Do you get such thoughts from Bach
>and Schoenberg?
I notice you didn't mention Mozart or Beethoven, who did not
hesitate to use such language on worthy targets, such as
yourself.
>But your reply betrays not only a latent propensity
>to coprophagy...
You're the self-designated fly, and not even a gadfly at
that -- just a common shit-eating housefly who hasn't the
courage, integrity, or honesty to post under his own name.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 01:19:12 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >So what *do* you do, and why are you trolling hum.classics...
>
> If you cared anything about the classics, Mr. Daniels, you
> would not be maliciously libeling Allan Bloom. He certainly
> made a much greater contribution to the love and study of
> the classics than you, stewing in partisan bile, will ever
> do.
I have no intention of ever doing so. I'm in the Classical Music
newsgroup, to which your screed was so unwelcomely cross-posted, and if
you cared to consult a library catalog, you could learn what my fields
are.
Peter T. Daniels
out of hum.classical.
Did you look up Powell's book yet? Or Dover's? Or the laws of Illinois?
Or those concerning libel?
Richard A. Schulman wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 01:41:53 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >You, the expert on Bloom, know whether he ever spoke against
> >homosexuality, yet you refuse to say. So you're an obscurantist as well
> >as a homophobe.
>
> Your opening comments above, the comments which follow that
> I have mercifully deleted, and your Deja Vu archive
> generally, show you to be a typical Internet junkie who sits
> all day at the computer screen seeking out pedantic quibbles
> and quarrels. In previous posts you accused Bloom of being a
> pederast and hypocrite and were unable to substantiate
> either charge; now you blame me for not providing evidence
> to save you from the judgment that your behavior is that of
> a malicious and irresponsible slanderer.
>
> I suggest you abandon your keyboard and computer screen for
> a day in order to read Bloom's _The Closing of the American
> Mind_ or Scruton's _Aesthetics_. This would make for a much
> more interesting discussion for those of us interested in
> the classics, classical music, and the education of youth.
jbay...@my-deja.com
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Homophobe, obscurantist, and now coward. No wonder you're being chased
> out of hum.classical.
>
> Did you look up Powell's book yet? Or Dover's? Or the laws of Illinois?
> Or those concerning libel?
One of Peter's patterns, and a pattern common to USENET, is that
when he is unable to substantiate the matter at hand, he introduces
irrelevancies such as straw men and shouts names at his opponent.
Why do you do this, Peter? Don't you have the basic intellectual
honesty to answer his question? I agree he's a homophobe, BTW.
John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Richard A. Schulman
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Did you look up Powell's book yet? Or Dover's? Or the laws of Illinois?
>Or those concerning libel?
I'm hardly at a loss for responses to each of these queries,
but there is no point in discussing side issues with an
Internet junkie who slanders scholars without evidence and
has no interest in their principal ideas.
Back under your rock, Mr. Daniels.
Richard A. Schulman
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I have no intention of ever doing so. I'm in the Classical Music
>newsgroup, to which your screed was so unwelcomely cross-posted,
The post was quite pertinent to the Classical Music
newsgroup. By your unprincipled attack on the man, Allan
Bloom, who more than any other took on the unpopular job of
attacking the counter-culture that destroyed classical music
for a majority of our youth, you have proven yourself to be
an enemy of classical music in matters that count.
> and if
>you cared to consult a library catalog, you could learn what my fields
>are.
This is another irrelevancy on your part. Your publications
indicate no competence whatever to discourse on the topics
of the education of youth, classical music, or philosophy.
You have introduced this vanity item in an attempt to
salvage your credibility following behavior that casts
serious doubt on your probity as a scholar.
David
> In article <398B6B...@worldnet.att.net>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Homophobe, obscurantist, and now coward. No wonder you're being chased
> > out of hum.classical.
> >
> > Did you look up Powell's book yet? Or Dover's? Or the laws of
> > Illinois?
> > Or those concerning libel?
>
> One of Peter's patterns, and a pattern common to USENET, is that
> when he is unable to substantiate the matter at hand, he introduces
> irrelevancies such as straw men and shouts names at his opponent.
That's funny coming from you - in this newsgroup you called me Josef
Stalin and two other people Adolf Hitler.
JS
Richard A. Schulman
<pojam...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>The things Plato objected to in music were, if I remember aright
>without a Republic handy, certain modes, harmonies, certain rhythms,
>and certain instruments. Exactly which ones may not be particularly
>relevant, since the majority (of modes and instruments, certainly) have
>long since fallen out of use. I`m not at all sure that whether music is
>`Classical`, whatever that may be taken to mean, is remotely relevant
>to that debate; after all, Plato was perfectly prepared to excise huge
>areas of Homer, which was the most `classical` of the (literary)
>classics for the Greeks of his day.
>Plato`s main interest in music was whether it would prop up his ideal
>state or not, in particular the character of the Guardians. I don`t
>think that Plato would have allowed, for instance, slow or even fast
>movements in minor keys...
[etc.]
Thank you, Frank, for your on-topic response.
The point of my post was not to write Plato a blank check
for every statement he ever made on the arts but rather to
praise him for an idea that I think was brilliant and of
permanent value: the idea that music has an objective moral
and intellectual content that is communicated to its
listeners.
It is this idea that sets off Plato, Allan Bloom, Roger
Scruton, and other defenders of the great or classical
tradition in Western music from those who believe that taste
is subjective and that Pearl Jam is as valid and profound as
Bach, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich,
etc.
Without speculating on Plato's attitudes toward minor keys,
Rachmaninoff, etc., if you will grant me that Beethoven's
Opus 133 String Quartet is morally and intellectually
superior to Pearl Jam's Dopus Whatever, we can haggle later
on the intermediate discriminations.
If it seems like I have presented you a stacked deck,
consider that we are living in a world in which many,
including academics, bridle at the thought of being forced
to make such elementary and obvious discriminations.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 01:00:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >I have no intention of ever doing so. I'm in the Classical Music
> >newsgroup, to which your screed was so unwelcomely cross-posted,
>
> The post was quite pertinent to the Classical Music
> newsgroup. By your unprincipled attack on the man, Allan
> Bloom, who more than any other took on the unpopular job of
> attacking the counter-culture that destroyed classical music
> for a majority of our youth, you have proven yourself to be
> an enemy of classical music in matters that count.
Oh is that what he did.
> > and if
> >you cared to consult a library catalog, you could learn what my fields
> >are.
>
> This is another irrelevancy on your part. Your publications
> indicate no competence whatever to discourse on the topics
> of the education of youth, classical music, or philosophy.
> You have introduced this vanity item in an attempt to
> salvage your credibility following behavior that casts
> serious doubt on your probity as a scholar.
OTOH, nothing in any of your cross-postings has given any indication of
your competence to discuss anything at all.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 01:22:39 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Did you look up Powell's book yet? Or Dover's? Or the laws of Illinois?
> >Or those concerning libel?
>
> but there is no point in discussing side issues with an
> Internet junkie who slanders scholars without evidence and
> has no interest in their principal ideas.
Ok, now it's changed from "libel" to "slander." Does that mean you
perhaps went as far as looking in a law dictionary?
That's at least something. Now how about: "Homosexuality is a personal
misfortune" and "Allan Bloom had sex with minors"?
Peter T. Daniels
> It is this idea that sets off Plato, Allan Bloom, Roger
> Scruton, and other defenders of the great or classical
> tradition in Western music from those who believe that taste
> is subjective and that Pearl Jam is as valid and profound as
> Bach, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich,
> etc.
Plato defended "the great or classical tradition in Western music"??
What, did he have a time machine or something?
Richard A. Schulman
>>The point of my post was not to write Plato a blank check
>>for every statement he ever made on the arts but rather to
>>praise him for an idea that I think was brilliant and of
>>permanent value: the idea that music has an objective moral
>>and intellectual content that is communicated to its
>>listeners.
>>It is this idea that sets off Plato, Allan Bloom, Roger
>>Scruton, and other defenders of the great or classical
>>tradition in Western music from those who believe that taste
>>is subjective and that Pearl Jam is as valid and profound as
>>Bach, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich,
>>etc.
Peter T. Daniels:
>Plato defended "the great or classical tradition in Western music"??
>What, did he have a time machine or something?
The discovery of the simple integer ratios of the musical
intervals, attributed to Pythagoras, together with Plato's
exposition of the notion that music has an objective moral
and intellectual content, provided the rationalist basis for
the successive revolutions in polyphony, counterpoint, and
harmony brought about by Renaissance and later Western
classical composers and theorists. This, together with
Plato's attack on what seems to have been the "Rock" of his
day, earns him an honored place as a founder and defender of
the great or classical tradition in Western music.
David
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 21:16:10 GMT, frank
> <pojam...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >The things Plato objected to in music were, if I remember aright
> >without a Republic handy, certain modes, harmonies, certain rhythms,
> >and certain instruments. Exactly which ones may not be particularly
> >relevant, since the majority (of modes and instruments, certainly) have
> >long since fallen out of use. I`m not at all sure that whether music is
> >`Classical`, whatever that may be taken to mean, is remotely relevant
> >to that debate; after all, Plato was perfectly prepared to excise huge
> >areas of Homer, which was the most `classical` of the (literary)
> >classics for the Greeks of his day.
>
> >Plato`s main interest in music was whether it would prop up his ideal
> >state or not, in particular the character of the Guardians. I don`t
> >think that Plato would have allowed, for instance, slow or even fast
> >movements in minor keys...
>
> [etc.]
>
> Thank you, Frank, for your on-topic response.
>
> The point of my post was not to write Plato a blank check
> for every statement he ever made on the arts but rather to
> praise him for an idea that I think was brilliant and of
> permanent value: the idea that music has an objective moral
> and intellectual content that is communicated to its
> listeners.
> It is this idea that sets off Plato, Allan Bloom, Roger
> Scruton, and other defenders of the great or classical
> tradition in Western music from those who believe that taste
> is subjective and that Pearl Jam is as valid and profound as
> Bach, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich,
> etc.
>
> Without speculating on Plato's attitudes toward minor keys,
> Rachmaninoff, etc., if you will grant me that Beethoven's
> Opus 133 String Quartet is morally and intellectually
> superior to Pearl Jam's Dopus
No
> Whatever, we can haggle later
> on the intermediate discriminations.
It's only considered morally and intellectually superior by those who
consider it morally and intellectually superior. The response is purely
subjective.
> If it seems like I have presented you a stacked deck,
> consider that we are living in a world in which many,
> including academics, bridle at the thought of being forced
> to make such elementary and obvious discriminations.
It's elementary and obvious to me that it comes down to personal opinion
whether a piece is "morally and intellectually superior" or not.
David
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Richard Schulman:
> >>for every statement he ever made on the arts but rather to
> >>praise him for an idea that I think was brilliant and of
> >>permanent value: the idea that music has an objective moral
> >>and intellectual content that is communicated to its
> >>listeners.
>
> >>It is this idea that sets off Plato, Allan Bloom, Roger
> >>Scruton, and other defenders of the great or classical
> >>tradition in Western music from those who believe that taste
> >>is subjective and that Pearl Jam is as valid and profound as
> >>Bach, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich,
> >>etc.
>
> >Plato defended "the great or classical tradition in Western music"??
> >What, did he have a time machine or something?
>
> The discovery of the simple integer ratios of the musical
> intervals, attributed to Pythagoras, together with Plato's
> exposition of the notion that music has an objective moral
> and intellectual content, provided the rationalist basis for
> the successive revolutions in polyphony, counterpoint, and
> harmony brought about by Renaissance and later Western
> classical composers and theorists. This, together with
> Plato's attack on what seems to have been the "Rock" of his
> the great or classical tradition in Western music.
> ---
> Richard Schulman
> To email me, remove the "XYZ"
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
frank
Richard A. Schulman <RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
> [we owe to Plato...] the idea that music has an objective moral
> and intellectual content that is communicated to its
> listeners.
I may be being obtuse, but I can`t actually find this in Plato, or at
least not in so many words. He gets close to it - I quote: `on beauty
of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm, depend the true
simplicity of a rightly and nobly ordered mind and character *if our
youth are to do their work in life*.` Plato is keen to reinforce the
character he is trying to build up in his young Guardians by means of
music; and how far that character is `moral and intellectual` in our
terms is debatable - his concept of `just` is arguably not quite the
same as our `moral`. The last phrase of the quotation seems to me to
give the game away, I`m afraid.
For other similar use of music in the service of the state, see Stalin
and Hitler passim...... Actual attempts to do it have been either
ludicrous or tragic.
> Without speculating on Plato's attitudes toward minor keys,
> Rachmaninoff, etc., if you will grant me that Beethoven's
> Opus 133 String Quartet is morally and intellectually
> superior to Pearl Jam's Dopus Whatever, we can haggle later
> on the intermediate discriminations.
I can only apologise for being entirely unable to do so, despite the
fact that personally, (as a practising classical pianist, I should
perhaps add), I far prefer the Beethoven. Is a vintage Bentley morally
and intellectually superior to a Fiat Secento ? Well, no..... it`s
`better` in the sense of being better crafted, longer lasting, built
for a wealthier clientele - and though a vintage Bentley is perhaps
initially harder to get used to driving, (especially the gears), given
the opportunity one can quickly get to prefer it ! - but that`s not to
say that a Fiat Secento is useless for the purpose for which it was
designed, or that those driving them are in some way an inferior class
of beings.
I personally think most of that can be said of the difference between
Beethoven and (eg) Pearl Jam.
(One of the problems is that we tend to use the words `good/better` for
too many purposes - a problem which goes back to the Greeks, of
course !)
Musca is of course right to say that we can`t really know or say
anything about Ancient Greek music; I was merely musing out-loud on
what P *might* have made of the rich diversity of music available
today, and what censorship he might have imposed :-) (In fact the whole
business of Gk Music is an absolute mystery - especially when one looks
at Plato`s detailed likes and dislikes. I`m sure microtones etc must
have come into it; but one would give a lot to have been a fly on the
wall - sorry, Musca... - at a Festival of Dionysus , or even, indeed, a
symposium, oinos and all.)
I do think that one`s preferences in music must at the end of the day
depend on one`s personal taste (however those are acquired) - which I`m
aware is a completely circular statement, and on a level with those who
insist `I knows what I likes`. (I still hate opera, after a lifetime in
music and a choral upbringing. Am I missing something ? All I case say
is that *I* don`t think so. As soon as those ghastly wobbly voices
start up I`m off......)
One`s choice of music also of course depends on the occasion and one`s
mood; `Gebrauchsmusic` I think is one term for it - a Beethoven string
4tet might be fine on one occasion, but it wouldn`t be exactly
appropriate as an accompaniment to a night out with one`s friends. (viz
`Gregis Actor`, passim.... Nothing like playing for a good sing-song !)
But intellect and morals ? To say that the connection is `obvious` is
not sufficient, though it may enable one to claim an place on an
imaginary moral high ground of one`s own construction.
cheers - and thanks, Richard and Musca, for both posts :-)
frank
(I suppose one could argue quite differently, BTW, about lyrics - in
the sense of words with musical accompaniment. However, that`s another
matter for another time !)
Richard A. Schulman
>> [we owe to Plato...] the idea that music has an objective moral
>> and intellectual content that is communicated to its
>> listeners.
Frank:
>I may be being obtuse, but I can`t actually find this in Plato, or at
>least not in so many words. He gets close to it - I quote: `on beauty
>of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm, depend the true
>simplicity of a rightly and nobly ordered mind and character *if our
>youth are to do their work in life*.`
I think there are quite a few passages in Plato that point
in this direction. For example, in the Timaeus, God is
described as having bestowed hearing upon man for the sake
of speech and music:
hoson t' au mousikês [47d] phônêi chrêsimon pros akoên
heneka harmonias esti dothen. hê de harmonia, sungeneis
echousa phoras tais en hêmin tês psuchês periodois, tôi meta
nou proschrômenôi Mousais ouk eph' hêdonên alogon kathaper
nun einai dokei chrêsimos, all' epi tên gegonuian en hêmin
anarmoston psuchês periodon eis katakosmêsin kai sumphônian
heautêi summachos hupo Mousôn dedotai: kai rhuthmos au dia
tên ametron en hêmin kai charitôn [47e] epidea gignomenên en
tois pleistois hexin epikouros epi tauta hupo tôn autôn
edothê.
"Moreover, so much of music as is adapted to the sound of
the voice and to the sense of hearing is granted to us for
the sake of harmony; and harmony, which has motions akin to
the revolutions of our souls, is not regarded by the
intelligent votary of the Muses as given by them with a view
to irrational pleasure, which is deemed to be the purpose of
it in our day, but as meant to correct any discord which may
have arisen in the courses of the soul, and to be our ally
in bringing her into harmony and agreement with herself; and
rhythm too was given by them for the same reason, on account
of the irregular and graceless ways which prevail among
mankind generally, and to help us against them." (Jowett
translation)
The translation is somewhat stiff; hopefully the meaning
comes through. With respect to the phrase about the
"revolutions of our souls," recall the meaning given to this
notion in The Republic, where the interrelations of
character and constitution are discussed.
> Plato is keen to reinforce the
>character he is trying to build up in his young Guardians by means of
>music; and how far that character is `moral and intellectual` in our
>terms is debatable - his concept of `just` is arguably not quite the
>same as our `moral`. The last phrase of the quotation seems to me to
>give the game away, I`m afraid.
>
>For other similar use of music in the service of the state, see Stalin
>and Hitler passim...... Actual attempts to do it have been either
>ludicrous or tragic.
I don't think you would equate Plato with Stalin and Hitler
with respect to the censorship of music by the state if you
were aware of the fact that such censorship was widely
practiced by states and the Church down to the
Enlightenment. Plato didn't have the benefit of the
Reformation and seventeenth century and subsequent
discussions regarding the drawbacks of censorship and the
benefits of freedom of thought and belief; Stalin and
Hitler, to their disgrace, did.
Schulman:
>> Without speculating on Plato's attitudes toward minor keys,
>> Rachmaninoff, etc., if you will grant me that Beethoven's
>> Opus 133 String Quartet is morally and intellectually
>> superior to Pearl Jam's Dopus Whatever, we can haggle later
>> on the intermediate discriminations.
Frank:
>I can only apologize for being entirely unable to do so, despite the
>fact that personally, (as a practicing classical pianist, I should
>perhaps add), I far prefer the Beethoven.
It takes a great deal of training in music theory to be able
to prove irrefutably why Beethoven is miles above Pearl Jam.
Most educated persons who appreciate Beethoven and other
classical composers and who strongly sense its superiority
to Rock don't have this level of training but are very much
aware of the different effects the two kinds of music have
on their own thoughts and emotions. They also observe the
effects of the two kinds of music on others. In so doing,
they are unconsciously acknowledging the existence of
objective judgments regarding these matters.
>Is a vintage Bentley morally
>and intellectually superior to a Fiat Secento?
This is a bad analogy in five different ways to Sunday. Just
to name one: consider the article I first posted in this
thread, that described the effect of early childhood musical
training on the growth of the mathematical area of the
brain. Have you read any studies recently on either of the
above-named cars producing superior cognitive development?
>Musca is of course right to say that we can`t really know or say
>anything about Ancient Greek music;
We don't know what it sounded like. We do know a good deal
about Greek musical theory, however. It was transmitted to
the Christian Middle Ages via St. Augustine, Boethius, and
others and played an important role in musical practice
right down to the Renaissance and beyond.
>I do think that one`s preferences in music must at the end of the day
>depend on one`s personal taste (however those are acquired) - which I`m
>aware is a completely circular statement, and on a level with those who
>insist `I knows what I likes`.
That is Musca's stated view as well and, indeed, it is the
view of most members of society today. It's a very
democratic notion, which helps to explain the uproar that
broke out following Bloom's critique of Rock in _The Closing
of the American Mind_. The view that there are objective
criteria for judging the quality of a work of art, or even
the view that some people's taste is superior to others --
these two views are regarded as undemocratic and elitist.
But it is clear that if all tastes are equally wise (or
foolish), no critical judgment in the arts is possible, just
various separate communities of shared tastes (a view
developed not so many years ago by Stanley Fish).
>(I still hate opera, after a lifetime in
>music and a choral upbringing. Am I missing something?
Very definitely. I must confess it took me a while to
acquire the taste too. Start with the very best operas
(i.e., Mozart's), some good CDs, and librettos with literal
English translations right under or next to the German or
Italian original text. Opera cannot be properly appreciated
without understanding every last word as sung in the
original language. Don't bother going to a performance until
you either know that text, or good subtitles will be
displayed simultaneously with the singing on stage (or on
the tv or movie screen as, for example, in Ingmar Bergman's
fine movie version of The Magic Flute).
>One`s choice of music also of course depends on the occasion and one`s
>mood; `Gebrauchsmusic` I think is one term for it - a Beethoven string
>4tet might be fine on one occasion, but it wouldn`t be exactly
>appropriate as an accompaniment to a night out with one`s friends.
Of course, who can be in Top Form twenty-four hours a day?
Josh Kortbein
: Schulman:
: >> Without speculating on Plato's attitudes toward minor keys,
: >> Rachmaninoff, etc., if you will grant me that Beethoven's
: >> Opus 133 String Quartet is morally and intellectually
: >> superior to Pearl Jam's Dopus Whatever, we can haggle later
: >> on the intermediate discriminations.
: Frank:
: >I can only apologize for being entirely unable to do so, despite the
: >fact that personally, (as a practicing classical pianist, I should
: >perhaps add), I far prefer the Beethoven.
: It takes a great deal of training in music theory to be able
: to prove irrefutably why Beethoven is miles above Pearl Jam.
Proof is the province of mathematics. Musicological "proof" of
a piece's musical value is an assertion of that piece's value, from
the standpoint of musicology. The framework of concepts and values
used by musicology is not adequate to support similar "proof"
for music like rock music, or much non-Western music. This alone
should hint that "proof" is a dangerously loaded word.
: Most educated persons who appreciate Beethoven and other
: classical composers and who strongly sense its superiority
: to Rock don't have this level of training but are very much
: aware of the different effects the two kinds of music have
: on their own thoughts and emotions. They also observe the
: effects of the two kinds of music on others. In so doing,
: they are unconsciously acknowledging the existence of
: objective judgments regarding these matters.
What about educated people who appreciate both "high" art and "low"
art? Different kinds of music does indeed have different effects
on me; however, I wouldn't say any of these effects are definitely
superior or inferior to one another. I also observe the differing
effects of these kinds of music on others. This doesn't mean that
I am acknowledging, consciously or unconsciously, the existence
of objective judgments.
: >I do think that one`s preferences in music must at the end of the day
: >depend on one`s personal taste (however those are acquired) - which I`m
: >aware is a completely circular statement, and on a level with those who
: >insist `I knows what I likes`.
: That is Musca's stated view as well and, indeed, it is the
: view of most members of society today. It's a very
: democratic notion, which helps to explain the uproar that
: broke out following Bloom's critique of Rock in _The Closing
: of the American Mind_. The view that there are objective
: criteria for judging the quality of a work of art, or even
: the view that some people's taste is superior to others --
: these two views are regarded as undemocratic and elitist.
: But it is clear that if all tastes are equally wise (or
: foolish), no critical judgment in the arts is possible, just
: various separate communities of shared tastes (a view
: developed not so many years ago by Stanley Fish).
Watch out for excluded middles; even if there are no objective aesthetic
criteria, there need not be equality of authority.
Josh
--
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
Matthew Montchalin
Richard A. Schulman wrote:
|It takes a great deal of training in music theory to be able
|to prove irrefutably why Beethoven is miles above Pearl Jam.
And what about the Devil's Advocate who says that it takes very
little training in music theory to be able to prove irrefutably
why Pearl Jam is miles above Beethoven, right down to the knee
slap?
Hey, speaking of music theory, what kind of "Bead Game" would
have accounted for the inspired success of Captain Beefheart,
DEVO, Leon Redbone, or the Clash, not all of which are rock,
but which all are surely not classical?
frank
> "Moreover, so much of music as is adapted to the sound of
> the voice and to the sense of hearing is granted to us for
> the sake of harmony; and harmony, which has motions akin to
> the revolutions of our souls, is not regarded by the
> intelligent votary of the Muses as given by them with a view
> to irrational pleasure, which is deemed to be the purpose of
> it in our day, but as meant to correct any discord which may
> have arisen in the courses of the soul, and to be our ally
> in bringing her into harmony and agreement with herself
Yes, I appreciate - I hope ! - what you and Plato are saying; but it
still seems to me that music is seen here as a means to an end -
harmony of music leads to harmony of soul. But does it ? Another case
of language leading the philosopher astray ? He also discusses the
harmony of the spheres.......
> I don't think you would equate Plato with Stalin and Hitler
> with respect to the censorship of music by the state if you
> were aware of the fact that such censorship was widely
> practiced by states and the Church down to the
> Enlightenment.
Some, sure; but on the monumental scale that Plato envisaged ? When and
where ?
> It takes a great deal of training in music theory to be able
> to prove irrefutably why Beethoven is miles above Pearl Jam.
Morally ? I`m intrigued ! What aspect of theory proves that, if that is
what you mean ? Actually, I don`t think theory has anything to do with
it; a lot of musically untrained folks enjoy and always have enjoyed
classical music - must do, or concert audiences would be singularly
thin. I grant you the composers have to be a bit more skilled to
produce a string 4tet - but that was the point of my bit about cars.
> >Is a vintage Bentley morally
> >and intellectually superior to a Fiat Secento?
>
> This is a bad analogy in five different ways to Sunday. Just
> to name one: consider the article I first posted in this
> thread, that described the effect of early childhood musical
> training on the growth of the mathematical area of the
> brain.
Yes; in fact a summary was posted on the notice-board of the
peripatetic music teachers in the school in which I was working when it
first became known - good for trade, after all ! And there always has
been an idea that maths and (classical) music go together. I remain
unconvinced, though it`s a nice idea.
> Have you read any studies recently on either of the
> above-named cars producing superior cognitive development?
Sadly, the legal driving age militates against it - though it could be
argued that the Bentley takes much more intelligence to drive !
> >Musca is of course right to say that we can`t really know or say
> >anything about Ancient Greek music;
> We don't know what it sounded like. We do know a good deal
> about Greek musical theory, however.
I think that is precisely the point Musca and I are making. Knowledge
of the theory doesn`t take one very far, either in ancient or in less
ancient music.
> But it is clear that if all tastes are equally wise (or
> foolish), no critical judgment in the arts is possible, just
> various separate communities of shared tastes (a view
> developed not so many years ago by Stanley Fish).
Perhaps all art should be judged by its own criteria; I expect someone
must have developed that view as well ? And I suppose one should also
ask whether making critical judgements is strictly necessary - except
to justify the existence (and salaries) of the critics ?
> >(I still hate opera, after a lifetime in
> >music and a choral upbringing. Am I missing something?
>
> Very definitely. I must confess it took me a while to
> acquire the taste too.
I followed all your suggestions, as recommended, a number of years ago.
(Specifically `Il seraglio`, `La Traviata`, `Tristan and Isolde`, `La
Bohčme`, and `Wozzeck`, I think: LP sets, miniature scores, Kobbé etc -
all indelibly ingrained on the memory.) It didn`t work, indeed it re-
inforced the dislike. Reasonable tunes, good orchestras (largely
wasted), absurdly self-indulgent singers, banal libretti and feeble
plots - IMHO !
Incidentally, I`ve always felt that opera - itself a contrived art-
form, being interestingly an attempt to recreate Greek tragedy - is a
good case of a musical form having from the start its own criteria,
reinforced by an elitist minority largely without other musical or
theatrical experience but anxious to have an opportunity to show off
their wealth by means of the extravagance of production and the
opulence of the occasion. All attempts to popularize it have been
doomed to failure (currently we have `Opera and chips` in the UK -
performing opera in fish and chip shops; singalong with the toreador`s
song - really !), indeed it only continues now to exist at all on
ludicrously large subsidies and the patronage of a wealthy clique;
something which Beethoven String 4tets have never needed !
The Emperor`s new clothes may be relevant.
But to return to Plato, it would definitely all have been outlawed
anyway, along with tragedy, as being representational.
(Fun to be controversial sometimes, isn`t it :-) Apologies, though, for
a long-winded post. They seem to be getting longer; always a bad sign.
(`Brevitas....`)
Best wishes
cheers
frank
Michael Zeleny
cited Roger Scruton at Greg Recco:
>>>Dancing has become a sexual exhibition, since the music available
>>>for dancing has no other meaning besides release. It requires
>>>neither knowledge nor self-control, for these would impede the
>>>democratic right of everyone to enter the fray; instead, each
>>>dancer exudes a kind of narcissistic excitement which requires no
>>>acknowledgement from a partner besides similar gestures of
>>>display....
>>Having ventured into "dance clubs" myself, and having seen the way
>>many people take up the fact of their sexuality, I find myself
>>having to agree on the points of exhibition and narcissism. (This
>>is proved also by the typical personal ad: "Man seeks sex.") As for
>>the relative merits of release and self-control, I don't think I can
>>agree, again, on Platonic grounds.
>Think of what sexual release completely independent of self-control
>amounts to -- rape, masturbation, or the extremities explored by de
>Sade.
In the generic instance, it amounts to erotic passion, a point that
would not be lost on any man who upon ataining advanced middle age has
managed to live down adolescent embarrassment over ejaculatio praecox.
>[...]
>the point that Plato, Allan Bloom, and Roger Scruton are all making,
>[...]
Pairing up a coxcombical chickenhawk with a canting quack as condign
successors to the all-time heavyweight Olympic wrestling champion of
philosophy betokens everything that is wrong with your interminable
Usenet posturing.
Cordially -- Mikhail Zel...@math.ucla.edu * M...@ptyx.com ** www.ptyx.com
God: "Sum id quod sum." ** 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046
Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum." * 323.876.8234 (fon) * 323.876.8054 (fax)
Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum." ****** ICQ 25259231
established on 2.26.1958 ** itinerant philosopher * will think for food
Richard A. Schulman
>>[...]
>>the point that Plato, Allan Bloom, and Roger Scruton are all making,
>>[...]
Michael Zeleny:
>Pairing up a coxcombical chickenhawk with a canting quack as condign
>successors to the all-time heavyweight Olympic wrestling champion of
>philosophy betokens everything that is wrong with your interminable
>Usenet posturing.
To Mr. Zeleny we must concede this week's Jesse Jackson
Award for alliterative and assonant ad hominem.
Nevertheless, I'm sure most newsgroup readers would prefer
him to address the topic of whether music can be judged by
objective criteria -- or whether taste is purely subjective.
>Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum." ****** ICQ 25259231
>established on 2.26.1958 ** itinerant philosopher * will think for food
I think the spinach has been boiling in the pot too long and
has lost both its flavor and nourishment. Please try heating
up a new batch, steamed in fresh water rather than stale
bile.
Cheers,
BHeneg8560
<RichardAS...@att.net> writes:
>The discovery of the simple integer ratios of the musical
>intervals, attributed to Pythagoras, together with Plato's
>exposition of the notion that music has an objective moral
>and intellectual content,
Or: Plato's stating of the subjective *belief* that music has an objective
moral
and intellectual content,
>provided the rationalist basis for
How can an unverifiable belief provide a rationalist basis for anything? It's
built on sand.
>the successive revolutions in polyphony, counterpoint, and
>harmony brought about by Renaissance and later Western
>classical composers and theorists. This, together with
>Plato's attack on what seems to have been the "Rock" of his
>day, earns him an honored place as a founder and defender of
>the great or classical tradition in Western music.
Because he tells you what you want to hear.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
BHeneg8560
<RichardAS...@att.net> writes:
>The point of my post was [...] to
>praise him for an idea that I think was brilliant and of
>permanent value: the idea that music has an objective moral
>and intellectual content that is communicated to its
>listeners.
It's an idea, certainly. But not proven.
>It is this idea that sets off Plato, Allan Bloom, Roger
>Scruton, and other defenders of the great or classical
>tradition in Western music from those who believe that taste
>is subjective and that Pearl Jam is as valid and profound as
>Bach, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich,
>etc.
Translation: some people believe unverifiable things that others don't.
>Without speculating on Plato's attitudes toward minor keys,
>Rachmaninoff, etc., if you will grant me that Beethoven's
>Opus 133 String Quartet is morally and intellectually
>superior to Pearl Jam's Dopus Whatever, we can haggle later
>on the intermediate discriminations.
Why should this be granted? Where's your proof?
>If it seems like I have presented you a stacked deck,
>consider that we are living in a world in which many,
>including academics, bridle at the thought of being forced
>to make such elementary and obvious discriminations.
Emotive language, logically indistinguishable from "We are living in a world in
which many (including academics) know an untenable assumption when they see one
and no longer tolerate it."
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
Abelard2
>
>I think there are quite a few passages in Plato that point
>in this direction. For example, in the Timaeus, God is
>described as having bestowed hearing upon man for the sake
>of speech and music:
>
The part I particularly enjoyed in the Timaeus, is where God is referred to as
the "composer of the universe."
abelard2
the Davidsbündler site
http://members.aol.com/abelard2/dave.htm
Richard A. Schulman
>|It takes a great deal of training in music theory to be able
>|to prove irrefutably why Beethoven is miles above Pearl Jam.
Matthew Montchalin:
>And what about the Devil's Advocate who says that it takes very
>little training in music theory to be able to prove irrefutably
>why Pearl Jam is miles above Beethoven, right down to the knee
>slap?
This is doubtless the majority adolescent opinion, and it
would be quite credible if there were no objective basis for
musical judgment.
>Hey, speaking of music theory, what kind of "Bead Game" would
>have accounted for the inspired success of Captain Beefheart,
>DEVO, Leon Redbone, or the Clash, not all of which are rock,
>but which all are surely not classical?
On that question, I'm the one who would have to confess to
being in the time capsule.
David
On the other hand, a Pearl Jam lover could prove irrefutably in ten
seconds why Pearl Jam is miles above Beethoven.
> in
> Most educated persons who appreciate Beethoven and other
> classical composers and who strongly sense its superiority
> to Rock don't have this level of training but are very much
> aware of the different effects the two kinds of music have
> on their own thoughts and emotions. They also observe the
> effects of the two kinds of music on others.
This does not prove that the one kind of music is better than the other.
> In so doing,
> they are unconsciously acknowledging the existence of
> objective judgments regarding these matters.
Objective judgements made by who?
David
jbay...@my-deja.com
> >|It takes a great deal of training in music theory to be able
> >|to prove irrefutably why Beethoven is miles above Pearl Jam.
>
> >And what about the Devil's Advocate who says that it takes very
> >little training in music theory to be able to prove irrefutably
> >why Pearl Jam is miles above Beethoven, right down to the knee
> >slap?
>
> This is doubtless the majority adolescent opinion, and it
> would be quite credible if there were no objective basis for
> musical judgment.
Damn I hate it when I have agree with one of the rmc rockers, but
what exactly is the "objective basis for musical judgment"? One
certainly must admit that there are qualities which differentiate
rock from classical music, but to say that preference for certain
qualities over others is objective is incredible.
But I'm with you in agreeing that the majority opinion on rmc is
adolescent.
>
> >Hey, speaking of music theory, what kind of "Bead Game" would
> >have accounted for the inspired success of Captain Beefheart,
> >DEVO, Leon Redbone, or the Clash, not all of which are rock,
> >but which all are surely not classical?
The teenage stupidity "Bead Game".
John
Matthew Montchalin
|>|It takes a great deal of training in music theory to be able
|>|to prove irrefutably why Beethoven is miles above Pearl Jam.
|
|>And what about the Devil's Advocate who says that it takes very
|>little training in music theory to be able to prove irrefutably
|>why Pearl Jam is miles above Beethoven, right down to the knee
|>slap?
|
|This is doubtless the majority adolescent opinion, and it
|would be quite credible if there were no objective basis for
|musical judgment.
As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, music is in the ear
of the listener. I don't see any *objective* basis for musical
judgment, although you apparently do. If there *is* a bottom
line, it is that which is available by attaching dollar values
to it.
|>Hey, speaking of music theory, what kind of "Bead Game" would
|>have accounted for the inspired success of Captain Beefheart,
|>DEVO, Leon Redbone, or the Clash, not all of which are rock,
|>but which all are surely not classical?
|
|On that question, I'm the one who would have to confess to
|being in the time capsule.
Captain Beefheart was from the late 1960s, DEVO from the late
1970s, and the Clash from the 1980s. Leon Redbone, an enigmatic
character that liked to sit on a stool and sing (quite nasally)
while playing ragtime blues on a banjo, sometimes with
accompaniment, goes through all of those decades.
Perhaps the musical training you were subjected to, omitted
them for a good (that is, "objective") reason?
Matthew Montchalin
|> >Hey, speaking of music theory, what kind of "Bead Game" would
|> >have accounted for the inspired success of Captain Beefheart,
|> >DEVO, Leon Redbone, or the Clash, not all of which are rock,
|> >but which all are surely not classical?
|
The reference was to Hermann Hesse's "Glasperlenspiel," and I
was implying that it depends on how you write the rules to the
game.
Michael Zeleny
>Richard Schulman:
>>>[...]
>>>the point that Plato, Allan Bloom, and Roger Scruton are all making,
>>>[...]
>Michael Zeleny:
>>Pairing up a coxcombical chickenhawk with a canting quack as condign
>>successors to the all-time heavyweight Olympic wrestling champion of
>>philosophy betokens everything that is wrong with your interminable
>>Usenet posturing.
>To Mr. Zeleny we must concede this week's Jesse Jackson
>Award for alliterative and assonant ad hominem.
>Nevertheless, I'm sure most newsgroup readers would prefer
>him to address the topic of whether music can be judged by
>objective criteria -- or whether taste is purely subjective.
I prefer to discuss the relative merits of release and self-control.
>>Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum." ****** ICQ 25259231
>>established on 2.26.1958 ** itinerant philosopher * will think for food
>I think the spinach has been boiling in the pot too long and
>has lost both its flavor and nourishment. Please try heating
>up a new batch, steamed in fresh water rather than stale
>bile.
By all means -- as soon as you redeem your promissory note to support
your claim that sexual release completely independent of self-control
amounts to rape, masturbation, or the extremities explored by de Sade,
with philosophical arguments derived from Plato independently of Allan's
bum and Roger's scrotum.
Cordially -- Mikhail Zel...@math.ucla.edu * M...@ptyx.com ** www.ptyx.com
God: "Sum id quod sum." ** 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046
Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum." * 323.876.8234 (fon) * 323.876.8054 (fax)
jbay...@my-deja.com
sapp...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <8mh8nt$jn5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jbay...@my-deja.com ()
wrote:
>
> > In article <398B6B...@worldnet.att.net>,
chased
> > > out of hum.classical.
> > >
> > > Illinois?
> > > Or those concerning libel?
> >
> > when he is unable to substantiate the matter at hand, he introduces
> > irrelevancies such as straw men and shouts names at his opponent.
>
> That's funny coming from you - in this newsgroup you called me Josef
> Stalin and two other people Adolf Hitler.
>
Another usenet tactic is to lie or deliberately misrepresent the
truth. This is a case in point, since when I called you those
names, I did it rhetorically to impress the point that no one could
force someone to conform to their opinion and that doing so was
figuratively totalitarian.
I have never found the need *once* in a decade of usenet postings
to employ a straw man.
jbay...@my-deja.com
<Pine.SUN.3.96.100080...@compass.oregonvos.net>,
Matthew Montchalin <mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
<snip>
> |On that question, I'm the one who would have to confess to
> |being in the time capsule.
>
> Captain Beefheart was from the late 1960s, DEVO from the late
> 1970s, and the Clash from the 1980s.
I've heard a lot of DEVO and The Clash, both of which were popular
when I was in boarding school in the 80s. They're both among the most
god-awful so-called music imaginable.
> Leon Redbone, an enigmatic
> character that liked to sit on a stool and sing (quite nasally)
> while playing ragtime blues on a banjo, sometimes with
> accompaniment, goes through all of those decades.
He had a voice like someone who'd had their vocal cords scraped
and then contracted throat cancer.
> Perhaps the musical training you were subjected to, omitted
> them for a good (that is, "objective") reason?
All effective musical training omits trash.
Matthew Montchalin
|> a stool and sing (quite nasally) while playing ragtime blues
|> on a banjo, sometimes with accompaniment, goes through all
|> of those decades.
|
|He had a voice like someone who'd had their vocal cords scraped
|and then contracted throat cancer.
Poor guy. Still made a fair amount of money, though I bet it
slipped through his fingers. And Captain Beefheart, is he still
hanging out in Northern California, pretty much doing his own
thing (painting?), more or less retired from the "music bizness?"
|> Perhaps the musical training you were subjected to, omitted
|> them for a good (that is, "objective") reason?
|
|All effective musical training omits trash.
Effective? I guess that *that* depends on the effect that you
are going after. But shouldn't that be defined ahead of time?
I'd prefer to let the free market decide what is effective.
More people get what they want, regardless of the pontifications
of music teachers.
jbay...@my-deja.com
<Pine.SUN.3.96.100080...@compass.oregonvos.net>,
Matthew Montchalin <mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Effective? I guess that *that* depends on the effect that you
> are going after. But shouldn't that be defined ahead of time?
>
> I'd prefer to let the free market decide what is effective.
I'm not surprised. The Free Market is the new god. The more
people like something the "better" it is. The Big Mac is
the greatest cuisine, Madonna the greatest composer, Bay Watch is
better than Shakespeare, Keane better than Raphael. Blah blah
blah.
I prefer to think for myself. Trash is a waste of time. Fuck the
free market. It produces little but.
> More people get what they want, regardless of the pontifications
> of music teachers.
I'm not interested in what other people want musically. I'd listen
to Nadia Boulanger "pontificate" for a month rather than have to
read one "music" article in People magazine or Entertainment Weekly.
In fact, I'd pay to hear her pontificate for a month.
Your priorities are screwy.
Matthew Montchalin
|> I'd prefer to let the free market decide what is effective.
|
|I'm not surprised. The Free Market is the new god. The more
|people like something the "better" it is.
Why would you say something like that unless for the sake of
rhetorical effect? Rather, the more people get to listen to
what they want, the happier they are.
|The Big Mac is the greatest cuisine,
A good case can be made for Arby's Roast Beef Sandwiches.
|Madonna the greatest composer, Bay Watch is better than
|Shakespeare, Keane better than Raphael. Blah blah blah.
What next, you would assert that Monty Python is better than
Gilligan's Island?
|I prefer to think for myself.
Why, certainly. And it is your money that you can spend on
the music of your choice. Nothing wrong with that. The great
thing about freedom is that we each get to spend our own money
on what we want to.
|Trash is a waste of time. Fuck the free market. It produces
|little but.
You would suggest that massive federal spending on music (of
some style) will make people happier? Or then again, if they
attempt to spend on something they have defined as "Classical"
it will end up making you happier?
|> More people get what they want, regardless of the pontifications
|> of music teachers.
|
|I'm not interested in what other people want musically.
Nevertheless, the Golden Rule applied to music is something well
worth taking to heart.
|I'd listen to Nadia Boulanger "pontificate" for a month rather
|than have to read one "music" article in People magazine or
|Entertainment Weekly.
I'm not sure who Nadia Boulanger is, but what about Martin Gardner
(or his successor) and his "Mathematical Games" column from 20 years
ago? Would you be surprised that computers can be programmed to
create endlessly new variations of "classical music," given a few
handfuls of scores, and instructions to look for similarities and
styles, and then repeat them in different ways, with embellishments
in the forms of fugues?
|In fact, I'd pay to hear her pontificate for a month.
Is she a famous writer?
|Your priorities are screwy.
But the wonderful thing about it, they are mine. And the government
has yet to put somebody in charge of music, and tell us what to
listen to, and what may be marketed to the general public.
Leonard Pulver
Having read a dozen posts in this thread and being an ancient sage, I
will not respond to any single post. I would rather comment in general
to the thread.
The term "classical music" has been used, quite commonly, to include
music that is both pre and post classical. We tend to classify all
music from Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, & Neo-classical
periods as "Classical" which is quite wrong.
Only "classical musical training" can be that general and then it isn't
general at all. It involves training and discipline - studying scales
and chords and progressions and harmonies. And more discipline and more
scales and more studying.
The late, great pianist Victor Borge in his concerts would take 15 or 20
bars of a medieval tune and play it in its original form and then in
Baroque style, renaissance style
classical style, stride, boogie woogie style,
right to the swinging style of Glenn Miller or
Benny Goodman. The history of music in
20 bars!
Most of the greatest composers and performers have had classical
training. That is what gave them the ability to do whatever they did.
But not everyone can be a Beethoven, Mozart, G Verdi, Puccini,
Rachmaninoff, Casals, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin, Duke Ellington, John
Coltrane, John Lennon or Philip Glass. Nor was everything these people
did a masterwork.
Much of the so called classical repertoire is trite and boring.
Contemporary rock is largely trite, boring and ugly. Heavy metal
substitutes decibels for music.
25 years ago, my friend Philip Glass (trained in Jazz performance at
Juillard) composed and performed, with his own band music that put me to
sleep. It was beautiful, but too geometrically repetitive for me,
hypnotic, so hypnotic, he built a huge cult following and played to SRO
houses wherever he went in North America and Europe. To-day he composes
operas just as successfully. He stunned the Metropolitan Opera by
selling out THEIR house for two performances of his first opera "On the
Beach" without Met performers.
When I first met Oscar Peterson, he was playing Beethoven in a Montreal
concert hall.
What it all comes down to is this:
Classical training enables talent to blossom, whether in music,
painting, sculpture, theatre literature or dance. Styles change with
the ages and with technology just as the clavier and harpsichord gave
way to the pianoforte.
Tastes are learned or acquired if you like whether it is food or wine,
or art or music, and will continue to be on and on forever.
If we give our children (for me it has to be grand children and great
grandchildren) the
opportunity to develop whatever talent they might have, then we give
give them the greatest gift of all
Matthew Montchalin
|music teachers but you haven't even heard of the most famous music
|teacher of the 20th century.
Most famous performer, or most famous teacher? If the former, then
I am slightly embarrassed. If the latter, then I am unimpressed.
Matthew Montchalin
|> worth taking to heart.
|
|the Golden Rule says "do unto others as you would have them do
|unto you". I would have them play me classical music, so I guess
|that's what I should "do unto" them, by your reasoning.
Exactly! We play our own music, and hope other people will enjoy
it, or appreciate it, or get something out of it. :)
Matthew Montchalin
|: Let's do a thought experiment. You have sixty seconds in
|: which to choose the woman with whom you will share the rest
|: of your life and fortune. You must choose between two
|: equally beautiful women to marry. The first is neatly
|: attired and loves classical music and the ballet. The second
|: has a ring through one of her nostrils, loves rock and rap,
|: and prefers to spend her evenings making the rounds of
|: discotheques. Whom do you marry?
|
|Is polygamy legal in my state? :)
Why isn't there a 50s 'doo-wop' lady in there? Why are there
only two women to choose from? (And what if the one you end up
choosing insists on her right to practice polyandry?)
Matthew Montchalin
|Let's do a thought experiment. You have sixty seconds in
|which to choose the woman with whom you will share the rest
|of your life and fortune. You must choose between two
|equally beautiful women to marry. The first is neatly
|attired and loves classical music and the ballet. The second
|has a ring through one of her nostrils, loves rock and rap,
|and prefers to spend her evenings making the rounds of
|discotheques. Whom do you marry?
I have a friend (he is a swarthy Irish Scotch hybrid with lots
of American Indian in him) that swears every time he sees a
girl (or guy) with a nose ring or eyebrow ring on, there's
this nasty urge to pull on the rings, maybe pull them all the
way off! Luckily, he resists the urge. -He likes to tell me,
"Rings are, like beer tabs, meant for pulling." And just think!
He adores ABBA, Steely Dan, and Debbie Harry (Blondie) just as
much as he likes Irish folk songs!
jbay...@my-deja.com
<Pine.SUN.3.96.100080...@compass.oregonvos.net>,
Matthew Montchalin <mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
>
> |> I'd prefer to let the free market decide what is effective.
> |
> |I'm not surprised. The Free Market is the new god. The more
> |people like something the "better" it is.
>
> Why would you say something like that unless for the sake of
> rhetorical effect? Rather, the more people get to listen to
> what they want, the happier they are.
So what? What makes them happy is crap. I don't give a damn
about what music makes them happy.
>
> |The Big Mac is the greatest cuisine,
>
> A good case can be made for Arby's Roast Beef Sandwiches.
>
> |Madonna the greatest composer, Bay Watch is better than
> |Shakespeare, Keane better than Raphael. Blah blah blah.
>
> What next, you would assert that Monty Python is better than
> Gilligan's Island?
By your "the market is god" reasoning, Gilligan's Island is
"better" than Voltaire because it makes more people "happy".
>
> |I prefer to think for myself.
>
> Why, certainly. And it is your money that you can spend on
> the music of your choice. Nothing wrong with that. The great
> thing about freedom is that we each get to spend our own money
> on what we want to.
So what??
>
> |Trash is a waste of time. Fuck the free market. It produces
> |little but.
>
> You would suggest that massive federal spending on music (of
> some style) will make people happier? Or then again, if they
> attempt to spend on something they have defined as "Classical"
> it will end up making you happier?
I don't give a damn what crap music makes people happy.
>
> |> More people get what they want, regardless of the pontifications
> |> of music teachers.
> |
> |I'm not interested in what other people want musically.
>
> Nevertheless, the Golden Rule applied to music is something well
> worth taking to heart.
I'm not interested in the Golden Rule as applied to music. Besides,
the Golden Rule says "do unto others as you would have them do
unto you". I would have them play me classical music, so I guess
that's what I should "do unto" them, by your reasoning.
>
> |I'd listen to Nadia Boulanger "pontificate" for a month rather
> |than have to read one "music" article in People magazine or
> |Entertainment Weekly.
>
> I'm not sure who Nadia Boulanger is,
Gee, what a surprise. You make generalizations about "pontificating"
music teachers but you haven't even heard of the most famous music
teacher of the 20th century.
> but what about Martin Gardner
> (or his successor) and his "Mathematical Games" column from 20 years
> ago? Would you be surprised that computers can be programmed to
> create endlessly new variations of "classical music," given a few
> handfuls of scores, and instructions to look for similarities and
> styles, and then repeat them in different ways, with embellishments
> in the forms of fugues?
Yes. I've heard such "music", and it would only sound equivalent
to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms and other human composers to
an ignoramus.
The phrase "embellishments in the forms of fugues" is musical
nonsense.
>
> |In fact, I'd pay to hear her pontificate for a month.
>
> Is she a famous writer?
>
> |Your priorities are screwy.
>
> But the wonderful thing about it, they are mine. And the government
> has yet to put somebody in charge of music, and tell us what to
> listen to, and what may be marketed to the general public.
Who said anything about the gov't putting someone in charge of
music????
jbay...@my-deja.com
> : >> Without speculating on Plato's attitudes toward minor keys,
> : >> Rachmaninoff, etc., if you will grant me that Beethoven's
> : >> Opus 133 String Quartet is morally and intellectually
> : >> superior to Pearl Jam's Dopus Whatever, we can haggle later
> : >> on the intermediate discriminations.
>
> : Frank:
> : >I can only apologize for being entirely unable to do so, despite
the
> : >fact that personally, (as a practicing classical pianist, I should
> : >perhaps add), I far prefer the Beethoven.
>
> : to prove irrefutably why Beethoven is miles above Pearl Jam.
>
> a piece's musical value is an assertion of that piece's value, from
> the standpoint of musicology. The framework of concepts and values
> used by musicology is not adequate to support similar "proof"
> for music like rock music, or much non-Western music. This alone
> should hint that "proof" is a dangerously loaded word.
"Proof" is irrelevant. If someone told you "I like the sound
of a toilet flushing better than any work of classical music,"
what "proof" could you offer to refute him? None. So what??
<snip>
>
> What about educated people who appreciate both "high" art and "low"
> art?
They're rare as hen's teeth, and apparently poseurs.
Musca Volitans
Matthew Montchalin wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>|> I'd prefer to let the free market decide what is effective.
>|
>|I'm not surprised. The Free Market is the new god. The more
>|people like something the "better" it is.
>
>Why would you say something like that unless for the sake of
>rhetorical effect? Rather, the more people get to listen to
>what they want, the happier they are.
Tsk, tsk, Matthew, these poor benighted fools haven't the sense
to know when they are happy. Enter the Guardians..... ;-)
>
>|The Big Mac is the greatest cuisine,
>
>A good case can be made for Arby's Roast Beef Sandwiches.
Plebeian! You've never had "Kentucky Fried Chicken"? And
I suppose you like your aves cohortales washed before they're
served? ;-)
>
>|Madonna the greatest composer, Bay Watch is better than
>|Shakespeare, Keane better than Raphael. Blah blah blah.
I will have you know I am a confirmed prig and even _I_ know
that Baywatch is better than Shakespeare. Must be the
classicist (not the romanticist?) lurking within me. A day
at the beach with the naiads or a evening in the dank
halls of Elsinore? Gimme a break.... ;-)
>
>What next, you would assert that Monty Python is better than
>Gilligan's Island?
>
>|I prefer to think for myself.
It's much too tiring, especially when the TV can do it for you. ;-)
>
>Why, certainly. And it is your money that you can spend on
>the music of your choice. Nothing wrong with that. The great
>thing about freedom is that we each get to spend our own money
>on what we want to.
>
>|Trash is a waste of time. Fuck the free market. It produces
>|little but.
Jeez. A bolshie. Ah, if only the Soviet Union would come back
and all the happy proles started reading Pushkin and Lermontov
in the Metro again......
>
>You would suggest that massive federal spending on music (of
>some style) will make people happier? Or then again, if they
>attempt to spend on something they have defined as "Classical"
>it will end up making you happier?
Of course, just look at the exaltation that the feds have produced
in the plastic arts. Or are you such an anachronism that you
don't see the esthetics of a urine-soaked crucifix or the Virgin
spattered with elephant dung? Funny how it's only Christianity
that the dispensers of the federal largesse dare mock.
>
>|> More people get what they want, regardless of the pontifications
>|> of music teachers.
>|
>|I'm not interested in what other people want musically.
>
>Nevertheless, the Golden Rule applied to music is something well
>worth taking to heart.
>
>|I'd listen to Nadia Boulanger "pontificate" for a month rather
>|than have to read one "music" article in People magazine or
>|Entertainment Weekly.
>
>I'm not sure who Nadia Boulanger is, but what about Martin Gardner
>(or his successor) and his "Mathematical Games" column from 20 years
>ago? Would you be surprised that computers can be programmed to
>create endlessly new variations of "classical music," given a few
>handfuls of scores, and instructions to look for similarities and
>styles, and then repeat them in different ways, with embellishments
>in the forms of fugues?
>
>|In fact, I'd pay to hear her pontificate for a month.
>
>Is she a famous writer?
No, she is perhaps the greatest female composer of the century. Unfair
though it is that she has not received the recognition she deserves, it
must be said that her sister Lili's story is even more poignant.
>
>|Your priorities are screwy.
>
>But the wonderful thing about it, they are mine. And the government
>has yet to put somebody in charge of music, and tell us what to
>listen to, and what may be marketed to the general public.
Well, lads, I'm just pulling your legs a bit here, but I guess all this
just goes to prove the one provable fact about music - it *is* subjective.
It is a great mistake to assume that the world is rational; Euripides
spent a bit of eloquence to teach us that it is not. Music theory won't
help a non-musician to play scales in sixths let alone extemporize, though
it may give an aura of intellectualism to the art of a true musician, not
to mention a baton to a babbit. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in ballistics to
throw a curve ball. When Beethoven shook his fist gegen das
Schicksal, it was against no objective rational truth that he railed.
Regards,
Musca Volitans
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Matthew Montchalin wrote in message ...
> >On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >|The Big Mac is the greatest cuisine,
> >
> >A good case can be made for Arby's Roast Beef Sandwiches.
Now I know you too have taken leave of your senses. The only Arby's
product worth consideration is the Arby-Q.
> Plebeian! You've never had "Kentucky Fried Chicken"? And
> I suppose you like your aves cohortales washed before they're
> served? ;-)
>
> >
> >|Madonna the greatest composer, Bay Watch is better than
> >|Shakespeare, Keane better than Raphael. Blah blah blah.
>
> I will have you know I am a confirmed prig and even _I_ know
> that Baywatch is better than Shakespeare. Must be the
At least you know how it's spelled.
> >You would suggest that massive federal spending on music (of
> >some style) will make people happier? Or then again, if they
> >attempt to spend on something they have defined as "Classical"
> >it will end up making you happier?
>
> Of course, just look at the exaltation that the feds have produced
> in the plastic arts. Or are you such an anachronism that you
> don't see the esthetics of a urine-soaked crucifix or the Virgin
> spattered with elephant dung? Funny how it's only Christianity
> that the dispensers of the federal largesse dare mock.
The crucifix in Serrano's "Piss Christ" is not "urine-soaked"; the
artwork consists of a photograph of a crucifix in a yellowish haze, and
the caption to the photograph asserts that it is immersed in urine. It
is one of a long series of photographs involving iconic objects and
natural fluids.
The painting of the BVM that was exhibited at the Brooklyn Museum last
season involved no "splatter"ing whatsoever, and no Federal funds were
involved in its exhibition. The scandals involved were (a) that the
Saatchi persons contrived a _scandale_ that would achieve elevation of
the market value of their property (the artworks on display) and (b)
that the Mayor of New York City condemned, without seeing it, the
painting in question, prompting (c) religious zealots to do the same,
and to vandalize it, without understanding the work in the the context
of the artist's career.
> >
> >|> More people get what they want, regardless of the pontifications
> >|> of music teachers.
> >|
> >|I'm not interested in what other people want musically.
> >
> >Nevertheless, the Golden Rule applied to music is something well
> >worth taking to heart.
> >
> >|I'd listen to Nadia Boulanger "pontificate" for a month rather
> >|than have to read one "music" article in People magazine or
> >|Entertainment Weekly.
> >
> >I'm not sure who Nadia Boulanger is, but what about Martin Gardner
> >(or his successor) and his "Mathematical Games" column from 20 years
> >ago? Would you be surprised that computers can be programmed to
> >create endlessly new variations of "classical music," given a few
> >handfuls of scores, and instructions to look for similarities and
> >styles, and then repeat them in different ways, with embellishments
> >in the forms of fugues?
Martin Gardner's "successor" was Douglas Hofstadter, who mucked about in
a column entitled "Metamagical Themas" for some months; he was succeeded
by a parade of even paler imitations of Martin Gardner, one of whom even
proved to be a Creationist.
> >|In fact, I'd pay to hear her pontificate for a month.
> >
> >Is she a famous writer?
>
> No, she is perhaps the greatest female composer of the century. Unfair
> though it is that she has not received the recognition she deserves, it
> must be said that her sister Lili's story is even more poignant.
No, she was the (French) teacher of just about every American composer
in the middle half of the 20th century. (I mentioned a few weeks ago
that no major French composers seem to have come from her atelier, and
no one disputed that statement.) As for her own compositions, she denied
they were of any value at all, and tirelessly promoted the few works of
her late sister Lili.
Can you distinguish female music from male music? If not, what does
"greatest female composer" mean?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Peter T. Daniels
> The term "classical music" has been used, quite commonly, to include
> music that is both pre and post classical. We tend to classify all
> music from Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, & Neo-classical
> periods as "Classical" which is quite wrong.
That's just silly. "Classical" vs. "pop" covers all the above.
"Classical" vs. "Baroque" or "Romantic" is a different word.
> The late, great pianist Victor Borge in his concerts would take 15 or
I suspect that if he had died since last December, the news would have
been published both in news media in the USA and in rec.music.classical
...
Greg Recco
>So what? What makes them happy is crap. I don't give a damn
>about what music makes them happy.
>I don't give a damn what crap music makes people happy.
I don't mean to nitpick, but perhaps you meant "I don't give a crap what damn
music makes people happy."
Musca Volitans
Peter T. Daniels wrote in message <398F55...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Musca Volitans wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >|Madonna the greatest composer, Bay Watch is better than
>> >|Shakespeare, Keane better than Raphael. Blah blah blah.
>>
>> I will have you know I am a confirmed prig and even _I_ know
>> that Baywatch is better than Shakespeare. Must be the
>
>At least you know how it's spelled.
It? Spelt? What is your point? More to the point, what is your
pint?
>
>> >You would suggest that massive federal spending on music (of
>> >some style) will make people happier? Or then again, if they
>> >attempt to spend on something they have defined as "Classical"
>> >it will end up making you happier?
>>
>> Of course, just look at the exaltation that the feds have produced
>> in the plastic arts. Or are you such an anachronism that you
>> don't see the esthetics of a urine-soaked crucifix or the Virgin
>> spattered with elephant dung? Funny how it's only Christianity
>> that the dispensers of the federal largesse dare mock.
>
>The crucifix in Serrano's "Piss Christ" is not "urine-soaked"; the
>artwork consists of a photograph of a crucifix in a yellowish haze, and
>the caption to the photograph asserts that it is immersed in urine. It
>is one of a long series of photographs involving iconic objects and
>natural fluids.
You are far too subtle for me. Dear Lord, why was I behind the door
when you doled out such perspicacity?
>
>The painting of the BVM that was exhibited at the Brooklyn Museum last
>season involved no "splatter"ing whatsoever, and no Federal funds were
>involved in its exhibition. The scandals involved were (a) that the
>Saatchi persons contrived a _scandale_ that would achieve elevation of
>the market value of their property (the artworks on display) and (b)
>that the Mayor of New York City condemned, without seeing it, the
>painting in question, prompting (c) religious zealots to do the same,
>and to vandalize it, without understanding the work in the the context
>of the artist's career.
Oh well then. That certainly explains everything. Excuse me a moment
while I rise from the floor, having been bowled over by the cogency of your
argument. But since you like it, I would not deny you your gratification.
But not with public money.
But you snipped my reference to a baton for a babbit. The mirror must
have cracked as you gazed into it, Mr. Peter T. Daniels.
>> >
>> >Is she a famous writer?
>>
>> No, she is perhaps the greatest female composer of the century. Unfair
>> though it is that she has not received the recognition she deserves, it
>> must be said that her sister Lili's story is even more poignant.
>
>No, she was the (French) teacher of just about every American composer
>in the middle half of the 20th century. (I mentioned a few weeks ago
>that no major French composers seem to have come from her atelier, and
>no one disputed that statement.) As for her own compositions, she denied
>they were of any value at all, and tirelessly promoted the few works of
>her late sister Lili.
>
>Can you distinguish female music from male music?
Only by the caesura.
> If not, what does "greatest female composer" mean?
Try to follow me here. This is a boolean and of three inputs.....
It means she was not the worst male non-composer. You could
also try diagramming the sentence.
Are you all right?
Regards,
Musca Volitans
Musca Volitans
Greg Recco wrote in message <8mnn2l$6q3hs$1...@ID-43362.news.cis.dfn.de>...
ROTFL. If music (and its theories) were objective, none of us would be
ranting on about all this. This is one of the funniest threads I have
read
in a long time. Maybe we should all get together and take in a bagpipes
céilidhe!
(Before the objectivists get up on their high horses, let me just say, my
father played the pipes damn well. I hate 'em. :-))
Regards,
Musca Volitans