marilyn vos savant column
Greg Presley
in Parade magazine in which Ms. Savant disses modern classical music? If
I understood her reasoning, she was actually using the argument that
popularity determines the artistic merit of a work. One reason I
suppose, that we all consider the comedy writers of "Friends" to be
greater authors than Euripedes. Maybe we should bombard her with letters
telling her to stick with math and logic problems. Greg
Jon Parker
Greg Presley <gpre...@iea.com> wrote in message
news:38AA6BF3...@iea.com...
> Were any of the rmmp readers as annoyed as I was by last Sunday's column
> in Parade magazine in which Ms. Savant disses modern classical music? If
> I understood her reasoning, she was actually using the argument that
> popularity determines the artistic merit of a work
It's sad, but I guess she fits the bill for the 'pop' crowd educating the
'pop' crowd. By her reasoning, Kenny G is the greatest Jazz artist, or
musician in general EVER to have lived. More people know of him than any
classical composer anyway.
--
Jon Parker
Jazz Pianist
Denver
To reply by e-mail, remove the spamblocker
"Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord" -Ephesians 5:19
--
Al Stevens
Greg Presley wrote in message <38AA6BF3...@iea.com>...
>Were any of the rmmp readers as annoyed as I was by last Sunday's column
>in Parade magazine in which Ms. Savant disses modern classical music? If
>I understood her reasoning, she was actually using the argument that
>suppose, that we all consider the comedy writers of "Friends" to be
>greater authors than Euripedes. Maybe we should bombard her with letters
>telling her to stick with math and logic problems. Greg
>
All of which lends new meaning to the phrase, "idiot savant."
J. B. Wood
> Were any of the rmmp readers as annoyed as I was by last Sunday's column
> in Parade magazine in which Ms. Savant disses modern classical music? If
> I understood her reasoning, she was actually using the argument that
> popularity determines the artistic merit of a work. One reason I
> suppose, that we all consider the comedy writers of "Friends" to be
> greater authors than Euripedes. Maybe we should bombard her with letters
> telling her to stick with math and logic problems. Greg
Perhaps in defense of Ms. Savant - what is the definition of artistic
merit and who is qualified to pass judgment? Is it possible that we have
two figures of merit, one for the masses ("I don't know much about music
but I know what I like") and one for the sophisticated/elite? Who is the
target audience for classical, pop, jazz, etc, music anyway?
John Wood (Code 5551) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Keith Owen
Jon Parker wrote in message ...
>
>snip
>
>It's sad, but I guess she fits the bill for the 'pop' crowd educating the
>'pop' crowd. By her reasoning, Kenny G is the greatest Jazz artist, or
>musician in general EVER to have lived. More people know of him than any
>classical composer anyway.
I've never heard of him. Keith.
Jon Parker
I Wrote:
> >It's sad, but I guess she fits the bill for the 'pop' crowd educating the
> >'pop' crowd. By her reasoning, Kenny G is the greatest Jazz artist, or
> >musician in general EVER to have lived. More people know of him than any
> >classical composer anyway.
Then Keith Wrote:
> I've never heard of him.
You're kidding, right? If you aren't, you are the luckiest person alive.
Or did you mean that I was referring to Kenny G as a classical composer? If
so, sorry for the confusion, I meant the smooth jazz artist.
Jon Parker
J. B. Wood <wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message
news:wood-16020...@jbw-mac.itd.nrl.navy.mil...
> Perhaps in defense of Ms. Savant - what is the definition of artistic
> merit and who is qualified to pass judgment? Is it possible that we have
> two figures of merit, one for the masses ("I don't know much about music
> but I know what I like") and one for the sophisticated/elite? Who is the
> target audience for classical, pop, jazz, etc, music anyway?
Wouldn't the merit of the masses be considered 'pop'? I have always viewed
it that way. That is why it is 'pop' music, because it is popular. The art
music is generally more appealing to the art crowd. That would be why every
"Backstreet Boys" show is sold out with 10's of thousands of people and
Chick Corea could pack in 500 in Colorado or the Colorado Symphony would
have a 3/4's full crowd of about 2000 if they played material that was in
the common repertoire. I believe the sophisticated/elite should pass
judgment on artistic merit (because they probably know what they are
listening to) and the masses should pass judgment on the popular styles (and
they do as indicated by how much money the pop artists make.)
A personal example:
My non-musician non art elite friends have always viewed me as being someone
who plays the piano really well, but they probably don't know to what
extent. It earns me a little merit by them. Last week I decided to do a
dance remix of a tune they had deemed popular and played the recording for
them. Instantly I became some sort of super-star among my non-musician
friends, and I am sad to say they probably think I am a better musician
because of the remix. For me, the remix was not hard to do because I had
the right software/hardware and knowledge of music. If my friends only knew
how easy it was to make them a 'pop' song....
Alec Kercheval
She has frequently been wrong and sadly has written an
entire book of mathematical rubbish -- so I can't say I'm
surprised that she is displaying the same uninformed
hubris in other fields.
She has been buried by letters from mathematicians over the
years, so my advice is not to waste any time writing to her
since I don't think she pays much attention to letters
not filled with praise and awe.
Sorry -- she's was a longstanding source of irritation
during my years as math professor....
alec
John Brock
>Were any of the rmmp readers as annoyed as I was by last Sunday's column
>in Parade magazine in which Ms. Savant disses modern classical music? If
>I understood her reasoning, she was actually using the argument that
>popularity determines the artistic merit of a work. One reason I
>suppose, that we all consider the comedy writers of "Friends" to be
>greater authors than Euripedes. Maybe we should bombard her with letters
>telling her to stick with math and logic problems. Greg
I have very little respect for Ms. Savant (The World's Smartest Person
Who Has Never Accomplished Anything Important), but I also don't have
much respect for a great deal of 20th century music, and I think she
has a point.
Let me ask a hypothetical question: can a piece of music have artistic
merit if *nobody* enjoys listing to it? That somehow doesn't seem
right to me. Well what if, say, only 10 hyper-sophisticated composers,
out of all the people in the world, enjoy a particular piece of music.
This little clique may claim that the work has *great* artistic merit,
and that nobody but them is refined enough to appreciate it. Could
this be true? Well logically I suppose it could, but it *still*
doesn't seem right. What use is music that almost no one enjoys?
So popularity *does* matter. That doesn't mean that you measure the
merit of a piece by how many people like it, or that people can't learn
to appreciate music more demanding than what they are used to. But I
do think the artistic merit of any piece of art is ultimately deeply
connected to the reaction that it produces in people. The measure of
man is man, after all.
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Jon Parker
John Brock <jbr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:88fokg$jel$1...@panix.com...
> Let me ask a hypothetical question: can a piece of music have artistic
> merit if *nobody* enjoys listing to it? That somehow doesn't seem
> right to me.
You have a point. Let me throw one at you. There are pieces that I like
and I know people that don't like them but we can both see the same artistic
merit in a piece. Or, I don't like a piece but see the talent involved in
creating the piece and thus the artistic merit it deserves is deemed by me.
I think it can go both ways depending on how you look at it. There are
definitely pieces that I don't like that I also don't see any (or very
little if any) artistic value to.
> Well what if, say, only 10 hyper-sophisticated composers,
> out of all the people in the world, enjoy a particular piece of music.
> This little clique may claim that the work has *great* artistic merit,
> and that nobody but them is refined enough to appreciate it. Could
> this be true? Well logically I suppose it could, but it *still*
> doesn't seem right. What use is music that almost no one enjoys?
To me, this is music written BY the composer FOR the composer. If I wrote a
piece that nobody liked I would be pretty darn sad if I thought it was
something worthwhile and nobody else did.
> So popularity *does* matter. That doesn't mean that you measure the
> merit of a piece by how many people like it, or that people can't learn
> to appreciate music more demanding than what they are used to. But I
> do think the artistic merit of any piece of art is ultimately deeply
> connected to the reaction that it produces in people. The measure of
> man is man, after all.
I agree, and this goes along with a point I have made in other posts
referring to the artistic value of a piece when reviewed by other artists.
Alex Maas
And at least
she has something to say about it in a forum people actually read.
I respect her intelligence greatly. She got the Monty Hall problem right,
despite many, many
PhD mathematicians telling her how wrong she was initially. Most of them
later admitted that
they were in error. I have to admire her ability to think in logic terms
and to come up with answers tto problems that are right, yet completely
counterintuitive.
However, being able think logically does not make one on expert on all or
even
any aspects of human endeavor, and I think Marilyn Vos Savant would freely
tell you that.
In her book The Power of Logical Thinking, many of her conclusions on
economics are
not only counterintuitive, but many economists or most economists have also
found them completely
wrong. The real world is not just a logical puzzle, thank God.
However, I have to agree to her to some extent on her views of classical
music.
Classical music has been losing its audience at a fast rate. I have read
that Tower Records
would eventually stop carrying it, as sales have been so low.
What she says about Beethoven and Mozart makes sense. What she didn't say
was, at that time, classical music was popular music to many. In this day
and age, that isn't true for anyone.
Classical music has an extremely small following today, like it or not.
Popular music has
a huge following.
I strongly believe that the antiquated method of indoctrinating children
with piano lessons based on classical music is a truly terrible idea, when
these children have had little or no exposur eto classical music. What a
great way to get a child to hate piano lessons!!
I believe that the diminishing popularity of classical music has come about
in the
same way as the dimnishing popularity of jazz. As classical music further
stretched
the bounds of tonality, into complete atonality, it was on its way to losing
its audience forever.
(I love classical music, by the way).
Jazz has had a similar fate. As jazz stretched itself in bebop, losing the
melody and basing its improvisations on upper structure harmonies, it lost
its audience. The audience needed a very advance knowledge of music to
follow this. Rock, with its simple harmonies, straight melodies, reinforced
by memorable lyrics, took this audience. Jazz continued onward to Ornette
Coleman and Cecil Taylor. I am still amazed that Coleman and Taylor found
an audience at all.
Chick Corea made a conscious decision in the 70s to make his music accesible
to his audience, instead of stretching it something an audience could not
understand.
But for a modern classical composer to come up with something new that an
audience can still understand, without having to have a PhD in music, he or
she needs perhaps need to move in a way besuides stretching tonality to the
point where no one wants to listen to the music. (Of course, I love toplay
Scriabin, but I know a few that would do anything to try even to turn my
acoustic piano off with many of his etudes.)
A classical composer could, of course, compose in a style that everyone
understands, but
then he wouldn't be doing something new. This is what Rachmaninoff did,
composing pieces in the Romantic style, years after its apex had passed. But
today that composer might write film scores
'instead.
But classical composers could come up with new forms that progress music
forward, but that are
still pleasing to the audience. What Marilyn Vos Savant didn't address is a
composers desire to come up with something that hasn't been done before.
But I think it is truly possible to do this, in a way that please the
audience.
For example, microtonality--definitions of the scale in terms other
than Western ones--can still be pleasing to our ears, yet I don't know how
extensively it has
been tried out in classical music.Certainly it has in popular music, as the
DX7 was capable of this type of alternative scales.
Or symphonies could improvise on well-known set pieces (gasp!). This, of
course, was freely done in Bach's time. This could be an true integration
of jazz and classical music. Or even rock improvisations on classical
themes, in a way using the full resources of a symphony, in a way that
a "Fifth of beethoven" never could.
Or why can not classical pieces be performed that have one rock movement,
one
jazz movement, one romantic movement, and then an atonal movement.
Certainly, Keith Jarrett's piano improvisations in the 70s are one place
that classical
music could start to look for new inspiration.
What I am suggesting is that classical music incorporate many elements of
popular music into new forms, much more than just "An Evening with the
Pops". And add improvisation in.
Andpossibly various new definitions of tonality. Or even use computers in
new ways to interface with orchestras, but in pleasing manner. Certainly I
love to program my digital piano to play four-octave chords with one finger,
something I could never do without a way to program the piano.
And many acoustic instruments can be programmed today.
Or one could use many new instruments, possiby with computers these days,
that
actually have timbre changes according to pitch, unlike so many of today's
synthesizers.
None of this has to be displeasing to the ear, and it could not only bring
a new audience, but it
could bring about new forms of music as well. But I know many others would
tell me that muchof this would not then be classical music,but then
something else. But I believe it is the something else that would bring
back an audience to classical music. It has to be something a symphony is
capable of, that a rock or pop band is not capable of.
I am sure you can think of many other possibilities.
Please feel free to pleasantly disagree.
Alex Maas
alex...@ixpres.com
mason clark
>people to want to listen to it for pleasure. On the other hand, how inconceivable
>would be the climactic scene of Psycho, if the accompanying music had been by
>Mozart. There is simply nothing in his musical vocabulary which reaches the
>required level of horror.
The climax of Don Giovanni did it for me!
Mason
Larry Fletcher
>
Or - jazzed schmooze artist.
Larry Fletcher
Pianos, Inc.
Atlanta, GA
Dealer/Technician
Doing the work of three men..........Larry, Curly, and Moe.
Millers
John Brock wrote:
> So popularity *does* matter. That doesn't mean that you measure the
> merit of a piece by how many people like it, or that people can't learn
> to appreciate music more demanding than what they are used to. But I
> do think the artistic merit of any piece of art is ultimately deeply
> connected to the reaction that it produces in people. The measure of
> man is man, after all.
>
Consider longevity as well as "fad" popularity. Will the art/music in question
sustain its popularity for 10, 50, 100 years?
Matt
Greg Presley
> ), but I also don't have
> much respect for a great deal of 20th century music, and I think she
> has a point.
>
> Let me ask a hypothetical question: can a piece of music have artistic
> merit if *nobody* enjoys listing to it? That somehow doesn't seem
> right to me. Well what if, say, only 10 hyper-sophisticated composers,
> out of all the people in the world, enjoy a particular piece of music.
> This little clique may claim that the work has *great* artistic merit,
> and that nobody but them is refined enough to appreciate it. Could
> this be true? Well logically I suppose it could, but it *still*
> doesn't seem right. What use is music that almost no one enjoys?
>
> So popularity *does* matter. That doesn't mean that you measure the
> merit of a piece by how many people like it, or that people can't learn
> to appreciate music more demanding than what they are used to. But I
> do think the artistic merit of any piece of art is ultimately deeply
> connected to the reaction that it produces in people. The measure of
> man is man, after all.
> --
> John Brock
> jbr...@panix.com
I don't necessarily disagree with you - but there is a wide audience for the music
of Stravinsky (Firebird has figured in a zillion soundtracks, as has Rite of
Spring), for some of the music of Bartok, of Prokofieff, of Copland, of Barber, of
Bernstein, etc.(Granted, not the same numbers as might be listening to Cher).So to
write off the music of the century as though it should all be flushed down the
toilet is wrong-headed in my opinion. There's also the question of the purpose of
the music and what it best expresses. A post here the other day from the Economist
was looking at the physiological response of the brain to music, and one important
aspect was the emotional response to music. Not surprisingly, certain music
inspired the vast majority of people to feel cheerful, and other music to make them
feel sad or melancholy. Most people felt fear and/or anxiety when they heard
extremely dissonant or rhythmic music. I would argue that much of the music of the
2oth century explores this emotional area, which of course is not going to inspire
people to want to listen to it for pleasure. On the other hand, how inconceivable
would be the climactic scene of Psycho, if the accompanying music had been by
Mozart. There is simply nothing in his musical vocabulary which reaches the
required level of horror. But I certainly have attended concerts where I felt
bombarded or assaulted by the music - that doesn't make me give up on all modern
classical music, just the music by that composer! Greg
Kurt Krueger
> John Brock <jbr...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > Well what if, say, only 10 hyper-sophisticated composers,
> > out of all the people in the world, enjoy a particular piece of music.
> > This little clique may claim that the work has *great* artistic merit,
> > and that nobody but them is refined enough to appreciate it. Could
> > this be true? Well logically I suppose it could, but it *still*
> > doesn't seem right. What use is music that almost no one enjoys?
>
> To me, this is music written BY the composer FOR the composer.
This paraphrases very well what 'I' thought Ms. Savant was
trying to say. And her thinking that modern classical
music is in a sorry state.
I, for one, agree with her. And don't think for one moment
that Mozart et. al. were only true to themselves. They
had Kings and patrons to keep happy.
Jon Parker
Kurt Krueger <kurt.d....@tek.com> wrote in message
news:38AC7414...@tek.com...
> And don't think for one moment
> that Mozart et. al. were only true to themselves. They
> had Kings and patrons to keep happy.
And the money was rolling in. It is all part of making a living, and
playing/composing the music you love. There is a give and a take.
Carl Tait
>
>I have very little respect for Ms. Savant (The World's Smartest Person
>much respect for a great deal of 20th century music, and I think she
>has a point.
I also think she has a point. Unfortunately, her article makes the common
error of painting all "modern" music with the same cacophonous brush.
There are plenty of highly dissonant -- even atonal -- pieces that many,
many knowledgeable listeners consider great music: "Pierrot lunaire,"
the Berg Violin Concerto, and Bartok's String Quartets, to name a few.
At the same time, there has probably never been any period in history
to equal the 1950s and 1960s in production of music so ineffably ugly
that it is actively *detested* by the overwhelming majority of the
concert-going public. The usual response of "You just don't understand,
you ignorant, closed-minded fools!" wears thin in a hurry, especially
when one takes the trouble to investigate certain suspicious pieces
more thoroughly.
It might seem that math and computer people would be natural champions
of densely "intellectual" music, but in my experience, the converse is
the case. To the mathematically-minded, the allegedly complex ideas
underlying much of this music are actually quite simple, if not downright
trivial. With the veneer of mathematical rigor stripped away, most of
us find that what's left is even less interesting than we imagined.
Of course this is overgeneralizing -- both for math people and for
the music they enjoy -- but I've seen this sort of reaction over and
over again. "So he applies this operator and gets another permutation;
so what? Why would anyone expect this to produce interesting music?"
The typical math person's favorite composer? J. S. Bach, naturally:
logically-satisfying structures *and* great musical ideas. My piano
roots make me an anomaly -- my favorites are Beethoven and Chopin -- but
Bach has been the runaway favorite among my math friends over the years.
>Let me ask a hypothetical question: can a piece of music have artistic
>merit if *nobody* enjoys listing to it?
Short answer: In my opinion, no.
We could get into a tedious semantic argument about the meaning of
"artistic merit," but since we already agree, let's not bother.
>[...] What use is music that almost no one enjoys?
It's of use to the few people who enjoy it -- as long as they don't
inflict it on the rest of us too often....
>So popularity *does* matter. That doesn't mean that you measure the
>merit of a piece by how many people like it, or that people can't learn
>to appreciate music more demanding than what they are used to. But I
>do think the artistic merit of any piece of art is ultimately deeply
>connected to the reaction that it produces in people. The measure of
>man is man, after all.
Agreed, with one important qualifier: I'm mainly concerned with
the reaction produced in musically-literate listeners. The average
Joe on the street finds practically *all* classical music equally
boring and bad. That said, if a piece consistently produces howls
of agony (or unintentional laughter) from an open-minded audience
of classical music lovers, the composer cannot convincingly shift
the blame for failure onto "that audience of reactionary know-nothings."
(For those with the stomach for it, check out the Stockhausen thread
on rec.music.classical.recordings. I had the audacity to say I'd
listened to Stockhausen's piano music with some care and found it
to be "hideous garbage"; you can predict the apoplectic responses.)
--
Carl Tait IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
cdt...@us.ibm.com Hawthorne, NY 10532
Keith Owen
Jon Parker wrote in message ...
>
>> >It's sad, but I guess she fits the bill for the 'pop' crowd educating
the
>> >'pop' crowd. By her reasoning, Kenny G is the greatest Jazz artist, or
>> >musician in general EVER to have lived. More people know of him than
any
>> >classical composer anyway.
>
>Then Keith Wrote:
>> I've never heard of him.
>
>You're kidding, right? If you aren't, you are the luckiest person alive.
>Or did you mean that I was referring to Kenny G as a classical composer?
If
No confusion Jon. Except for pejorative remarks about him on this NG, I'v
never heard of him; but then, I am English... Is he a pianist? Come to
think of it, I may have seen a book of his music in a customer's house the
other day. Does he have a Shirley Temple hairstyle and a fatuous grin? If
so, he plays the sax, right? Wrong? Mind you, the fact that I've not heard
of someone means little. A few years ago we were on holiday in Sedona AZ
and needed a room for the last night. Couldn't get one because Jackson
Browne was doing a gig and the place was bulging at the seams - we had to
stay in Flagstaff. " Who's Jackson Browne?" we asked...
Keith.
h...@smooth-jazz.de
larryin...@aol.comnojunk (Larry Fletcher) wrote:
> >sorry for the confusion, I meant the smooth jazz artist.
Visit www.smooth-jazz.de - your guide to the world of Smooth Jazz!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
hoffmann
shit capslock is fucked up
nevermind
does somebody know how to play "send in the clowns"?
done by Frank Sinatra but also by Shirly Bassy.>
please let me know if you can and how you do it.
Jon Parker
<h...@smooth-jazz.de> wrote in message news:88pdfs$ng6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Visit www.smooth-jazz.de - your guide to the world of Smooth Jazz!
No.