Plagiarism in "Jesus Christ Superstar"
Michael McKay
Webber's musical "Jesus Christ Superstar", various members of the cast
(myself included) have been noticing that various passages in this
musical are more or less direct rips-off of passages in works of other
composers. For example, "Trial by Pilate" has stuff right out of
Stravinsky's "Firebird" and the cries of "crucify him!" seem to have
been taken out of a work for piano and orchestra my Manuel de Falla
(which would certainly explain why he's asked the chorus to sing 32nd
notes in short melismas at that tempo).
Does anyone know of any other examples...
use...@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca
Michael McKay <mmc...@blues.epas.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> While in rehearsals for a local production of Andrew Lloyd
>Webber's musical "Jesus Christ Superstar", various members of the cast
>(myself included) have been noticing that various passages in this
>musical are more or less direct rips-off of passages in works of other
>composers.
[snip]
I can't offer any other concrete examples, but Andrew Lloyd Webber never
impressed me as a highly creative composer. IMHO, _Evita_ is his best
work musically and it preciously short of unique musical ideas. All his
'clever' meter changes sound so contrived it is embarassing; he does his
best by trying to write a simple little melody and nothing more. It would
not suprise me in the least to hear of more lifts from greater composers.
I have several friends in the Toronto production of _Phantom_ and to
a person consider the gig 'theatrical and musical purgatory'.
Ross
Varda Ullman Novick
: While in rehearsals for a local production of Andrew Lloyd
"I don't know how to love him" = 2nd movt., Mendelssohn violin concerto.
--
Varda Ullman Novick
vuno...@netcom.com
Roger Lustig
Wait 'til you hear the _Requiem_.
"It's not that Lloyd-Webber's music is so bad; it's that his memory is so good." --Michael Feingold
Roger
Elizabeth Jane Beaumont Bissell
I believe that Lloyd Webber's Requiem is worth scrutinising in this
regard - when I was an undergraduate (English), another undergraduate
(Music) reduced the alleged Requiem to its components parts for me.
Unfortunately this was at a party, and I cannot remember the identity of
my informant.... Borrowings from Faure were certainly mentioned.
I have also been told that Lloyd Webber has been
rather light-fingered with nineteen-twenties popular songs, but am too
ignorant, like most people, probably, to spot the - er - debts.
Liz B. B.
Michael Scott
: While in rehearsals for a local production of Andrew Lloyd
It wouldn't surprise me if these were conscious rip-offs. I've always been
mystified by the rise of Lloyd Webber--I've always considered him to be a half-
baked composer riding on the coattails of talented lyricists, like Tim Rice.
-- Mike
Deryk Barker
: While in rehearsals for a local production of Andrew Lloyd
How about the similarity of "I don't know how to love him" and the
slow movement of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto? Or the main 'theme';
of the Requiem which bears an astonishing similarity to the germinal
thematic cell of Mahler's 8th. ('Infirma' to be precise), the the
famous descending chromatic "Phantom's Theme", which sounds to these
ears suspiciously akin to a passge from the opening movement of RVW's
A London Symphony.
--
Deryk.
=================================================================
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Without music, life |
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada | would be a mistake |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | |
|phone: +1 604 370 4452 | (Friedrich Nietzsche).|
=================================================================
I. Neill Reid
musical review (revue?) duo a la Flanders and Swann - entitled
`Somebody else'.
One line should suffice
`You, too, can write a great West-End score -
Steal it from somebody else'
also
`Open up your mind
and let your fantasies unwind
and if Puccini's Fanciulla sounds the same.....
Better that than rip off La Boheme'
They've performed at the Edinburgh Fringe for the last 10 years (and
at various other places in between - Classical Recording Company, CRC411-4
(They do a great Norwegian song too....)
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
Ron Nadel
>It wouldn't surprise me if these were conscious rip-offs. I've always been
>mystified by the rise of Lloyd Webber--I've always considered him to be a half-
>baked composer riding on the coattails of talented lyricists, like Tim Rice.
Plagiarism probably does not account for his popularity so much. Besides
examples of plagiarism in classical music are legion. Shoot, there's
absolutely no mystery about it. Like Ross Perot says "It's simple!"
Lloyd-Weber is most popular with the popular music crowd. His melodies are
simple and appeal easily. Perhaps he is the opposite of Richard Wager. I
think it was George Bernard Shaw who said "Wagner's music is not as bad as it
sounds". Perhaps we can say "LLoyd-Weber's music is not as good as it sounds".
But talking about plagiarism:
Take the opening of Mahler's 3rd symphony. It is the same melody from the 4th
mvmt of Brahms 1st symphony. Or take the melody of the finale in Schubert's
9th symphony, clearly related to Beethoven's 9th ode to joy. And what is
Beethoven's 5th fate-wrapping doing in one of de Falla's ballets?
I'll be we can list a ton of interesting musical rip-off (or shall we say
"references"?).
How about it? What musical references do any of you out there care to share?
Ron
Art Eschenlauer
: While in rehearsals for a local production of Andrew Lloyd
: Webber's musical "Jesus Christ Superstar", various members of the cast
: (myself included) have been noticing that various passages in this
: musical are more or less direct rips-off of passages in works of other
In JS Bach's time, it was considered fair play to quote someone else without
acknowlegement (plagiarize) SO LONG AS YOU WERE MAKING GOOD MUSIC IN THE
PROCESS OF DOING SO. I have no problems with Jesus Christ Superstar as a
version of the Passion Play accessible to the modern "youth." (Youth of the
late sixties/early seventies, which I was.) I think that there is a lot of
unacknowleged quotation that goes on out there, and if I get to hear good
music as a result, so much the better. Do you have any idea how much quotation
of Dido's Lament (Monteverdi, I guess) has gone on through the centuries?
Speaking from the point of view of the consumer, I like the music producer
to be free to draw from many sources, particularly public domain ones.
On the other hand, it would THRILL me to have a reference list for the ideas
that go into pieces; that way I'd know where to look up the ideas in original
form and enjoy them too. Some day, perhaps ...
--
esc...@molbio.cbs.umn.edu (Art Eschenlauer, U of M Agronomy & Plant Genetics)
"Let go and let God!" - Klingon proverb ... NOT!
Jeremy Smith
|> Michael McKay (mmc...@blues.epas.utoronto.ca) wrote:
|>
deleted stuff...
|> : composers. For example, "Trial by Pilate" has stuff right out of
|> : Stravinsky's "Firebird" and the cries of "crucify him!" seem to have
|> : been taken out of a work for piano and orchestra my Manuel de Falla
|> : (which would certainly explain why he's asked the chorus to sing 32nd
|> : notes in short melismas at that tempo).
|> : Does anyone know of any other examples...
|>
|> How about the similarity of "I don't know how to love him" and the
|> slow movement of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto? Or the main 'theme';
|> of the Requiem which bears an astonishing similarity to the germinal
|> thematic cell of Mahler's 8th. ('Infirma' to be precise), the the
|> famous descending chromatic "Phantom's Theme", which sounds to these
|> ears suspiciously akin to a passge from the opening movement of RVW's
|> A London Symphony.
I would like to make two points:
1) I am not familiar with the de Falla and Vaughn Williams pieces mentioned
above, but the other examples seem weak to me. Perhaps Lloyd-Weber(sp?) uses some
orchestration ideas from Stravinsky, but I see no important thematic similarities
between the "Trial by Pilate" and "Firebird." Same thing for "I don't know how to love him"
and Mendelssohn. I just don't hear any similarities beyond motif fragments. And if
the only similarities are motif fragments, I don't see why anybody should care. The
thematic development is really what gives a piece its identity (roughly). If a fragment
of Elgar's ``Enigma'' theme can be found in a piece by Stanford, who cares? What Elgar
did with the theme is what makes the piece good.
2) Secondly, even if Lloyd-Weber did ``lift'' themes from these pieces, put them
in a different context, and re-arranged them, and people *enjoy* the results, what's
wrong with that? Isn't there a talent in that? Just as long as he doesn't claim to
do be more than he is, I'm all for it.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Ryan M. Hare
: But talking about plagiarism:
: Take the opening of Mahler's 3rd symphony. It is the same melody from the 4th
: mvmt of Brahms 1st symphony.
These melodies are strikingly similar, but they are different enough and
the sound worlds of the two composers different enough that I think the
label "the same melody" is inappropriate. The melodies appear in
radically different situations, as well, something not true of
Lloyd-Webber, where the stolen or borrowed music is used with the same
intent as the original source.
Ryan Hare
rh...@scs.unr.edu
Ryan M. Hare
: 1) I am not familiar with the de Falla and Vaughn Williams pieces mentioned
: above, but the other examples seem weak to me. Perhaps Lloyd-Weber(sp?) uses some
: orchestration ideas from Stravinsky, but I see no important thematic similarities
: between the "Trial by Pilate" and "Firebird." Same thing for "I don't know how to love him"
: and Mendelssohn. I just don't hear any similarities beyond motif fragments. And if
: the only similarities are motif fragments, I don't see why anybody should care. The
: thematic development is really what gives a piece its identity (roughly). If a fragment
: of Elgar's ``Enigma'' theme can be found in a piece by Stanford, who cares? What Elgar
: did with the theme is what makes the piece good.
: 2) Secondly, even if Lloyd-Weber did ``lift'' themes from these pieces, put them
: in a different context, and re-arranged them, and people *enjoy* the results, what's
: wrong with that? Isn't there a talent in that? Just as long as he doesn't claim to
: do be more than he is, I'm all for it.
: Cheers,
: Jeremy
Jeremy, in general a couple of reminiscences in what is purportedly an
original work is not necessarily a bad thing. (I think the very striking
similarity of the main theme in Strauss's Eine Alpensinfonie to the earlier
second movement of Bruch's Violin Concerto crosses the line of
acceptability.) However, there *is* a problem when a supposedly
original piece is badly riddled with ideas, themes, motives, etc. from
other works, and especially when the material that *is* original is of
extremely marginal value.
I am not including in this pieces that are deliberately created from
scraps of other pieces, as in a collage, such as the third movement of
Berio's Sinfonia or Zimmermann's "Music for the Banquets of King Ubu."
In general, I don't care for such collage pieces, although I like those
two pieces I just mentioned, as well as Foss's Baroque Variations.
Ryan Hare
rh...@scs.unr.edu
Roger Lustig
>In article <1994Nov21.2...@news.wrc.xerox.com> scott@johngalt (Michael Scott) writes:
>
>
>>It wouldn't surprise me if these were conscious rip-offs. I've always been
>>mystified by the rise of Lloyd Webber--I've always considered him to be a half-
>>baked composer riding on the coattails of talented lyricists, like Tim Rice.
>
>Plagiarism probably does not account for his popularity so much. Besides
Nobody said it did. However, he does have a habit of composing things
that sound like famous pieces of the past.
>examples of plagiarism in classical music are legion.
I think you've changed the definition of "plagiarism."
>Shoot, there's
>absolutely no mystery about it. Like Ross Perot says "It's simple!"
No, it's not. Intentionality has much to do with whether something
is plagiarism.
>Lloyd-Weber is most popular with the popular music crowd. His melodies are
>simple and appeal easily. Perhaps he is the opposite of Richard Wager. I
Many of Wagner's melodies are like that too. Ride of the Valkyries?
Song to the Evening Star? Prize Song?
>think it was George Bernard Shaw who said "Wagner's music is not as bad as it
>sounds".
Shaw, a Wagner freak from the git-go, would never have said that, even
to quote--or plagiarize--Mark Twain.
>Perhaps we can say "LLoyd-Weber's music is not as good as it sounds".
Which would be fairly meaningless, because "sounds good" is the only
standard we have for calling music good.
>But talking about plagiarism:
>Take the opening of Mahler's 3rd symphony. It is the same melody from the 4th
>mvmt of Brahms 1st symphony.
It is not. They have a rhytm in common for a while, but the melodies
are different. (One of them is in minor, for starters.)
>Or take the melody of the finale in Schubert's
>9th symphony, clearly related to Beethoven's 9th ode to joy.
"Relation" is not the same as stealing; besides, what relation do
you hear? The Brahms melody you mention actually *quotes* the
Ninth's Ode to Joy theme (a bit from the midddle).
In these cases, however, there is a clear case to be made for these
things being *references*. What reference to Mendelssohn did ALW
intend with the JCS song? Why? What might it mean?
>And what is
>Beethoven's 5th fate-wrapping doing in one of de Falla's ballets?
Referring to fate, or to Beethoven! You're *supposed* to make the
connection. ALW doesn't seem to intend any of that.
>I'll be we can list a ton of interesting musical rip-off (or shall we say
>"references"?).
Let's not say "rip-off" unless we mean it.
>How about it? What musical references do any of you out there care to share?
Please--not another list game...
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In JS Bach's time, it was considered fair play to quote someone else without
>acknowlegement (plagiarize) SO LONG AS YOU WERE MAKING GOOD MUSIC IN THE
>PROCESS OF DOING SO. I have no problems with Jesus Christ Superstar as a
>version of the Passion Play accessible to the modern "youth." (Youth of the
>late sixties/early seventies, which I was.) I think that there is a lot of
>unacknowleged quotation that goes on out there, and if I get to hear good
>music as a result, so much the better. Do you have any idea how much quotation
>of Dido's Lament (Monteverdi, I guess) has gone on through the centuries?
Purcell, and hardly any. Who writes in 5-measure phrases to begin with?
Monteverdi's _Lamento d'Arianna_ doesn't get quoted all that much
either; of course, if you mean descending chromatic fourths, they're
a musical commonplace, and their source as a musical figure implying
lament is hard to determine.
>Speaking from the point of view of the consumer, I like the music producer
>to be free to draw from many sources, particularly public domain ones.
And yet some of us want credit to be given where credit is due.
Remember: ALW isn't quoting these things. He's using them and *not*
intending any reference. Even the "lament" figure refers directly
to all the music of the past that used it, and expects the audience
to be familiar with it.
>On the other hand, it would THRILL me to have a reference list for the ideas
>that go into pieces; that way I'd know where to look up the ideas in original
>form and enjoy them too. Some day, perhaps ...
Don't ask ALW...
Roger
M. Connelly
music in one of his musicals......he won't say which piece, or what he
took it from.
Mike
Ryan M. Hare
: In article <NADEL.285...@litc.lockheed.com> NA...@litc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel) writes:
: >Perhaps we can say "LLoyd-Weber's music is not as good as it sounds".
: Which would be fairly meaningless, because "sounds good" is the only
: standard we have for calling music good.
Roger! Heavens! Such a Ted Floyd-ism!
mabe...@telerama.lm.com
> I'll be we can list a ton of interesting musical rip-off (or shall we say
> "references"?).
> How about it? What musical references do any of you out there care to share?
OK. Beethoven's "fate" motive is not original with him. He got it from
Mehul's G minor symphony.
The second theme of Schubert 1st is very close to B's Prometheus theme.
Also, in Schubert's 2nd (first mvt.) there is a phrase straight out of
the finale of Beethoven's Fifth (where the piccolo has the ascending
scales in the coda.
If you listen closely to the finale of the Chausson Symphony in B flat,
you can hear the trombones intoning the last movement of Dvorak's New
World. (Wise conductors underplay it, burying it in the texture.)
I don't believe that any of these incidents could be called "plagiarism"
as such. I just think the composers heard the works in concert, and the
above examples surfaced in the heat of creation.
Huayong YANG
pieces that were supposedly ripped off by ALW, I cannot say anything on
that. However, if a composer can convert something not-so-popular to
something popular and good, that is perfectly fine with me. As a
listerner, I am not concerned if what I am listerning is original or
not. If it sounds bad, its originality doesn't help. If the transcribed
version sounds good or even better than the orginal, I would be very
happy. That's why I like ALW's songs.
Perhaps by high moral standard, ALW should have said "this melody comes
from so-and-so" _if_ he consciously made it into his song. But how can
one tell?
The point is, that "plagiarism" can make (big) money says something
about itself -- clearly it does something that the original piece
didn't (or cannot).
By the way, my favorite song in JCSS is "Any Dream Will Do". Is it a
rip-off of some classical piece? :-)
Huayong
Gerard Stocker
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that ther's a bit of Strauss'
"Beim Schlffengehen" (from 4 Last Songs) in that Jesus Christ/sacrificed bit.
OTOH, it seems a little much to expect Webber to have actually listened
to that sort of music. He might have accidentally learned something :).
Gerard Stocker
M. Ross Davis
> "Beim Schlffengehen" (from 4 Last Songs) in that Jesus Christ/sacrificed bit.
> OTOH, it seems a little much to expect Webber to have actually listened
> to that sort of music. He might have accidentally learned something :).
No, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to accuse him of ripping-off things
either...except that the music he writes now is just plain bad, IMHO.
Other than ALW, there have been several respectful composers that have
'borrowed' music from their successors...and not all to credit.
--
Matthew Ross Davis Phone: 703 231 5799 | Bass-Baritone, Graduate Servant
Fax: 703 231 5034 | Department of Music
Internet: ross....@vt.edu | Virginia Tech
http://www.music.vt.edu/ | Blacksburg, VA 24061-0240, USA
VIVA L'OPERA!
Roger Lustig
Ellington, actually. And it's the *opposite* of Floyd; he, after all,
insisted that there was something objective out there beyond how the
music sounds to individuals. If I say "Rossini sounds good, and therefore
is good," this has no effect on the Floyd system, which insists that
Rossini is objectively bad.
(And after listening to Jellinek's show tonight, I pity Teddyboy more
than ever...)
Roger
Ryan M. Hare
: Roger
Well, O.k. Nevertheless, something about the "'sounds good' is the only
standard we have for calling music good" bothers me, not that I have any
intention of embarking on a neo-Floyd "I know the objective criteria"
idea, nor even that I feel there is any strictly-speaking objective
measure to a music's greatness. However, "sounds good" to me is too
limiting, or something. The words don't convey the wide range of meaning
music can have, which I feel is in many ways beyond "sounds good." At the
moment, however, I'm not at all confident of being able to articulate
what I mean. Is an appreciation of a music's structure really directly
related to how good it sounds? What about the appreciation of melodic or
motivic development? I feel that these things are an important aspect of
considering the merit of a piece of music. Of course the standards (if
there are any) are arbitrary and many people don't give a rip about such
things. I'm just saying that I find the architecture of a piece to be an
important aspect of its expressivity (on no, more vague terms!) and
"meaning." And, it seems to me, this is beyond the simplicity of "sounds
good."
Is it absolutely certain that music that sounds "bad" can't be
nevertheless good music (good art, whatever)? Suppose the purpose of a
piece is to shock, to startle, to convey pain and destruction, and has no
intent on producing aurally pleasing sounds (I am thinking of Luigi
Russolo and his _The Art of Noises_, though I'm not at all certain of
what he meant to "express," and against my argument I think he wanted to
find beauty in noise). But I could imagine music that was intended to be
disturbing in a parallel way to the sorts of disturbing paintings or
photographs (for example, the painting of Saturn eating his children by
Goya) that are quite familiar, and recognized as art. Suppose the music is
not meant to please, or to "sound good." Would it therefore not be "good"
music? If the so-called plastic arts can produce works that are
deliberately not esthetically pleasing, can't music do this as well?
I would have a difficult time saying that painting by Goya I just
mentioned was "beautiful," or that it looked "good." I find the painting
to be very disturbing, but also compelling, somehow. But certainly not
"good" in any sense of the word "good" that I recognize.
I have great difficulty with any idea that assumes art must be "beautiful."
This post turned out to be sort of wordy. I apologize.
Ryan Hare
rh...@scs.unr.edu
Kurt Olsen
:] says that a composer is the sum total of his/her listening experience. The :] comment made before that is o.k. to quote another piece so long as what you
:] add makes a good piece is all good and well, but what determines whether the
:] result is a good piece? I happen to enjoy <BOTH> ALW and Steven Sondheim,
:] which seems to be almost heresy to the respective fan clubs. BTW ever notice :] that the 'qui tollis' line in Pie Jesu reminds one of 'Vesti la giubba' and :] that the beginning of the Requiem is retrograde of the opening of the
:] 'Dies Irae' of the Britten War Requiem?
--
"I'm writing 'Das Lied von der Erde', and she only wants to make love!!"
Tom Lehrer
Elizabeth Jane Beaumont Bissell
On Wed, 23 Nov 1994, Roger Lustig wrote:
> >Perhaps we can say "LLoyd-Weber's music is not as good as it sounds".
>
> Which would be fairly meaningless, because "sounds good" is the only
> standard we have for calling music good.
It is probably argumentative of me to isolate this in a post which I
*think* (though I have lost track of the Lloyd-Webber debate a bit) I
mostly agree with. But there is a considerable difference between the
sense of 'good' in 'sounds good' and the sense of 'good' in 'good
music'. I do not believe that objective criteria apply (the
elitism/relativism question is clumsy but unavoidable), but there are
at least more, and more complex criteria involved when someone says a
piece of music is 'good' than when s/he says that it 'sounds good'.
There is a difference between a value judgment and a judgment of taste
(for example).
I shall be trite: Lloyd Webber sounds good in the same way that
monosodium glutamate tastes good. :)
Liz B. B.
Roger Lustig
>On Wed, 23 Nov 1994, Roger Lustig wrote:
>> >Perhaps we can say "LLoyd-Weber's music is not as good as it sounds".
>> Which would be fairly meaningless, because "sounds good" is the only
>> standard we have for calling music good.
>It is probably argumentative of me to isolate this in a post which I
>*think* (though I have lost track of the Lloyd-Webber debate a bit) I
>mostly agree with. But there is a considerable difference between the
>sense of 'good' in 'sounds good' and the sense of 'good' in 'good
>music'.
Not in the final analysis, imho. "Good music" is what sounds good to
certain people--people who may have some special qualifications, e.g.,
professional status or respected taste.
>I do not believe that objective criteria apply (the
>elitism/relativism question is clumsy but unavoidable), but there are
>at least more, and more complex criteria involved when someone says a
>piece of music is 'good' than when s/he says that it 'sounds good'.
I think they all boil down to its sounding good to *someone*. And
what good-sounding piece isn't good music?
>There is a difference between a value judgment and a judgment of taste
>(for example).
What *is* the difference, ultimately? Let's keep this limited to music,
of course.
> I shall be trite: Lloyd Webber sounds good in the same way that
>monosodium glutamate tastes good. :)
Not to me. ALW reminds me of mediocre Chinese meals I've had before...8-)
"If it sounds good, it *is* good."
-- Edward Kennedy "Duke" Ellington
Roger (and the Duke, *he* sounded good...)
Roger Lustig
>Roger Lustig (ro...@faust.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <3b3r4m$p...@silver.scs.unr.edu> rh...@scs.unr.edu (Ryan M. Hare) writes:
>: >Roger Lustig (ro...@faust.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
>: >: In article <NADEL.285...@litc.lockheed.com> NA...@litc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel) writes:
>: >: >Perhaps we can say "LLoyd-Weber's music is not as good as it sounds".
>: >: Which would be fairly meaningless, because "sounds good" is the only
>: >: standard we have for calling music good.
>: >Roger! Heavens! Such a Ted Floyd-ism!
>: Ellington, actually. And it's the *opposite* of Floyd; he, after all,
>: insisted that there was something objective out there beyond how the
>: music sounds to individuals. If I say "Rossini sounds good, and therefore
>: is good," this has no effect on the Floyd system, which insists that
>: Rossini is objectively bad.
>: (And after listening to Jellinek's show tonight, I pity Teddyboy more
>: than ever...)
>Well, O.k. Nevertheless, something about the "'sounds good' is the only
>standard we have for calling music good" bothers me, not that I have any
>intention of embarking on a neo-Floyd "I know the objective criteria"
>idea, nor even that I feel there is any strictly-speaking objective
>measure to a music's greatness. However, "sounds good" to me is too
>limiting, or something. The words don't convey the wide range of meaning
>music can have, which I feel is in many ways beyond "sounds good." At the
Don't they all come down to that at the end of the day? Music can move one
in a hundred different ways, bot how likely is it to do that if it doesn't
sound good in some sense of "good"?
>moment, however, I'm not at all confident of being able to articulate
>what I mean. Is an appreciation of a music's structure really directly
>related to how good it sounds?
If not, why would we ever care? Structure, to me, is *part* of how
it sounds. I'm using "sounds" more widely than some--I don't mean
orchestration, pure sonority, whatever; but rather, the whole play
of sound (there he goes again, folks!)--but what aspects of music
that *aren't* sounding (aside from intellectual and notational items,
all of which are secondary) do we use as keys to the quality of a
piece?
>What about the appreciation of melodic or motivic development?
Sounds like sounds to me. I don't really care if I can see them on
the page; if that were the case, _Genoveva_ would be the greatest
opera of the 19thC.
>I feel that these things are an important aspect of
>considering the merit of a piece of music. Of course the standards (if
>there are any) are arbitrary and many people don't give a rip about such
>things. I'm just saying that I find the architecture of a piece to be an
>important aspect of its expressivity (on no, more vague terms!) and
>"meaning." And, it seems to me, this is beyond the simplicity of "sounds
>good."
Doesn't music with good architecture sound *better* than other music?
I think so. (Mind you, I haven't been limiting the meaning of "sounds"
as you have; but once we agree on that, we're in the clear.)
>Is it absolutely certain that music that sounds "bad" can't be
>nevertheless good music (good art, whatever)? Suppose the purpose of a
>piece is to shock, to startle, to convey pain and destruction, and has no
>intent on producing aurally pleasing sounds (I am thinking of Luigi
>Russolo and his _The Art of Noises_, though I'm not at all certain of
>what he meant to "express," and against my argument I think he wanted to
>find beauty in noise). But I could imagine music that was intended to be
>disturbing in a parallel way to the sorts of disturbing paintings or
>photographs (for example, the painting of Saturn eating his children by
>Goya) that are quite familiar, and recognized as art. Suppose the music is
>not meant to please, or to "sound good." Would it therefore not be "good"
>music?
Now we're working over the meaning of "good." Suffice it to say that
for most musical purposes, such music is *not* good, in the sense of
"appropriate/pleasing/worthwhile/interesting." In certain situations,
it can be fascinating, and the intellectual and emotional experience of
hearing it can be perceived as a good. However, to be good or worthwhile
*as music*, it must still have some sonorous (or audible, in some sense)
qualities that make us want to consider it *as music*. I'm not excluding
Russolo, Cage, Stockhausen, or anyone else; I think "sounds good" can be
taken in a very free sense, but I think it's necessary.
(Note that I have here gone beyond Ellington, who said,
"If it sounds good, it *is* good."
I'm advocating the converse as well:
If it is good, it sounds good.
That puts a great burden on "sounding," but I think it's warranted.
>If the so-called plastic arts can produce works that are
>deliberately not esthetically pleasing, can't music do this as well?
Do the plastic arts do that? Or do they do so for some higher
esthetic purpose, a purpose that is fulfilled by confounding the
conventional evaluation?
Unless there's no "point" beyond the lack of pleasing quality,
I don't think the plastic arts can be considered like that. Why
should music?
>I would have a difficult time saying that painting by Goya I just
>mentioned was "beautiful," or that it looked "good." I find the painting
>to be very disturbing, but also compelling, somehow. But certainly not
>"good" in any sense of the word "good" that I recognize.
Goya's use of color, composition, figure, etc. aren't in force the way
they would otherwise be? A painting of the same shocking scene by Joe
Painter would have the same interest, the same effect? There has to be
a sense of "looks good" that accompanies the sense of "hideous subject"
before we call it a good painting.
>I have great difficulty with any idea that assumes art must be "beautiful."
I have great difficulty with any idea that assumes art needn't contain art.
8-) But note that I didn't say "beautiful;" I said "good," and "good" has
sufficient meanings to encompass what I intend.
>This post turned out to be sort of wordy. I apologize.
If it reads good, it is good. ;-)
Roger
Elizabeth Jane Beaumont Bissell
On Sat, 26 Nov 1994, Roger Lustig wrote:
> Not in the final analysis, imho....
>
> I think they all boil down to its sounding good to *someone*....
>
> What *is* the difference, ultimately?
But the final analysis *is* the conflation of things that are different
for the sake of economy. We use 'good' to describe a great many
different qualities; expressions like 'sounding good', 'good music',
and even the kind of 'good taste' which might make you wince slightly
(what my mother calls (quoting?) 'ghastly good taste') overlap quite largely.
I just mean that all the senses of 'good', supposing that we can count them,
are not equally relevent in different contexts. I think that Shostakovich's
10th quartet is 'good', and I quite frequently want to listen to it, but to
say that it 'sounds good' would be inappropriate. The emotional effect isn't
like that. (I am being 'impressionistic' because I am too ignorant to talk
about dissonance properly!) Equally, because I am a bit of a snob, I will
listen to and enjoy something that I nevertheless do not think is good from
time to time (no examples for fear of flames....). Even snobbery is part of
language.
But, since I agreed with you about the music, this is probably simply
a post for some other group, probably about critical theory, where I would
also probably be in trouble. :)
Liz B. B.
M. Ross Davis
<Pine.SUN.3.90.941126...@tucson.princeton.edu>, Elizabeth
Jane Beaumont Bissell <ebea...@tucson.princeton.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 1994, Roger Lustig wrote:
>
> > Not in the final analysis, imho....
> >
> > I think they all boil down to its sounding good to *someone*....
> >
> > What *is* the difference, ultimately?
>
> But, since I agreed with you about the music, this is probably simply
> a post for some other group, probably about critical theory, where I would
> also probably be in trouble. :)
Ah ha! And so Leonard Meyer, the subject of my advanced analysis class
this semester, brightens the scene. Critical Analysis claims it can be
incorporated into any stylistic analytical system, and therefore make a
'judgement' on the quality and balance of a piece...indeed, the critique
of a certain piece of music in relation and conjunction with it's
particular style of composition.
It has been said many times that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I
believe that when you are judging a piece of music to be 'good' or not,
you must first define the parameters of your judgement. In other words:
"according to the theory of Leonard Meyer, this piece has poor balance
within it's style" or "judging the style in which the piece is writen, it
has very bad voice-leading" or even "man, this just doesn't groove".
So, you have to define what you expect of a piece of music before you can
analyze it. And in the spirit of what Dr. Meyer believes, any one analysis
of a piece is rarely exhaustive, and never definitive.
Paul Homchick
> I have great difficulty with any idea that assumes art needn't contain art.
This is a great step forward! Perhaps there is a basis whereby we can
all get along together afterall! Of course, it doesn't solve all our
problems, but it seems to be a statement of principle that steps away
from the "If the artist calls it art, it is art" school. Bravo, I say.
My definition of art this morning, is that if Peter Schickele says it
is art, then it *is* art. Any comments ;-) ?
--
Paul Homchick :UUCP dsinc!cgh!paul
Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc. : pitt!amanue!-/
1111 West DeKalb Pike, Suite 101 :Internet pa...@cgh.com
Wayne, PA 19087-2179 :Sometimes/Internet phom...@wpo.hcc.com
Margaret Mikulska
> [Roger:]
>: >: Which would be fairly meaningless, because "sounds good" is the only
>: >: standard we have for calling music good.
>
>
>[deleted for brevity only]
>
>I have great difficulty with any idea that assumes art must be "beautiful."
I think that's the problem: It seems to me that you confuse "sounds
good" with "has a pleasant sound".
-Margaret
Wei Bin
>ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) wrote:
>> I have great difficulty with any idea that assumes art needn't contain art.
>This is a great step forward! Perhaps there is a basis whereby we can
>all get along together afterall! Of course, it doesn't solve all our
>problems, but it seems to be a statement of principle that steps away
>from the "If the artist calls it art, it is art" school. Bravo, I say.
>My definition of art this morning, is that if Peter Schickele says it
>is art, then it *is* art. Any comments ;-) ?
Mathimatically speaking, art is a set, not an element. It is always
disputable to say which one piece is art or not, but art as a set need
not to be defined, it is just there, and everyone know what it is.
So my definition tomorrow morning is that art is a word. :)
Bin
Bill Long
> >Lloyd-Weber is most popular with the popular music crowd. His melodies are
> >simple and appeal easily. Perhaps he is the opposite of Richard Wager. I
How timely. Last weekend the Madison Opera staged a production of Brigadoon. Now I
know where part of the music in Phantom came from. :)
Cheers,
Bill Long
p.s. The tenor who sang the role of Charlie, David Gagnon, was the clear star of the
production. The applause after the "Bonnie Jean" number almost stopped the show.
According to the program, he is finishing his Masters degree in December. I expect
(and hope) we will hear more from him in the future.
Peter Hoogenboom
lofty composers whose company he keeps by borrowing from himself. The
score of Joseph and the Amazing... has several ideas that went almost
directly into JCS. The diminished-7th-chord melody which opens the High
Priests' first scene (good Caiaphas, the council waits...), and the
overture, is there in 5/8 somwhere. The rhythm of the 5/8 (or 5/4?)
fanfare at Pilate's (later sung by him) occurs in a Joseph fanfare (qith
q=quarter note and ee=two eighth notes, q ee q q q), and the pitch
material is also from JCS, but from a different place.
This is all rather sketchy in my memory from a few weeks I spent with the
vocal score of Joseph several years ago, as I was about to be musical
director of a production which fell through. At the time, I had already
learned JCS rather well, since I owned the record for years and had been
Caiaphas in it the year before.
I see the similarlty between I dunno how to love him and the Mendelssohn,
but my mind doesn't connect them. The difference between the scale
("don't know how to") and the leaps in the corresponding spot in the
Mendelssohn saves me from this exceedingly unfortunate association!
--
Peter Hoogenboom phoo...@wlu.edu
Department of Music, DuPont 208 hoogen...@fs.sciences.wlu.edu
Washington and Lee University phoog...@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Lexington, VA 24450 (703) 463-8697
John E. Harrington
tonal compositions is that it is nearly impossible to write originally in a
tonal idiom in these latter days. Everything you come up with "sounds vaguely like...."
regards,
John
(set flamethrowers on stun)
--
*******************************************************************************
* DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is *
* personal opinion, not an official statement of Biosym Technologies, Inc. *
*******************************************************************************
Nicholas Goldwyn
accident:
The ending of Bernstein's West Side Story is the Liebestod
melody from Wagner's Tristan und Isolde!
Nicholas Goldwyn
nich...@goldnet.demon.co.uk
Mark Gresham
>(Note that I have here gone beyond Ellington, who said,
> "If it sounds good, it *is* good."
>I'm advocating the converse as well:
> If it is good, it sounds good.
>That puts a great burden on "sounding," but I think it's warranted.
[...]
>>I have great difficulty with any idea that assumes art must be "beautiful."
>I have great difficulty with any idea that assumes art needn't contain art.
>8-) But note that I didn't say "beautiful;" I said "good," and "good" has
>sufficient meanings to encompass what I intend.
I think that Cage suggested that art needn't be Art, so-to-speak. We can
have our aesthetic resposes fulfilled from whatever we happen to come
upon. Decades later, we've "been there, done that" and are re-asking the
question, "so what is Art?"; do we want to differentiate a special kind
of creativity/created object from whatever is only "found?." Having been
through the furnace, perhaps so (still keeping the joy of "found"
experiences).
Ellington's comment (and its flip side) are about as concise as we'll
be able to get on issues of "goodness" and music, though it leaves the
question of "goodness" much up in the air for discussion and paradox
probing. I think Ellington decided discussing the meta-question wasn't
worth the time it took away from *making* music--which, after all, was
the point in the long run. (See B.B. King's statements about "technique.")
Cheers,
Mark Gresham
mgre...@america.net
Ryan M. Hare
: In article <3b6ne6$e...@silver.scs.unr.edu> rh...@scs.unr.edu (Ryan M. Hare)
writes:
: >Roger Lustig (ro...@faust.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
: >: In article <3b3r4m$p...@silver.scs.unr.edu> rh...@scs.unr.edu (Ryan M.
Hare) writes:
: >Well, O.k. Nevertheless, something about the "'sounds good' is the only
O.k. It does seem that we both agree that ideas such as a composer's
craft, e.g., structure, development, etc., are reasonably important
aspects of the appreciation (and vulue judgement) of music. I have been
limiting the meaning of "sounds," as you say. The reason I do this is
because I feel that "sounds good" doesn't cover enough of what is in the
art of music, unless one specifically stretches the meaning (or does not
impose limits on it) as you have. You have many good points, and I
basically agree. However, many people don't have the view that you have,
that good architecture makes music "sound" better. An example of this is
a woman I once knew, who, while working on a master's degree in
composition, extensively studied a work of Anton Webern, I think the
Symphonie, op.21. Anyway, she said that she quickly developed a considerable
admiration for the score's elegance, for Webern's skills at counterpoint,
balanced lines and color, form, etc. This was apparently in a class.
Then the class listened to a recording, and she said that she was
immediately repulsed; she thought the music sounded horrible
despite her respect and admiration for the music's structure. I disagree,
of course; I think Webern's op.21 is stunningly beautiful. But anyway,
her story is very similar with many people's criticism of much modern
music: it is all structure, all intellect, all mathematics, and it just
doesn't "sound good." It is "eye music." Anyone who knows about these
composers knows this is ridiculous, but it is an attack, to this day, all
the same. Of course, someone enlightened with the wider view of what
sounds good, as I assume you have, has no trouble linking the beauty of
the structure of Webern's music to how good it sounds. Many people do not
do this. Because the very simplicity (usually, IMHO, an admirable thing)
of Ellington's statement is open to a sort of narrow application, and
even abuse, I prefer not to use it. It is not clear that the statement
includes an appreciation of a work's structure, though I heartily agree
that a good structure does make music "sound" better.
Beyond that, I still basically feel that the "sounds good" statement is
inadequate in some ways. I hope that you agree Mozart is a better
composer than Salieri (though Salieri was fine composer and much maligned).
Anyway, I feel that Mozart was better because I think his musical
imagination was more profound, especially in his counterpoint, balance of
form and texture, development, etc. All that architectural stuff. I also
think that Mozart's musical ideas themselves were stronger, of course his
superb use of these ideas (in the architectural sense) makes the music,
IMHO, great. How is Salieri inferior? Does his music *really* not "sound"
as good as Mozart's. Well, if you say, Mozart sounds better than Salieri,
I'll agree. But when I scrutinize why it sounds better, the mere "sound"
part seems to be an inadequate description of all the elements at work
that make it sound better, even if "sounding better" is what it finally
comes down to "at the end of the day."
So, even if "sounds good" is the home result, that very description is
still not satisfactory to me in detailing why I think one piece is better
than other. Beethoven's Fourth Symphony, IMHO, is closer to being
perfectly constructed than Beethoven's Third Symphony, which is something
of a ramshackle in the first movement. Less so in the other movements, of
course. But does it "sound" better? That I'm not comfortable with, though
I do think the Fourth Symphony is a better piece, overall.
: >Is it absolutely certain that music that sounds "bad" can't be
: >nevertheless good music (good art, whatever)? Suppose the purpose of a
: >piece is to shock, to startle, to convey pain and destruction, and has no
: >intent on producing aurally pleasing sounds (I am thinking of Luigi
: >Russolo and his _The Art of Noises_, though I'm not at all certain of
: >what he meant to "express," and against my argument I think he wanted to
: >find beauty in noise). But I could imagine music that was intended to be
: >disturbing in a parallel way to the sorts of disturbing paintings or
: >photographs (for example, the painting of Saturn eating his children by
: >Goya) that are quite familiar, and recognized as art. Suppose the music is
: >not meant to please, or to "sound good." Would it therefore not be "good"
: >music?
: Now we're working over the meaning of "good." Suffice it to say that
: for most musical purposes, such music is *not* good, in the sense of
: "appropriate/pleasing/worthwhile/interesting." In certain situations,
: it can be fascinating, and the intellectual and emotional experience of
: hearing it can be perceived as a good. However, to be good or worthwhile
: *as music*, it must still have some sonorous (or audible, in some sense)
: qualities that make us want to consider it *as music*.
This is quite a can of worms. I'll assume we need not get into it.
: I'm not excluding
: Russolo, Cage, Stockhausen, or anyone else; I think "sounds good" can be
: taken in a very free sense, but I think it's necessary.
The free sense of taking what can "sound good", is essential to its
having any meaning, I think. And that is why I have a problem with using it.
: (Note that I have here gone beyond Ellington, who said,
: "If it sounds good, it *is* good."
: I'm advocating the converse as well:
: If it is good, it sounds good.
: That puts a great burden on "sounding," but I think it's warranted.
: >If the so-called plastic arts can produce works that are
: >deliberately not esthetically pleasing, can't music do this as well?
: Do the plastic arts do that? Or do they do so for some higher
: esthetic purpose, a purpose that is fulfilled by confounding the
: conventional evaluation?
Well, yes, what you say is correct. That stretching of "good" is
precisely my point.
: Unless there's no "point" beyond the lack of pleasing quality,
: I don't think the plastic arts can be considered like that. Why
: should music?
Agreed. Just deliberately being ugly isn't all that interesting.
: >I would have a difficult time saying that painting by Goya I just
: >mentioned was "beautiful," or that it looked "good." I find the painting
: >to be very disturbing, but also compelling, somehow. But certainly not
: >"good" in any sense of the word "good" that I recognize.
: Goya's use of color, composition, figure, etc. aren't in force the way
: they would otherwise be? A painting of the same shocking scene by Joe
: Painter would have the same interest, the same effect? There has to be
: a sense of "looks good" that accompanies the sense of "hideous subject"
: before we call it a good painting.
So, we're onto the relevance of craft to looking "good." I agree that it
is in some ways Goya's craft (which I would certainly call "good") that
makes his paintings of horrifying subjects compelling. There is a
connection, no doubt, and one that can be appreciated. However, the
immediate esthetic effect is not seeing something "good," but something
horrifying. In that sense, it doesn't "look" good.
: >I have great difficulty with any idea that assumes art must be "beautiful."
: I have great difficulty with any idea that assumes art needn't contain art.
: 8-)
I'm glad you included a bright smiley. But you have to realize this idea
that art needn't necessarily contain art intrigues me. I may have to
experiment with this. :-) <--a meek smile
: But note that I didn't say "beautiful;" I said "good," and "good" has
: sufficient meanings to encompass what I intend.
It can, I agree. I don't agree that it does automatically. In the sense
that you have explained, I agree with you. But there are other ways the
words "sounds," "looks," and "good" can be taken. This ambiguity of the
use of those words is what I am not satisfied with.
Ryan Hare
rh...@scs.unr.edu
P.S.
You know, about three or maybe four years ago I had an long argument with
you about something to do with modern music that turned out to be really a
question (and an interesting one) of semantics. I don't remember the
details. You may not remember this, or me either, since I was off the net
for about two years recently.
Anyway, he we go again! :-)
Ryan M. Hare
What I mean is to point out *that* the confusion exists. Your way of taking
"sounds good" is possibly satisfactory to me in some way (or so I
imagine), but that is not necessarily the only it can (and will) be
understood. If you explain what you mean, that is one thing, but your
meaning is not implicit in the words "sounds good." This assumes that I
understand what your meaning is (similar to Roger's usage?).
Ryan Hare
rh...@scs.unr.edu
Glenn Mandelkern
Ron Nadel <NA...@litc.lockheed.com> wrote:
>In article <1994Nov21.2...@news.wrc.xerox.com> scott@johngalt (Michael Scott) writes:
>
>
>>It wouldn't surprise me if these were conscious rip-offs. I've always been
>>mystified by the rise of Lloyd Webber--I've always considered him to be a half-
>>baked composer riding on the coattails of talented lyricists, like Tim Rice.
>
>examples of plagiarism in classical music are legion. Shoot, there's
>absolutely no mystery about it. Like Ross Perot says "It's simple!"
>simple and appeal easily. Perhaps he is the opposite of Richard Wager. I
>sounds". Perhaps we can say "LLoyd-Weber's music is not as good as it sounds".
>
>But talking about plagiarism:
>
>Take the opening of Mahler's 3rd symphony. It is the same melody from the 4th
>mvmt of Brahms 1st symphony. Or take the melody of the finale in Schubert's
>9th symphony, clearly related to Beethoven's 9th ode to joy. And what is
>Beethoven's 5th fate-wrapping doing in one of de Falla's ballets?
>I'll be we can list a ton of interesting musical rip-off (or shall we say
>"references"?).
>
>How about it? What musical references do any of you out there care to share?
>
I quoted the whole article since it was in reading about Wagner and
plagiarism that I remember having seen in a footnote in the music
to Golliwogg's Cake Walk that a measure in the middle (the G-flat
portion), Debussy is poking fun at a passage from Wagner.
(was it from Tristan und Isolde?)
Also in more modern times, there's Billy Joel's "This time is mine",
the chorus lifted from the 2nd movement of Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Glenn Mandelkern Hee, hee, hee, hee!
gma...@megatest.com Questor the Elf lives!
What do you think? Do you think? Do you? You? >-------->