|
Baz
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: 14:05:33, 14-12-2007 » |
|
I am led to believe from some of the contributors to this thread that "politics" (as such) indeed HAS been a creative force that determines a positive status (viewed in the most objective way possible) for art works that emanate either from within or under its control. I am not persuaded. I can't believe anyone would argue that: rather that certain types of politics have been productively inspiring, others have not. It all depends on the particular politics in question. In that case - and I know that memories can be short - I should draw your attention to message #17 above (with particular respect to par. 1 that started this whole ball rolling). It seems there as if the simple argument is that the difference in politics between Crawford Seeger and Riegger on one hand, and Ruggles on the other, might be related to the difference in their musical aesthetics. ..in which case, what do their various musical aesthetics have to do with "left wing" or "not so left-wing"? Are we talking about music, aesthetics or politics? I have never seen (and should like to be pointed to one please) any serious discussion of artistic aesthetics that uses such loaded political terms as "left-wing". Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #46 on: 14:07:14, 14-12-2007 » |
|
If, hypothetically, some government or other authority decrees that music should be written with tonal harmonies, regular beats, and present a joyous and uplifting experience (at least in theory), both a decision to concur with such expectations and a decision not to do so (or a decision not to be consciously swayed either way by them) are all 'political'.
Yer darn' tootin'! And that's my point isn't it? But musicians DON'T work this way do they Ian (or perhaps you do?)? So - ergo - it has nothing to do with "politics" as such does it? Well, I'd be surprised if one could find many composers in the whole of history who could honestly claim to have been totally unaffected by the demands and conditions of the wider society and cultural environment in which they wish their music to be played. Just to look at pre-Beethovenian days, do you not think the majority of composers in some sense had to satisfy certain basic demands provided by the feudal masters by whom they were employed? |
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 14:07:52, 14-12-2007 » |
|
But what you have said completely endorses my point Reiner. Despite the repression experienced by Shosters, what did he do? Well he produced works of art that stood above all the political nonesense didn't he. He was - of course (!) - affected by it all, but rose above it. Well, if one agrees that he did indeed do so (and that is a very big 'if'), the fact that such a thing has been so often celebrated for that very reason is surely in itself 'political'? And how about in the situation where a composer in the West attempts to write music that rises above, denies, eschews the very demands (themselves repressive) that commercial society places upon artists (themselves every bit as much political demands as are those provided by central political authorities)? I'm sorry Ian - it is NOT!. What was "political" was what tried to prevent it succeeding. Its success stood apart from this (for obvious reason) because in the end it proved bigger and better! So it was truly A-political surely? Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 14:09:53, 14-12-2007 » |
|
If, hypothetically, some government or other authority decrees that music should be written with tonal harmonies, regular beats, and present a joyous and uplifting experience (at least in theory), both a decision to concur with such expectations and a decision not to do so (or a decision not to be consciously swayed either way by them) are all 'political'.
Yer darn' tootin'! And that's my point isn't it? But musicians DON'T work this way do they Ian (or perhaps you do?)? So - ergo - it has nothing to do with "politics" as such does it? Well, I'd be surprised if one could find many composers in the whole of history who could honestly claim to have been totally unaffected by the demands and conditions of the wider society and cultural environment in which they wish their music to be played. Just to look at pre-Beethovenian days, do you not think the majority of composers in some sense had to satisfy certain basic demands provided by the feudal masters by whom they were employed? "Wider society" and "cultural environment" have nothing AT ALL to do with "politics". I agree entirely with you - except where you make the mistake of equating any of this with politics. People live together happily (or indeed unhappily) DESPITE politics, not because of it. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #49 on: 14:10:12, 14-12-2007 » |
|
that politics has throughout history had (by its very terms of reference and pragmatic severity) nothing but a negative and detrimental effect upon the expression of artistic ideas.
And can you not, therefore, see that the artists thus detrimentally affected might not react to that approach within their artistic output? An obvious example is how Shostakovich moved all of his creative energies into the abstract forms of the symphony and the string quartet, where no witless pencil-pusher would have the critical faculties needed to find "ideological" fault with his work? I take the principle of the point that you make here, but the facts don't quite fit, really, since Shostakovich channeled the majority, not all, of his creative energies into those abstract forms - and even in those, the 13th and 14th symphonies are respectively inspired by and settings of texts. You may dislike the idea of politics having a real and tangible effect upon music (if not always a positive one), but you cannot surely - in the case of Shostakovich, if no other - claim that it has not occurred? If it were not so, why do you believe that political regimes of both the Left and Right have made it their business to persecute, repress and even murder composers?
I think that it's the other way around, actually, as demonstrated not only by the examples you cite but also by that of post-revolutionary Iran, in that certain political authorities persuade themsevles to regard music as potentially or actually a force for political subversion and then seek to act accordingly; why else would its performance in Iran be subject to government curtailment and the composers that were subject to the régimes you mention persecuted, repressed and even murdered other than as a consequence of governments' fears that such music might serve to undermine their authority with the populace? Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #50 on: 14:13:37, 14-12-2007 » |
|
But what you have said completely endorses my point Reiner. Despite the repression experienced by Shosters, what did he do? Well he produced works of art that stood above all the political nonesense didn't he. He was - of course (!) - affected by it all, but rose above it. Well, if one agrees that he did indeed do so (and that is a very big 'if'), the fact that such a thing has been so often celebrated for that very reason is surely in itself 'political'? And how about in the situation where a composer in the West attempts to write music that rises above, denies, eschews the very demands (themselves repressive) that commercial society places upon artists (themselves every bit as much political demands as are those provided by central political authorities)? I'm sorry Ian - it is NOT!. What was "political" was what tried to prevent it succeeding. Its success stood apart from this (for obvious reason) because in the end it proved bigger and better! So it was truly A-political surely? No, that's thoroughly ideological - 'politics' is becoming 'anything I don't like'. Resisting one form of politics is not apolitical. And with respect to: People live together happily (or indeed unhappily) DESPITE politics, not because of it. When people live together, then you have a society, or some microcosm thereof. How and why they are able to do so happily or less so, and to be fulfilled within that society, and what forms of organisation, economics, that society might have in order to produce such an outcome, is one of the most fundamental of all political issues. |
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
C Dish
|
|
« Reply #51 on: 14:18:10, 14-12-2007 » |
|
Just like the old days, eh? How about splitting this into a new thread, O mods?
Again, I think we're having a terminological disagreement with Baz, nothing more -- his last post makes this particularly, glaringly obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
inert fig here
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 14:20:00, 14-12-2007 » |
|
If, hypothetically, some government or other authority decrees that music should be written with tonal harmonies, regular beats, and present a joyous and uplifting experience (at least in theory), both a decision to concur with such expectations and a decision not to do so (or a decision not to be consciously swayed either way by them) are all 'political'.
This is obviously true, but it is a rather different matter. A decision to concur with such expectations would in itself be different in the case of composer A who would have concurred with them anyway (because that's the way he/she was already writing) and composer B who decides to change his/her ways in accordance with government decree; again, composer B's decision might be down to political expediency (i.e. a skin-saving exercise) or a genuine "reply to just (self-)criticism". A decision not to do so might reveal the same kinds of differences on the opposite side of the coin. A decision to be swayed neither way is a decision not to be affected by that government decree and is therefore less overtly political than one of concurrence or refusal. In any event, the first two decisions are political only in the sense that the composer decides whether or not to be swayed by govenment decree as to how his/her music should be composed; it will not affect the actual nature of the music composed, since most composers' technical competence alone would equip them to turn their hands to writing in such ways if they wished, or felt it prudent, to change their manners. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 14:21:22, 14-12-2007 » |
|
Well he produced works of art that stood above all the political nonesense didn't he. He was - of course (!) - affected by it all, but rose above it. What he left was not "something repressed and confined", but some that despite it all reached out to a higher plane. Are you familiar with the joke about the biologist and the frog? In front of his class, he says "jump!" to the frog, and it jumps. He then chops a leg off the frog and repeats the command. This time, the frog jumps with more difficulty. Two more limbs are severed, and at the command "jump!", the frog makes a feeble flail with its remaining leg. This leg, too, is removed. When called upon to jump, the frog now remains stationery. "Thus we can conclude that the frog's ears are in its legs", says the biologist. This same argument can be used about Shostakovich. "Cut-off" from his beloved areas of work in ballet, opera and film, he certainly produced something nonetheless. Whether he wrote what he most wished, of course, is a "what if" to which there are only theoretical answers... in the same way that we will never know if the frog would have jumped the fifth time, had it had the legs to do so. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 14:23:43, 14-12-2007 » |
|
Just like the old days, eh? How about splitting this into a new thread, O mods? I think we can do that just as soon as someone actually wants to talk about Riegger and Feldman...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
C Dish
|
|
« Reply #55 on: 14:24:20, 14-12-2007 » |
|
When called upon to jump, the frog now remains stationery.
 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
inert fig here
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 14:25:01, 14-12-2007 » |
|
Last point: Alistair's post makes sense if one conceives the issue primarily as one of intent; but there's another way of seeing it, looking more at the work rather than the intentions behind it, and at the meanings it generates in the society and environment it inhabits. Music deemed as 'formalist' by Zhdanov (or, for that music, music denounced by Norman Tebbitt in The Sun, specifically Birtwistle's Panic) came to have a particular political meaning whether or not the composers intended it as such.
(this should indeed be a different thread, it would seem - certainly it's a long way from Riegger and Feldman now)
|
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 14:26:09, 14-12-2007 » |
|
But what you have said completely endorses my point Reiner. Despite the repression experienced by Shosters, what did he do? Well he produced works of art that stood above all the political nonesense didn't he. He was - of course (!) - affected by it all, but rose above it. Well, if one agrees that he did indeed do so (and that is a very big 'if'), the fact that such a thing has been so often celebrated for that very reason is surely in itself 'political'? And how about in the situation where a composer in the West attempts to write music that rises above, denies, eschews the very demands (themselves repressive) that commercial society places upon artists (themselves every bit as much political demands as are those provided by central political authorities)? I'm sorry Ian - it is NOT!. What was "political" was what tried to prevent it succeeding. Its success stood apart from this (for obvious reason) because in the end it proved bigger and better! So it was truly A-political surely? No, that's thoroughly ideological - 'politics' is becoming 'anything I don't like'. Resisting one form of politics is not apolitical. And with respect to: People live together happily (or indeed unhappily) DESPITE politics, not because of it. When people live together, then you have a society, or some microcosm thereof. How and why they are able to do so happily or less so, and to be fulfilled within that society, and what forms of organisation, economics, that society might have in order to produce such an outcome, is one of the most fundamental of all political issues. Ian - you are speaking like a politician! You are here assuming (incorrectly!) that a decision to ignore politics is itself a political decision. It is not! Deciding to be a-political is a matter of personal choice, just like deciding not to eat a banana. When a vegetarian decides not to eat a banana, it would be illogical on the basis of that piece of evidence to accuse him of becoming a non-vegetarian. When people don't turn up to vote, it is not necassarily because they are thereby expressing a political viewpoint, but rather (in many cases) because they are so a-political that they couldn't give a damn about it. Society and its organisation does not necessarily somehow "need" to be organized in any way other than that which naturally occurs to its members during the normal course of their everyday lives. The fact that certain societies merely choose to formalize an overseeing body to govern it does not, in itself, mean that all expression (artistic or otherwise) must now be through such a body (rather like asking questions in a committee meeting always via the Chairperson). People are people who have their thoughts and ideas. Not all of these, especially when they are purely personal or artistic expressions, need to be ratified by some governing body. Baz |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 14:28:46, 14-12-2007 by Baz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #58 on: 14:28:44, 14-12-2007 » |
|
Not all of these, especially when they are purely personal or artistic expressions, need to be ratified by some governing body.
Can you conceive of politics, or political ideas or developments, without them being embodied in "governing bodies", Baz? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 14:35:00, 14-12-2007 » |
|
Not all of these, especially when they are purely personal or artistic expressions, need to be ratified by some governing body.
Can you conceive of politics, or political ideas or developments, without them being embodied in "governing bodies", Baz? An interesting question Reiner. Who would judge - and according to what standard would the judgment be made - that a certain idea was "left wing" as opposed to "right wing". How would a judgment be made (and by whom, according to which criterion) that a certain mode of artistic expression was "progressive", "conservative", "avant-garde" or whatever? These artistic issues could normally be arbitrated upon and agreed by an artistic community. I still want to know what any of this has to do with politics. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
