|
quartertone
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: 21:56:05, 09-05-2007 » |
|
A less polemical response would have been easier to overlook.
But harder to dismiss. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #46 on: 21:58:35, 09-05-2007 » |
|
Benjamin's reluctance to address these sorts of inner contradictions in his work (which Adorno picked up upon like a hawk) is one of the weaker aspects of his thought, though, I would say ... whereas it's one of the things I like best about him, at least sometimes. Maybe that explains why we seem to keep disagreeing, Ian! (It's not personal.) <peace>  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 22:02:38, 09-05-2007 » |
|
(1) If you ask anyone who has the remotest knowledge of the field who the two most important improvising musicians in the UK over the last forty years are, I will bet you anything that the two names will be Bailey and Parker. Sure, but that shouldn't preclude alternative opinions as well. In this case that really smacks of the "all opinions are equivalent" attitude which you're normally so dismissive of! (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him, just defending his right to have different opinions, which add to and enhance the range of perspectives available). I can't believe I'm reading this!!! For what it's worth (very little to you, it seems, but I think I have some idea what I'm talking about), Ben Watson's "opinions" on this question are not really opinions but wilful distortions. If you think they aren't, do some proper research of your own instead of going home to read BW's book again. When you do, get back in touch. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 22:19:32, 09-05-2007 » |
|
(1) If you ask anyone who has the remotest knowledge of the field who the two most important improvising musicians in the UK over the last forty years are, I will bet you anything that the two names will be Bailey and Parker. Sure, but that shouldn't preclude alternative opinions as well. In this case that really smacks of the "all opinions are equivalent" attitude which you're normally so dismissive of! Nonsense - there can be different opinions without all being equally valid. In the case of aesthetic matters, it all depends on the criteria entailed. Ben's criteria are different to those that you would advocate, I would imagine. (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him, just defending his right to have different opinions, which add to and enhance the range of perspectives available). I can't believe I'm reading this!!! For what it's worth (very little to you, it seems, but I think I have some idea what I'm talking about), Ben Watson's "opinions" on this question are not really opinions but wilful distortions. If you think they aren't, do some proper research of your own instead of going home to read BW's book again. When you do, get back in touch. You are making that charge, you are the one who needs to substantiate it. Ben is providing a very different history of free improvisation from that which I imagine you or some others would write - I'd be interested to read several and make my own mind up (but would hate the idea that only one canon is possible on a subject still so little written about). I am making one simple point that he is in his rights to write a history of free improvisation in which Parker does not play a central part, just as Griffiths is in his rights to write one of post-1945 music in which Britten does not play a central part (or someone else would be in which post-war serialism does not, on account of its never having achieved a wide audience). I don't believe firm and unequivocal conclusions should be taken for granted on these subjects, at least not yet. As was mentioned before, someone writing musical histories in the 19th century would probably have assigned Meyerbeer a much more central role than he usually has today (and there is a case to be made for reasserting his historical importance). That is not at all the same as 'anything goes'. It's not a simple choice between either 'there is one objectively right history' or 'any history is just as valid as any other', as historical scholars well know. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 22:25:43, 09-05-2007 by Ian Pace »
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #49 on: 22:22:36, 09-05-2007 » |
|
there can be different opinions without all being equally valid. In the case of aesthetic matters, it all depends on the criteria entailed. Now I really am nitpicking (although it's a vaguely important nit), but no it doesn't. It can do, but it can also depend on a different opinion about whether something meets the same criteria (i.e. you could agree about the criteria but still disagree as to what meets them and what doesn't). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #50 on: 22:24:30, 09-05-2007 » |
|
Benjamin's reluctance to address these sorts of inner contradictions in his work (which Adorno picked up upon like a hawk) is one of the weaker aspects of his thought, though, I would say ... whereas it's one of the things I like best about him, at least sometimes. Maybe that explains why we seem to keep disagreeing, Ian! (It's not personal.) <peace> No, not personal (glad you don't think so either)! Peace and a Benjamin-style joint. But I still think Benjamin was a rather lazy thinker in quite a few respects (and his actual Marxism sometimes represents a somewhat crude rendition of just part of Brecht's thought), despite his being the most 'arty' of the major Western Marxist intellectuals of the early 20th century... Similar to Kracauer in some ways (though with a very different writing style), less of a penetrating thinker than Lukács, Brecht or Adorno (Bloch I haven't read in any large quantity), I'd say. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #51 on: 22:32:10, 09-05-2007 » |
|
No, not personal (glad you don't think so either)! Peace and a Benjamin-style joint. OK. And, since I really have to step down from all these absorbing parallel discussions now, at least for today, I hereby withdraw all nit-picks! I'm not really a joint man, but maybe we can find some HIP equivalent  (on the basis that today's joints, at least as I understand the chemistry (and economics! - impurities being an economically-motivated issue as much as anything else), have little in common with the hashish to whose effects Benjamin submitted). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 22:36:00, 09-05-2007 » |
|
(1) If you ask anyone who has the remotest knowledge of the field who the two most important improvising musicians in the UK over the last forty years are, I will bet you anything that the two names will be Bailey and Parker. Sure, but that shouldn't preclude alternative opinions as well. In this case that really smacks of the "all opinions are equivalent" attitude which you're normally so dismissive of! Nonsense - there can be different opinions without all being equally valid. In the case of aesthetic matters, it all depends on the criteria entailed. Ben's criteria are different to those that you would advocate, I would imagine. (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him, just defending his right to have different opinions, which add to and enhance the range of perspectives available). I can't believe I'm reading this!!! For what it's worth (very little to you, it seems, but I think I have some idea what I'm talking about), Ben Watson's "opinions" on this question are not really opinions but wilful distortions. If you think they aren't, do some proper research of your own instead of going home to read BW's book again. When you do, get back in touch. You are making that charge, you are the one who needs to substantiate it. Ben is providing a very different history of free improvisation from that which I imagine you or some others would write - I'd be interested to read several and make my own mind up (but would hate the idea that only one canon is possible on a subject still so little written about). I am making one simple point that he is in his rights to write a history of free improvisation in which Parker does not play a central part, just as Griffiths is in his rights to write one of post-1945 music in which Britten does not play a central part (or someone else would be in which post-war serialism does not, on account of its never having achieved a wide audience). I don't believe firm and unequivocal conclusions should be taken for granted on these subjects, at least not yet. As was mentioned before, someone writing musical histories in the 19th century would probably have assigned Meyerbeer a much more central role than he usually has today (and there is a case to be made for reasserting his historical importance). That is not at all the same as 'anything goes'. It's not a simple choice between either 'there is one objectively right history' or 'any history is just as valid as any other', as historical scholars well know. I give up. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 22:37:56, 09-05-2007 » |
|
there can be different opinions without all being equally valid. In the case of aesthetic matters, it all depends on the criteria entailed. Now I really am nitpicking (although it's a vaguely important nit), but no it doesn't. It can do, but it can also depend on a different opinion about whether something meets the same criteria (i.e. you could agree about the criteria but still disagree as to what meets them and what doesn't). Sure, that is true. I was referring specifically at the question of canonisation, and the validity of bases upon which they are founded. The basis for extrapolating from those criteria is an issue of scholarly method, which is of course all important. I'm just pointing out that in no way does allowing for the possibility of different canonical bases imply 'anything goes' (you might like to nitpick on that particular earlier extrapolation, if you're in the mood for such things). I'd be interested in reading a view of free improvisation and the important things therein from someone coming at it from a quite different musical or other background (and would with post-1945 music as well). I would also like be interested to see exactly how Richard defines 'free improvisation', as these arguments are all about which figures are intrinsic to the history of something defined by that concept. In the Haubenstock-Ramati thread the question of the meaning of authorship in the case of highly indeterminate works has been raised - if that is followed through to its logical conclusion, one might ask why histories and canons of new music continue to privilege the figure of the composer rather than more performer-oriented work; why Britpop does not get included whereas British contemporary composer-oriented work of the same period is (to take the McClary line of argument)? Or, to stick with composer-oriented stuff, I wouldn't be too keen on a history that makes Andrew Lloyd-Webber as central as, say Ferneyhough (as they were born within 5 years of one another), because I personally don't rate L-W's stuff at all - but I'm not sure I'd know how to set about framing an argument for precisely why Ferneyhough should be included and L-W not. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 22:39:14, 09-05-2007 » |
|
I'm not really a joint man, but maybe we can find some HIP equivalent (on the basis that today's joints, at least as I understand the chemistry (and economics! - impurities being an economically-motivated issue as much as anything else), have little in common with the hashish to whose effects Benjamin submitted). OK - you can try it first! Quick proviso for legal reasons - we would of COURSE only do this in Holland! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #55 on: 23:09:43, 09-05-2007 » |
|
A less polemical response would have been easier to overlook.
But harder to dismiss. But if overlooked, does that matter any longer? (try taking non-polemical stuff on demos! ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 23:54:45, 09-05-2007 » |
|
As far as Shadowtime is concerned, I rather think he threw the baby out with the bathwater. Though Bernstein's libretto strikes me as both hackneyed and masturbatory, Watson himself is misappropriating Benjamin by trying to make him a purely political thinker. Benjamin's thought had many influences, most of them not explicitly political, and his association with Brecht should not be allowed to obscure all the mysticism and aestheticism that remained with him even after he had embraced dialectical materialism. One more thought on this - do you not think that Benjamin's mysticism and aestheticism are themselves political matters? Might it be more accurate to say that Ben is misappropriating Benjamin by making him more of a Marxist thinker than he arguably was? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
quartertone
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 07:03:01, 10-05-2007 » |
|
(try taking non-polemical stuff on demos! ) Sure, but a newspaper article is a rather different kettle of fish. I value content over provocation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
quartertone
|
|
« Reply #58 on: 07:04:09, 10-05-2007 » |
|
Might it be more accurate to say that Ben is misappropriating Benjamin by making him more of a Marxist thinker than he arguably was? That's what I was saying! I see Benjamin quite apart (as he de facto was) from the "Frankfurt School". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 08:38:49, 10-05-2007 » |
|
try taking non-polemical stuff on demos! ) You never know, it might change more minds than just 'having a demo', always assuming that is the object of the exercise  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 19:26:55, 07-09-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
