Luciano Berio is dead
Hektor
Regards, Hektor
Terrymelin
anything I have ever seen in my life.
Terry Ellsworth
JJ
news:20030527182619...@mb-m26.aol.com:
> I think he wrote the one opera -- Un Re in Ascolto -- that I hate more
> than anything I have ever seen in my life.
>
> Terry Ellsworth
Sorry you feel that way. I find it deeply moving.
Berio's death is a terrible, terrible loss - one of the great composers.
Jon
David7Gable
>Sorry you feel that way. I find it deeply moving.
>
>Berio's death is a terrible, terrible loss - one of the great composers.
>
>Jon
D'accordo, Jon.
-david gable
Andre Storfer
Did you always have this way with words?
AES
Terrymelin
>Did you always have this way with words?
>AES
I didn't say that I was glad that he died. I pointed out the experience with
him that I had. I believe that to be appropriate.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>
>Berio's death is a terrible, terrible loss - one of the great composers.
>
>Jon
Of course, his death is a loss -- to his family, friends, and those who knew
him.
However, I find his music appalling. Un Re is Ascolto is truly awful. The night
we saw it in Chicago there was a scholarly gentleman sitting in our row and and
he had all these papers, etc. he was studying. The four us -- at intermission
-- we're perplexed by what we had seen during Act One and expressed this. The
"scholarly gentleman" said and I quote:
"Well, you can't really expect to understand the work if you didn't study it,
research it, and delve into the score before coming did you?"
My wife's reponse was:
"A great work of art should be enjoyed and understood on many levels including
that of just pure enjoyment. If one has to study something before seeing it to
enjoy it then it is not a great work of art."
Amen.
Terry Ellsworth
Steve Silverman
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030527202738...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> I didn't say that I was glad that he died. I pointed out the experience
with
> him that I had. I believe that to be appropriate.
Most people would have saved it for another thread.
Steve Silverman
Peter Hayden
"Steve Silverman" <ssil...@sslist.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bb1jj7$i4c$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Most people would have had more humility. I was appalled by this post. Its
one thing to say you didnt understand a work quite another to blame the
composer for it. Also I dont see that your lack of understanding is
something to boast about.
Peter hayden
Rubberband Girl
time to air them on this particular subject?
Rubberband Girl
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030527202647...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Commspkmn
> "A great work of art should be enjoyed and understood on many levels
including
> that of just pure enjoyment. If one has to study something before seeing
it to
> enjoy it then it is not a great work of art."
So, if someone doesn't speak English, and he needs to learn the language in
order to enjoy a performance of "Hamlet," then "Hamlet" is not a great work of
art?
Music composed in a new idiom can be like a foreign language to those used to
more traditional forms of expression. The fact that study may be required to
understand and appreciate the new idiom does not necessarily mean the work is
inferior.
Best,
Ken
Terrymelin
>with
>> him that I had. I believe that to be appropriate.
>
>Most people would have saved it for another thread.
>
>Steve Silverman
I am afraid I would call that whitewashing. I cannot think of a more
appropriate time to assess one's career than upon one's death. Or one dies is
everyone supposed to believe that everything they did was wonderful?
I am sorry I just don't get it.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>one thing to say you didnt understand a work quite another to blame the
>composer for it. Also I dont see that your lack of understanding is
>something to boast about.
>
>Peter hayden
>
I am sorry but I don't get this at all. I hated the work -- as I'm sure did
most of the audience and it had nothing to do with understanding it. It had to
do with not enjoying it. I perfectly understood it.
That has nothing to do with humility.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>time to air them on this particular subject?
>
>Rubberband Girl
>
As I've said elsewhere I cannot fathom a better time to assess a person's life
and work than at their death.
I cannot imagine what the problem is with that.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>order to enjoy a performance of "Hamlet," then "Hamlet" is not a great work
>of
>art?
I don't think that is an apt or relevant comparison. And, c'mon, Ken, you know
that.
>Music composed in a new idiom can be like a foreign language to those used to
>more traditional forms of expression.
Except I didn't find any "new idiom" in Un Re in Ascolto." It was just the same
old 1970s contemporary music dressed up.
>The fact that study may be required to
>understand and appreciate the new idiom does not necessarily mean the work is
>inferior.
No, but if you'll read what the "professor" sitting next to me said he said you
"had to study to appreciate it."
I consider that bogus. There isn't a single great work of art that cannot be
enjoyed without studying it. If one cannot enjoy it on a simple level -- while
also realizing that there are deeper ways of enjoying it as well -- then it is
not a great work of art.
One can appreciate the work of Vermeer -- and his use of color and light --
without knowing how he actually created the painting.
Terry Ellsworth
Commspkmn
<< I don't think that is an apt or relevant comparison. And, c'mon, Ken, you
know
that. >>
No, Terry, I really don't. I can think of several works of music and visual
art that were so different from what I had heard and seen before, that it took
several listenings (viewings) and study of what the artist was trying to do
before I could "enjoy" it.
I definitely think the comparison to a foreign language is apt.
<< There isn't a single great work of art that cannot be
enjoyed without studying it. If one cannot enjoy it on a simple level -- while
also realizing that there are deeper ways of enjoying it as well -- then it is
not a great work of art. >>
Suppose someone looked at Picasso's "Guernica" for the first time. Not being
aware of its background, the viewer just doesn't "get it." Later, he studies
Picasso's work, the political history behind "Guernica," etc. By this study,
he gains an appreciation for "Guernica." Does that mean that "Guernica" and/or
the viewer is deficient?
Best,
Ken
Commspkmn
<< As I've said elsewhere I cannot fathom a better time to assess a person's
life
and work than at their death.>>
While they're alilve is a good time, too!
Seriously, these kinds of "In Memorium" posts tend to almost take on the
character of a tribute or eulogy. I think what people are saying is, that just
as someone wouldn't stand up at a funeral and talk about what an SOB the
deceased was, so people shouldn't use these "In Memorium" threads as a forum to
excoriate the composer's music.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but I think that is their point.
Best,
Ken
Peter Hayden
>
> I consider that bogus. There isn't a single great work of art that cannot
be
> enjoyed without studying it. If one cannot enjoy it on a simple level --
while
> also realizing that there are deeper ways of enjoying it as well -- then
it is
> not a great work of art.
>
> One can appreciate the work of Vermeer -- and his use of color and
light --
> without knowing how he actually created the painting.
>
Are you setting yourself up as the arbiter of "great art" , and the
criterion is enjoyment? This is so superficial its not really worth
commenting on further.
What is enjoying it "on a simple level"? And don't reply everyone knows
because they don't.
Why not just simply say you didn't enjoy it? And don't protest that this is
what you did in your original post, the context made it clear that his death
was no loss as far as you were concerned.
If this :
"However, I find his music appalling. Un Re is Ascolto is truly awful."
is the level of your informed criticism about opera we all now know how to
treat your other posts.
Peter
Steve Silverman
> I am afraid I would call that whitewashing. I cannot think of a more
> appropriate time to assess one's career than upon one's death. Or one dies
is
> everyone supposed to believe that everything they did was wonderful?
>
> I am sorry I just don't get it.
Let's see. Yours was the first reply to the announcement of Berio's death. I
quote:
"I think he wrote the one opera -- Un Re in Ascolto -- that I hate more than
anything I have ever seen in my life."
Now, call me hypersensitive if you like, but, in my experience, anybody with
an ounce of decency in them would have engaged their brain before reaching
for the keyboard. Or do you conisder yourself above the usual standards of
social decency?
Steve Silverman
Terrymelin
>an ounce of decency in them would have engaged their brain before reaching
>for the keyboard. Or do you conisder yourself above the usual standards of
>social decency?
>
>Steve Silverman
>
>
>
absolutely nothing to do with decency.
I really think you are being unfair. I see nothing wrong with what I posted.
Are you really saying that the only appropriate discussion at the time of
Berio's death would be that everything he wrote was wonderful?
Sorry, but I don't accept that.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>While they're alilve is a good time, too!
Yes, and I would have said the exact thing whether he was alive or dead.
>Seriously, these kinds of "In Memorium" posts tend to almost take on the
>character of a tribute or eulogy.
Except that this wasn't an "In Memoriam" post but just an announcement of his
death. And when I read that all I could think of was the worst experience I
ever had in an opera house.
I think that was appropriate as my ONLY memory of the man.
I think what people are saying is, that
>just
>as someone wouldn't stand up at a funeral and talk about what an SOB the
>deceased was, so people shouldn't use these "In Memorium" threads as a forum
>to
>excoriate the composer's music.
I am, afraid, Ken that once again you are using an irrelevant comparison. I
don't see posting on a newsgroup -- whose MAIN purpose is to air people's
OPINIONS -- as the same as going to his funeral and getting up and yelling
"your music sucks."
Can we get a little perspective here?
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>art that were so different from what I had heard and seen before, that it
>took
>several listenings (viewings) and study of what the artist was trying to
That's not the same as saying that someone who can't speak English should still
be able to enjoy Hamlet -- that makes no sense at all.
Terry Ellsworth
J.D.G.
<conisder ... [himself] above the usual standards of
social decency>
Steve Silverman wrote:
--
Ah yes, the 'W' attitude:
America is a free country. You can do and say whatever you want, as long
as you agree with Me. I know the difference between right and wrong,
and if disagree with me, then you must be wrong.
Terrymelin
>aware of its background, the viewer just doesn't "get it."
You are missing my point. Not "getting it" is much different from not enjoying
it.
All, great art has layers and the simplest is a pure enjoyment. If it doesn't
have that, it isn't great art. IMHO>
Later, he studies
>Picasso's work, the political history behind "Guernica," etc. By this study,
>he gains an appreciation for "Guernica."
I would argue that if you look at a painting, don't like it, understand it, or
appreciate it and then you read a book about it and suddenly you do that there
is something bizarre about that. It is -- afterall -- a visual art.
Terry Ellsworth
J.D.G.
<Terrymelin wrote:
Can we get a little perspective here?
Terry Ellsworth>
Your perspective, or that of the civilized world?
(Granted your perspective is indeed small [as in 'little'])
Terrymelin
>criterion is enjoyment? This is so superficial its not really worth
>commenting on further.
I suggest you actually read what I wrote rather than what you want to think
that I wrote. I wrote that great works of art can be enjoyed and appreciated on
many levels and that the most basic one is enjoyment. That's a lot different
from what I said above.
One can enjoy Wagner's music for the sheer sound of it and then one can delve
deeper and learn more about it and enjoy and appreciate it on a different
level.
But if the only way to enjoy something and appreciate it is to study it and
read about it as if one were a scholar and that is the only way then, IMHO,
that is not a great work of art.
We are all arbiters of what we see as "great art." I am certainly not setting
myself up as one for everyone else but only for myself.
That is what opinion is all about.
>and don't protest that this is
>what you did in your original post, the context made it clear that his death
>was no loss as far as you were concerned.
This is rubbish and you know it. Rather than engage in a rational discussion
you prefer to name call and be nasty. That's a shame. And it is pathetic.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>
>is the level of your informed criticism about opera we all now know how to
>treat your other posts.
>
So now you are setting yourself up as an "arbiter of what is informed
criticism" about opera.
Pot, kettle, black.
Terry Ellsworth
J.D.G.
<Terrymelin wrote:
Rather than engage in a rational discussion
you prefer to name call and be nasty.
That's a shame. And it is pathetic.
Terry Ellsworth>
Is not your use of "Anti-Semitic" a case in point?
'Mirror Mirror on the wall...'
Commspkmn
<< I am, afraid, Ken that once again you are using an irrelevant comparison. I
don't see posting on a newsgroup -- whose MAIN purpose is to air people's
OPINIONS -- as the same as going to his funeral and getting up and yelling
"your music sucks."
Can we get a little perspective here? >>
Terry:
Believe it or not, my eyesight is still good enough that I don't need words
capitalized in order for them to make their point.
As for "perspective," I understand your argument about the right to express
your opinions and the appropriateness of using this thread to do so.
Conversely, I find it hard to believe that you can't understand the objection
from the other side, whether you agree with their position or not.
Best,
Ken
Commspkmn
<< All, great art has layers and the simplest is a pure enjoyment. If it
doesn't
have that, it isn't great art. IMHO >>
Okay. It's obvious we view art in very different ways, which is fine.
Best,
Ken
Commspkmn
<< Later, he studies
Picasso's work, the political history behind "Guernica," etc. By this study,
he gains an appreciation for "Guernica.">>
terry...@aol.com wrote:
>>I would argue that if you look at a painting, don't like it, understand it,
or
appreciate it and then you read a book about it and suddenly you do that there
is something bizarre about that. It is -- afterall -- a visual art. >>
Terry:
It's interesting to read how you paraphrased what I wrote.
Still, I see nothing bizarre about the need for study in order to appreciate a
work of art.
Best,
Ken
HPLeft
"Commspkmn" <comm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030528145808...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> Still, I see nothing bizarre about the need for study in order to
appreciate a
> work of art.
I certainly didn't "get" the late Beethoven Quartets the first few times
through. I do today, 25 years later. And those Quartets are about as
moving and important a work of art as anything I know. Same thing with the
Eroica Symphony. First 3 times through (the Klemperer Stereo recording) it
didn't do a thing for me, the 4th time it came completely to life.
Matt C
Peter Hayden
> > Are you setting yourself up as the arbiter of "great art" , and the
> >criterion is enjoyment? This is so superficial its not really worth
> >commenting on further.
>
> I suggest you actually read what I wrote rather than what you want to
think
> that I wrote. I wrote that great works of art can be enjoyed and
appreciated on
> many levels and that the most basic one is enjoyment. That's a lot
different
> from what I said above.
You said " There isn't a single great work of art that cannot be
enjoyed without studying it. If one cannot enjoy it on a simple level --
while
also realizing that there are deeper ways of enjoying it as well -- then it
is
not a great work of art."
As I said you define a "great work of art" as something that "can be enjoyed
at a simple level" and if it can't then " it is
not a great work of art." In what way did I misinterpret your views?
> We are all arbiters of what we see as "great art." I am certainly not
setting
> myself up as one for everyone else but only for myself.
This is what I regard as solipsistic. If we are all arbiters of what is
"great art" then the term is meaningless.
> Rather than engage in a rational discussion
> you prefer to name call and be nasty. That's a shame. And it is pathetic.
It seems that a lot of other people were also deeply offended by your
insensitive and inopportune remark. However if this is as near
as you get to an apology then I accept it.
Peter
Peter Hayden
perception of your criticism of Un Re in Ascolto.
Which I gather you didn't much care for.
Peter
Terrymelin
Our resident anti-Semite is spoken. I guess the discussion is over.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>from the other side, whether you agree with their position or not.
>Best,
>Ken
Of course, I recognize the objection but I just don't understand it. That's not
-- thankfully -- the kind of overly sensitive world that I live in.
I and I find it ironic coming from the very same people who are always going on
about how the "right" are trying to stifle free speech.
I guess -- as with most issues -- it depends on whose ox is being gored.
It is apparently OK to make comments about Ronald Reagan's Alzheimers disease
while he is dying that are derogatory; OK to criticize the president of the
United States by comparing him to the very dictator that are young men and
women are dying fighting against; and OK to continually make anti-Semitic
comments on this newsgroup.
But to criticize the work of a composer who has just died and who did nothing
if not court controversy with his while alive.is apparently off-limits.
At least now that I know the ground rules I won't make the same mistake again.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>Best,
>Ken
>
You seem, therefore, by your comments, Ken, to be arguing that art must be
complex and only enjoyed in a deep and complex way for it to be great. Is that
what you mean?
For me a great piece of art must be enjoyed and appreciated on all those levels
to be great; not just the simple or the complex.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>It's interesting to read how you paraphrased what I wrote.
>Still, I see nothing bizarre about the need for study in order to appreciate
>a
>work of art.
>Best,
>Ken
Actually, Ken, I used your exact words. You still seem to be missing what I'm
saying but that's OK. We'll just agree to disagree.
I see nothing unusual about wanting to study something to gain a deeper
appreciation of it. But the key word there is "deeper." You should be able to
appreciate a great piece of art without study. Study should "enhance" one's
appreciation but not be the sole route to that appreciation.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>you prefer to name call and be nasty.
>That's a shame. And it is pathetic.
>Terry Ellsworth>
>
>Is not your use of "Anti-Semitic" a case in point?
Not when you use anti-Semitic language, no.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>As I said you define a "great work of art" as something that "can be enjoyed
>at a simple level" and if it can't then " it is
>not a great work of art." In what way did I misinterpret your views?
But you are setting up a straw man here by implying that that is the only way a
piece of art can be great and that's not, of course, what I said.
Terry Ellsworth
Steve Silverman
> I really think you are being unfair. I see nothing wrong with what I
posted.
>
> Are you really saying that the only appropriate discussion at the time of
> Berio's death would be that everything he wrote was wonderful?
>
> Sorry, but I don't accept that.
I thank God that you won't be coming to my funeral.
Steve Silverman
Commspkmn
<< I and I find it ironic coming from the very same people who are always going
on
about how the "right" are trying to stifle free speech. >>
Do you really think this is a "right" v. "left" issue?
<< I guess -- as with most issues -- it depends on whose ox is being gored.
It is apparently OK to make comments about Ronald Reagan's Alzheimers disease
while he is dying that are derogatory; OK to criticize the president of the
United States by comparing him to the very dictator that are young men and
women are dying fighting against; and OK to continually make anti-Semitic
comments on this newsgroup. >>
Yes, if there is going to be free speech, these topics would not be off-base,
either.
<< But to criticize the work of a composer who has just died and who did
nothing
if not court controversy with his while alive.is apparently off-limits. >>
There's a big difference between censorship, and taking someone to task for his
comments.
Best,
Ken
Commspkmn
<< You seem, therefore, by your comments, Ken, to be arguing that art must be
complex and only enjoyed in a deep and complex way for it to be great. Is that
what you mean? >>
Not at all. My point is that while some works are easily accessible, others
might not be appreciated upon an initial exposure. The fact that someone might
have to spend time studying a work in order to "enjoy" it does not make the
work better or worse.
Best,
Ken
Valfer
departed. Their ghost return at night to pull on the feet of anyone
who spoke badly about them. Felt a tug on yours last night?
RIP, Luciano Berio. Miei rispetti alla famiglia.
Valfer
terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) wrote in message news:<20030527182619...@mb-m26.aol.com>...
> I think he wrote the one opera -- Un Re in Ascolto -- that I hate more than
> anything I have ever seen in my life.
>
> Terry Ellsworth
GRNDPADAVE
In Memoriam
not In Memorium.
==G/P Dave
Andre Storfer
You _are_ a qualifier in the "bigot of the month" sweepstakes.
I find your stuff anti-Semitic, and I'm no defender of Ellsworth.
Andre Edouard Storfer
DVD Baron
Whether you enjoy his music is irrelenvent.....a pity his passing wasn't
given the respect it deserved by some of the group.
Hektor
"DVD Baron" <apqg33(nospam)@dsl.pipex.com> ha scritto
> A shame that someone like Berio's passing should create a slanging match.
> Whether you enjoy his music is irrelenvent.....a pity his passing wasn't
> given the respect it deserved by some of the group.
Well, after all, perhaps Berio would've greatly enjoyed the announcement of
his death being the cause of this discussion, especially the part about the
meaning of Great Works of Art.
Regards, Hektor
REG
Everything that we call "culture" now in terms of our cultural heritage
started out as entertainment...not necessarily low-brow, but entertainment
all the same. When "art" starts out by being self-conscious, it's rarely
very good, imho. No one disputes the importance of the layers of meaning
(and ambiguity) that are needed to bring something beyond being "pure
enjoyment", but without that basic level it seems to me you end up with
political "art", whether socialist realism, fascist or any other gloss, or
you end up with a very dry academic"art".
"Commspkmn" <comm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030528145534...@mb-m26.aol.com...
Andre Storfer
What a shock. It's scheduled for what date?
Is it by invitation only?
AES
REG
to be a level which the work is also meant to please and entertain directly?
"Commspkmn" <comm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030528173553...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Terrymelin
>going
>on
>about how the "right" are trying to stifle free speech. >>
>
>Do you really think this is a "right" v. "left" issue?
Nope. I didn't say so. I just said I found it ironic that it was the same
people complaining that their own free speech was being violated. They were the
ones stifling the free speech; not me.
>Yes, if there is going to be free speech, these topics would not be off-base,
>either.
>
And they haven't been here. But it would be nice if the same people who
complained about my post would also complain about the anti-Semites posting
here or the Reagan-haters or the hate-America first crowd.
Oops, sorry, can't do that because they are -- mostly -- one and the same.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>his
>comments.
>
>Best,
>Ken
EXACTLY! But those on the left just don't see that do they?
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>to be a level which the work is also meant to please and entertain directly?
>
That is my point exactly and if not then it cannot, IMHO, be considered a great
work of art.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>have to spend time studying a work in order to "enjoy" it does not make the
>work better or worse.
>Best,
>Ken
We just must agree to disagree. If an artist cannot make a piece of work that
can be enjoyed on all levels then he has failed.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>Wow,
> What a shock. It's scheduled for what date?
> Is it by invitation only?
>AES
ROTFLOL!
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>
>Steve Silverman
>
Thank you. This adds immensely to the intellectual nature of this discussion.
I guess you're just saying that you miss the point too.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>departed. Their ghost return at night to pull on the feet of anyone
>who spoke badly about them. Felt a tug on yours last night?
>
Nope, but that maybe because he's already in purgatory atoning for his sins.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>> Whether you enjoy his music is irrelenvent.....a pity his passing wasn't
>> given the respect it deserved by some of the group.
>
>
>Well, after all, perhaps Berio would've greatly enjoyed the announcement of
>his death being the cause of this discussion, especially the part about the
>meaning of Great Works of Art.
>Regards, Hektor
>
Luciano Berio courted controversy throughout his entire career. He would find a
blind love of his work with no examination and no criticism offensive.
Too bad his rabid "fans" fail to see that.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>Everything that we call "culture" now in terms of our cultural heritage
>started out as entertainment...not necessarily low-brow, but
Well, of course, that is exactly what I've been saying .....
If great art can only be enjoyed and appreciated on one level -- the scholarly
-- then it is bogus.
Terry Ellsworth
Commspkmn
<< Ken, I am curious why you disagree with the idea that is being expressed.
Everything that we call "culture" now in terms of our cultural heritage
started out as entertainment...not necessarily low-brow, but entertainment
all the same. When "art" starts out by being self-conscious, it's rarely
very good, imho. No one disputes the importance of the layers of meaning
(and ambiguity) that are needed to bring something beyond being "pure
enjoyment", but without that basic level it seems to me you end up with
political "art", whether socialist realism, fascist or any other gloss, or
you end up with a very dry academic"art". >>
REG:
I think we're getting a bit far afield in this discussion. It's very important
to return to the precise wording of the sentiment that I originally questioned:
<<If one has to study something before seeing it to
enjoy it then it is not a great work of art.>>
I'm sorry, but I don't accept this as a truth about artistic expression. The
fact that someone might have to do a bit of work in order to understand and
enjoy a piece of music, a painting, etc., does not remove it from the realm of
great art, or of entertainment.
On the other hand, the fact that a piece of music is immediately accessible
does not make it of lesser quality.
Perhaps I have failed to express myself clearly. But this is the best I can
do. I can think of numerous pieces of music that did not touch me until I
listened to them numerous times, followed along with the score, etc. These
would include the Bruckner Ninth, Tristan, Gurrelieder, the Berg Violin
Concerto, and many others. But I still think they're all great works of art.
Best,
Ken
Commspkmn
<< I agree with what you are saying, obviously, but don't you think there has
to be a level which the work is also meant to please and entertain directly? >>
I might choose the word "communicate" as opposed to "please" or "entertain."
To go back to Piccaso's "Guernica," I doubt that he intended the work to please
or entertain his audience. But I think it is a great work of art, and one that
certainly communicates the horrors of war.
Best,
Ken
Andre Storfer
many points. Maybe you'd like to rethink that.
AES
REG
and often do use it as the "proof" of whether or not something is "art" or
what I would call "pop -t-art", but I rejected it, I think in part
rhetorically, because I wanted to focus on the actual sensual enjoyment that
I think has to be part of the "sharing" experience between art work and the
public. I certainly don't think that Guernica was meant to entertain, but it
was meant to please, and I think that the first time I saw it at MOMA, many
years ago, my apprehension of it was of something of power which had the
ability to please me, if not "entertain". I think that entertainment should
be used in the most broad sense, not as ha-ha comedy, but something that
engages our interest in an emotional, visceral way. You don't -have- to
think about Guernica to enjoy it, and for it to be important to you, and I
think that's the point that Terry is making as well as me.
I would go further in pictorial art. When I look at religious art - and what
is now called Flemish Primativism is one of my favorite periods - and try to
get others into appreciating this art, I make clear to them that although
the piety, and the sheer beauty of the painterly qualities are of great
satisfaction, imho you are missing the "art", missing a very important level
of the art, if you are not reacting sensuously to the figures themselves.
"Relgious art" was of course "religious", but always with an element of the
appreciation of earthly beauty, and if you can look at a beautiful Madonna
(or St Sebastian, as the case may be) and not feel in some little way
"turned on", then you are missing a very important and "entertaining" point
of the art. It is about "entertainment".
"Commspkmn" <comm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030528220826...@mb-m21.aol.com...
REG
I am not really sure that you and I and Terry would differ here, and I think
it may be a difference in emphasis. It isn't for me that you don't need or
want to do the work...in fact, "great art" in many instances makes you want
to do the work, but part of the difficulty is that you yourself may be
conflating two different concepts, "in order to 'undertstand' and
'enjoy'"....as you put it. I can't think of a "great" work of art that
doesn't at some level invite one in (although we agree, I assume, that we
all have somewhat different or idiosyncratic ideas of what those great works
are). I am prepared to say that this "invitation", which in my view has to
be at some level a seduction of the viewer or the audience, is critical to
whether the art is "great".
My guess is that these discussions would move ahead much easier if we were
all in the same room together...it's a hard topic to discuss by post.
Best
REG
"Commspkmn" <comm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030528220529...@mb-m21.aol.com...
Andre Storfer
It's surely not meant as entertainment, nor even as a lesson about
the horrors of war.
In its way Guernica is a commemoration of the destruction of the
center of basque culture.
The great oak was for centuries the symbol of "Euzkadi" the basque
name for their country and culture.
It was also the place where the basques renewed their allegiance to
each other and defined, in meetings literally under the tree, their
relationships and attitudes towards the rest of the world.
There are several levels of meaning in the painting.
Which I suppose goes to prove your point, although I've stayed out of
this particular argument.
I can't believe I let one go by. {:-)>
AES
David7Gable
>
>"A great work of art should be enjoyed and understood on many levels
>including
>that of just pure enjoyment. If one has to study something before seeing it
>to
>enjoy it then it is not a great work of art."
>
That's how I enjoyed it.
-david gable
David7Gable
>to be a level which the work is also meant to please and entertain directly?
>
In the end, music has to please "directly": that is, in real time as it
unfolds. That doesn't mean that if you fail to grasp a piece on first
listening it's no good.
-david gable
parterre box
> Luciano Berio ... would find a blind love of his work with no examination
and no criticism offensive.
And Signor Berio told you this when, exactly? Or are you in telepathic
communication with his departed spirit?
REG
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030528231356...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Steve Silverman
> Thank you. This adds immensely to the intellectual nature of this
discussion.
>
> I guess you're just saying that you miss the point too.
Coming from RMO's resident point-misser extraordinaire, the above is almost
funny. I have a firm grasp of the point under discussion, thank you. I wish
that the same could be said for you. Let me spell it out. When someone dies,
it does not place them beyond criticism. It is however normal, and only
decent, to wait a little longer than straight after the announcement of
their death before trashing them. If you can't get your arrogant mind around
that little piece of social decency, or if you believe that these irritating
conventions shouldn't apply to you, then my advice is to keep well away from
the recently bereaved.
Steve Silverman
Steve Silverman
"Andre Storfer" <and...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3ED5571E...@attbi.com...
> Wow,
> What a shock. It's scheduled for what date?
> Is it by invitation only?
8 January, 2056. I will be rising again three days later.
Steve Silverman
DVD Baron
not Berio was any good as a composer or not, I'm sure he wrote as much crap
as any composer does...but that is a subjective statement and not the point
here. All I really wanted to say is that I thought such threads, comments
etc perhaps would have been more appropriate for another thread. And I
would have read such a thread with interest as opposed to a bit of
disappointment.
Regards to all,
RKBB
"Hektor" <hek...@easymail.ro> wrote in message
news:PTaBa.13018$g92.3...@news2.tin.it...
Commspkmn
<< Which I suppose goes to prove your point, although I've stayed out of
this particular argument.
I can't believe I let one go by. {:-)>
AES >>
Yeah, Andre, where have you been?!?
Best,
Ken
Commspkmn
<< My guess is that these discussions would move ahead much easier if we were
all in the same room together...it's a hard topic to discuss by post.
>>
Still, REG, I'm glad we did. I've enjoyed it.
Thanks.
Best,
Ken
Commspkmn
<< I can't think of a "great" work of art that
doesn't at some level invite one in (although we agree, I assume, that we
all have somewhat different or idiosyncratic ideas of what those great works
are). I am prepared to say that this "invitation", which in my view has to
be at some level a seduction of the viewer or the audience, is critical to
whether the art is "great". >>
Yes, I think that's part of the communication aspect. And I'm sure I wouldn't
have gone back to re-listen and restudy the Berg Violin Concerto, Tristan,
etc., if there wasn't something about the works that piqued my interest, even
if I didn't find the initial exposure all that "enjoyable."
Best,
Ken
REG
"Steve Silverman" <ssil...@sslist.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bb4b08$5f5$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Terrymelin
>many points. Maybe you'd like to rethink that.
>AES
OK. I just thought the comment was gratuitous and making his case would have
been better than making a snide remark.
That's all.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>it does not place them beyond criticism. It is however normal, and only
>decent, to wait a little longer than straight after the announcement of
>their death before trashing them.
This is the problem. You equate "criticism" with "trashing him." I don't think
they are one and the same. And then you go on to name call rather than make
your point in a civilized way. I don't understand why you feel compelled to do
that.
Please let me know what is the sufficient amount of time that must go by before
a dead person's career can be assessed?
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>fact that someone might have to do a bit of work in order to understand and
>enjoy a piece of music, a painting, etc., does not remove it from the realm
>of
>great art, or of entertainment.
>On the other hand, the fact that a
>piece of music is immediately accessible
>does not make it of lesser quality.
And what I am saying is that a great work of art must have both. Not one or the
other but both. And that is what I have been saying since the beginning of the
discussio despite my quotes being taken out of their full context.
I can't see what is even remotely controversial about that.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>please
>or entertain his audience. But I think it is a great work of art, and one
>that
>certainly communicates the horrors of war.
>Best,
Of course, if you study Picasso's career you will find that he did everything
in the hopes of "pleasing" and for enjoyment so I disagree about Guernica.
Picasso may have been the first truly "populist" artist.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
> Which I suppose goes to prove your point, although I've stayed out of
>this particular argument.
Actually, that was my point Andre! But that's OK. I think we are all making
pretty much the same points but we can't seem to agree on the "language" of
them!
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>unfolds. That doesn't mean that if you fail to grasp a piece on first
>listening it's no good.
>
>-david gable
Once again someone is confusing "grasp" a piece with just pure enjoyment. I
have heard of people who don't "get" or "understand" or "grasp" what the Ring
is all about but they enjoy it nonetheless because of the sheer sound and
spectacle.
That's what I mean. Also there is a vast difference between "no good" and "not
a great work of art."
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
The most interesting thing about the Berio thread is that -- despite his death
-- not a single person has come forward to offer their positive appraisal of
his career as an opera composer. My negative comment about Un Re in Ascolto has
been the only word spoken on him -- in that way. Very interesting.
Anyway, I find the conversation about what constitutes "great art" to be
fascinating and I certainly thank everyone who contributed whether we agree or
not.
This is what this ng should be about instead of all those endless and mindless
posts about .... well you know what I mean.
Terry Ellsworth
AnMeinKlav
mindless
posts about .... well you know what I mean.>>
Anti-Semitism? ;-)
Stevie
says...
>Anti-Semitism?
Charlie Handelman?
J.Venning
news:bb54o...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <20030529095524...@mb-m17.aol.com>,
anmei...@aol.com
> says...
> ><<This is what this ng should be about instead of all those endless and
> >mindless
> > posts about .... well you know what I mean.>>
No, I don't know what you mean, because I missed the beginning of the
thread. Please enlighten.
J.
David7Gable
>death
>-- not a single person has come forward to offer their positive appraisal of
>his career as an opera composer.
This thread degenerated so quickly--with your vile post, in fact--that nobody
would want to contribute such an appraisal here. Berio is one of my favorite
composers, and I can't believe he's died so comparatively young. There are
threads of the kind you describe on at least two other classical newsgroups
that I frequent. The audience for Berio's music may not be remotely as large
as the audience for Puccini, but he is among the composers active in the past
fifty years who have comparatively large followings.
I was at the premiere of Un Re in Ascolto in Chicago and went a second time,
realizing that I might not have the opportunity to hear a Berio opera in person
again. Of course, I wasn't approaching Berio cold. I was deeply familiar with
many of his other works before hearing Un Re.
-david gable
David7Gable
On the contrary. You have to have a grasp of a piece before it's even possible
to enjoy it. If a Chinaman reads me a poem in Chinese, I'm not going to get
anything out of it because I don't speak Chinese. I simply do not believe
anybody appreciates The Ring or any other music as "sheer sound." If people
were that easily pleased, nobody would have to listen to anything but chance
music by Cage. Embedded within the sheer sound of real music (as opposed to
chance music) are all kinds of musical shapes and continuities, and it is for
the sake of those dynamic shapes that we listen to music, not for the sake of
sheer sound. Of course, sheer sound is part of the pleasure of listening to
music, but it is by no means enough in and of itself. It takes more than sound
for something to be music.
-david gable
David7Gable
>Thanks.
>Best,
>Ken
Yes, the contributions of Ken and REG were very interesting.
-david gable
David7Gable
>>The most interesting thing about the Berio thread is that -- despite his
>>death
>>-- not a single person has come forward to offer their positive appraisal of
>>his career as an opera composer.
Terry, these are not appraisals of Berio's career. Just reactions to Berio's
death culled from posts at rmcr.
1. Annus horribilis for Italian musicians.
2. Great sorrow at the untimely death of this fine composer.
3. For those of us who have lived with and loved Luciano Berio's unique and
remarkable music, eagerly awaiting the adventure of each new piece, this is
very sad news indeed.
4. A great loss for the musical world - quite an extraordinary voice.
5. Thank you, Mr. Berio.
6. When I was about 16, I bought the LP of Sinfonia, with the New York
Philharmonic and the Swingle Singers. This single recording ignited in me a
lifetime of listening to -- and loving -- contemporary music.
7. When I was about 16, a music teacher played that LP of Sinfonia for a few
of us. I was already into contemporary music to some extent, but the piece was
certainly a revelation to me as well.
8. RIP, Mr. Berio. "Sinfonia" certainly is one of the great symphonic works
since WWII and it fully deserves a place in the standard repertoire of 20th
century music, if we ever get such a thing.
9. His music will live and we shall remember and honor the marvelous composer
he was.
10. A great loss.
11. Thank you, Larry, for some beautiful, well-gauged words about some of
Berio's most interesting pieces.
Capa0848
>From: "REG" Rich...@hotmail.com
>Date: 05/28/2003 5:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <PwcBa.31623$4_1.8...@twister.nyc.rr.com>
>
R: Ken, I am curious why you disagree with the idea that is being expressed.
>Everything that we call "culture" now in terms of our cultural heritage
>started out as entertainment...not necessarily low-brow, but entertainment
>all the same.
How 'entertaining' could Van Gogh's art have been in his time, REG, if he only
sold one picture in his life? Most artists, to be sure want to reach an
audience; but most truly great artists want to express their personal aesthetic
first; sometimes the beauty of that truth is apparent in short order to
outsiders, but sometimes it's not.
R: When "art" starts out by being self-conscious, it's rarely very good,
imho.
Art is by definition self-conscious, isn't it? It's one's personal vision.
One could more truthfully say, I think, that "art" that is not self-conscious"
-- that is meant only to please others, rather than to express anything from a
personal perspective, is unlikely to be of much value.
The great pyramids were self-conscious; the pyramid-shaped hotel/casino on the
Las Vegas Strip (I forget the name) was meant to please others.
Which is of greater value?
Pat
REG
it's not "entertainment" like Red Skelton, but entertainment in that sense
that there is sensous enjoyment of the art, whatever it is, in some way from
the beginning. I think that Van Gogh's popularity is quite sufficient to
indicate that he is seen as "entertaining", whether or not people
understand what's behind the art. The sheer sensuousness of the palete, the
use of texture all make the art "entertaining". That doesn't mean happy,
necessarily, but it does mean engaging and enjoyable in a fundamental way.
There's no disagreement that the "beauty" may or may not be apparent
immediately, and as we grow older sometimes we see beauty we never thought
was there, but there must be a sense of being engaged in a very fundamental
way which "entertains" us.
As to self-consciousness, I think you are giving too short a shrift to my
statement. I didn't write that art isn't self-conscious (although it is that
in an only limited way, I believe). I said that when art STARTS OUT by being
self-conscious, it is RARELY very good (caps for emphasis only...I am a
gentleman and never raise my voice). When art starts out with a "message",
whatever that message is, and the message is the purpose of the art, it's
propoganda in my view and usually not art. The message must somehow be
within the art, and the less the artist is aware of the message, somehow the
stronger the art is, imho.
"Capa0848" <capa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030529204146...@mb-m28.aol.com...
Capa0848
>Message-id: <qeeBa.31876$4_1.8...@twister.nyc.rr.com>
. I can't think of a "great" work of art that
>doesn't at some level invite one in (although we agree, I assume, that we
>all have somewhat different or idiosyncratic ideas of what those great works
>are). I am prepared to say that this "invitation", which in my view has to
>be at some level a seduction of the viewer or the audience, is critical to
whether the art is "great".
Forgive me if I'm rehashing ground that's already been covered, but ...
What is art? Is it only something that has sensual appeal, something that
"draws one in" through the senses?
Many would say that a chess problem or a solution in higher mathematics, have
some of the elements of art, that they can be 'artistic'. They are man-made,
they can be possessed of great beauty, and they have brought pleasure to many
(but certainly not to most).
Should their 'artristry' be denied because someone unskilled in those
disciplines would have no feeling for the beauty of a mathematical proof, or a
startling series of sacrifices that lead to an unexpected checkmate?
From there, of course it's only a short leap to Schonberg, who tried to bridge
the gap between sensual art and "intellectual" art with results that please
some, but which others find appalling.
I don't think that I'm ready to concede the point that if it doesn't give you
or Terry more or less instant gratification, then it can't be 'great art."
Can't it simply be art that you have no taste for, or don't understand?
I don't understand Jackson Pollock's work, for example and get little joy from
it. But wouldn't it be presumptuous for me to say that it can't be great art,
because it leaves me cold?
REGards,
Pat
"'Beauty is truth, truth beauty.' That is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
Keats
REG
is; I have to leave something for the weekend. I do think that it's a very
difficult discussion because there are so many variables. I do think these
discussions are easier person-to-person, because there are so many factors
that need to be threshed out, but I do want to reemphasize that I don't
think I (or Terry) are saying you have to be able to tap your foot to a
melody the first time you hear it...I think you are misinterpreting "instant
gratification" for gratification as a general matter.
I think that your comments on mathematical proofs are very provocative in
this regard (in a good sense), but I am not sure that it makes sense in
terms of this discussion (meaning the one I am pushing) to confuse "art",
whatever that is, with something which may be "beautiful" in a highly
abstract way, like a mathematical proof.
I would say that art must not only communicate, but it must seek to arouse
in its auditors a response. Whether that is by seduction or otherwise, it's
not just a matter of "telling the truth" or "sharing a vision"....Sondheim
said once that everyone who writes does so because they want to be loved by
the audience. That's a bit of a wild statement, but not without some truth.
If the artwork doesn't contain something of that desire to be loved, it
doesn't work, imho. And that desire to be loved works, in most cases, by
entertaining, in the broader sense of the term.
"Capa0848" <capa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030529211218...@mb-m28.aol.com...
Terrymelin
>or Terry more or less instant gratification, then it can't be 'great art."
>Can't it simply be art that you have no taste for, or don't understand
I'm sorry but you are misrepresenting my opinion. I never said or even implied
anything about "instant gratification."
My name ain't BJC.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>from
>it. But wouldn't it be presumptuous for me to say that it can't be great
>art,
>because it leaves me cold?
>
No, not if that's your opinion.
Terry Ellsworth
Capa0848
>Date: 05/29/2003 8:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030529230917...@mb-m18.aol.com>
------------------
Well, let me put it this way -- wouldn't it be presumptuous of a rock fan to
listen to the Jupiter Symphony and disgustedly say it's not great art, because
it leaves him cold?
Isn't it more or less the same thing?
Wouldn't you be among the first to label the rock fan a philistine for making
such a witless statement about a composer whose aesthetic he didn't understand?
Terrymelin
>listen to the Jupiter Symphony and disgustedly say it's not great art,
>because
>it leaves him cold?
You don't really want me to respond to that do you? I thought we were -- at the
very least -- talking about people who actually could think.
>Wouldn't you be among the first to label the rock fan a philistine for making
>such a witless statement about a composer whose aesthetic he didn't
>understand?
Actually no, I'd label someone who is a "rock fan" a philistine just for that
reason alone.
Terry Ellsworth
GRNDPADAVE
>making
>>such a witless statement about a composer whose aesthetic he didn't
>>understand?
>
>Actually no, I'd label someone who is a "rock fan" a philistine just for that
>reason alone.
>
>Terry Ellsworth
Bravo, Terry !!!
(Sorry, Pat, I just couldn't help it.)
:>)) G/P Dave