|
martle
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: 22:07:20, 17-11-2007 » |
|
Viz??? You advertising a comic here, martle?
Viz \Viz\, adv. [Contr. fr. videlicet.] To wit; that is; namely. [1913 Webster] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
SimonSagt!
|
|
« Reply #76 on: 22:15:45, 17-11-2007 » |
|
Viz??? You advertising a comic here, martle?
Viz \Viz\, adv. [Contr. fr. videlicet.] To wit; that is; namely. [1913 Webster] Yes, I know that, martle. But, as I could see no relevant connection, I wondered why you had posted it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Emperor suspected they were right. But he dared not stop and so on he walked, more proudly than ever. And his courtiers behind him held high the train... that wasn't there at all.
|
|
|
|
martle
|
|
« Reply #77 on: 22:27:20, 17-11-2007 » |
|
Simon, no you didn't. You are obviously an intelligent person. Do please put up (i.e. advance something more substantial than sneering and smug invective against 'contemporary music') or shut up. That said, I'd be perfectly ready to accept that you will know more than I do about contemporary music. Indeed, I'd be delighted to accept it.
Viz: I think what Autoharp was saying was that the "comments you choose to write" appear to originate from someone who either is arrogant, narrow-minded and wilfully ignorant or wishes to appear to have those attributes, and that in the circumstances the former seems more likely.
QED, so far. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
SimonSagt!
|
|
« Reply #78 on: 22:59:15, 17-11-2007 » |
|
But of course, one's consideration as to which (if any) comments on a messageboard may appear to be arrogant, narrow-minded and ignorant - or for that matter, reasonable, sensible and intelligent - depend on one's prior view of the subject under discussion, don't they?
I assume from you remark here that it would not occur to you to consider the possibility that it might depend at lest as much on one's prior knowledge of the said subject? Richard is a composer. So is Autoharp. So are several other members of this forum, including myself. As best I understand it (and you may of course correct me if I am wrong), you are not a composer. Now, whilst composers may not expect to know everything about contemporary music, even though they are the makers of it, it is surely less than reasonable to assume that they have no more knowledge of the subject than someone like you would be expected to have? Best, Alistair You're mixing up knowledge (objective) with opinion (subjective), Alistair. Your comment would be perfectly valid were we discussing, for example, the measurable technicalities of building. My opinion about, say, the load-bearing capabilities of a joist and whether or not it would be safe to build a floor over it would indeed be far less valuable than those of you and your friends if, on the one hand, you had knowledge, qualifications and years of experience as structural engineers and, on the other hand, the most I had ever built was a sand-castle. Your knowledge, in this case, would be verifiable and quantifiable - and, of course, demonstrably provable by practical results. But let's say we build the floor - and, because of your accurate calculations, the joists hold it up and everything works fine. Well done! Now we come to consider how the floorboards should be finished. Do we leave them plain, after a light sanding? Do we cover them with a hard, clear varnish, or do we stain them? Shall we cover them with a carpet - or with rugs? - or carpet tiles? Shall we paint them white? Black? Grey? All these sorts of questions are subjective - they rely not on knowledge, but on opinion. You may wish to paint the floor in black and white lines and have two purple mats in the centre. I, on the other hand, may think that this colour scheme would be naff and tasteless, preferring a simple, clear varnish to show the natural beauty of the wood. Your technical knowledge of building would, I therefore contend, entitle your opinion to exactly the same weight as mine as regards the artistic merit of the finish of the floor - and to not one gramme more. In exactly the same way, the opinion of our postman on the beauty of K459 is no less valid than mine simply because I play it and he doesn't. (My opinions on, for example, how difficult or easy the various sections of it are to play, or on which keys it modulates to, are of course more valuable than his, because he doesn't understand keys and doesn't play the piano - but that's simply technical - not artistic). So you see, the fact that you and your friends may be composers (and I take your word for that), is completely irrelevant to the merit, validity or correctness of your subjective opinions on whether a piece of music is a pleasant piece of music or not. Best wishes, S-S! (edited to add an s and a bold) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 23:03:29, 17-11-2007 by SimonSagt! »
|
Logged
|
The Emperor suspected they were right. But he dared not stop and so on he walked, more proudly than ever. And his courtiers behind him held high the train... that wasn't there at all.
|
|
|
|
Antheil
|
|
« Reply #79 on: 23:14:45, 17-11-2007 » |
|
Simon "on whether a piece of music is a pleasant piece of music or not"
Can't be asked to mess around with quotes. Does music have to be "pleasant"? Is the criteria that you can whistle it whilst peddling around the cloisters? Can it not be challenging?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reality, sa molesworth 2, is so sordid it makes me shudder
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #80 on: 23:18:20, 17-11-2007 » |
|
Simon "on whether a piece of music is a pleasant piece of music or not"
Can't be asked to mess around with quotes. Does music have to be "pleasant"? Is the criteria that you can whistle it whilst peddling around the cloisters? Can it not be challenging?
Can a piece of music not be simultaneously pleasant and challenging? (I do, I think, accept 'challenging-ness' as being as good a criterion for the 'goodness' of music as 'pleasantness', insofar is whether or not I find myself wanting to listen to music with either quality depends a lot on my mood). |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 23:20:24, 17-11-2007 by increpatio »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SimonSagt!
|
|
« Reply #81 on: 23:26:53, 17-11-2007 » |
|
Simon "on whether a piece of music is a pleasant piece of music or not"
Can't be asked to mess around with quotes. Does music have to be "pleasant"? Is the criteria that you can whistle it whilst peddling around the cloisters? Can it not be challenging?
It can be all sorts of things, can't it? Pleasant isn't the only criterion, you're right. (As you know, I've always had a problem with the definition of "challenging") It can be glorious and sublime and uplifting and beautiful to the extent that you become exultant with the emotion it engenders and you never want it to stop and it leaves such a lasting effect that you never forget it. It can be clashing and horrific and discordant and noisy to the extent that you screw up your face and it sets your teeth on edge and it gives you a headache and you just want to get away from it and never hear it again. Or, like most music, it can be somewhere between those two extremes. I've heard, though rarely, both extremes - and, happily, a few more of the beautiful than the horrific. None of the unpleasant ones were composed before 1960, for some reason. Simon |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Emperor suspected they were right. But he dared not stop and so on he walked, more proudly than ever. And his courtiers behind him held high the train... that wasn't there at all.
|
|
|
|
perfect wagnerite
|
|
« Reply #82 on: 23:28:02, 17-11-2007 » |
|
You're mixing up knowledge (objective) with opinion (subjective), Alistair.
Actually, this would only be true if appreciation of music was a purely subjective, passive, emotional matter. But I don't for a moment think it is (and I am contributing this as a non-composer and non-performer). Music is about form and structure and its impact is long-term - otherwise one would never move beyond that first hearing. If you care about music, you move beyond that first hearing, and you want to know more; this is an intellectual as well as an emotional process, and one could characterise it as learning to listen. Contemporary music takes us out of the harmonic and structural comfort zone; if it didn't, there wouldn't be any point to it. The Rite of Spring was contemporary music once; it was met with bafflement and outrage and incomprehension but is now about as standard a repertory work as one can get. Schubert's Ninth Symphony was met with utter bafflement by the musicians who first tried to play it - it was a mediating critic who tried to get past the incomprehension by writing about "heavenly lengths". As I have said, I am not a composer or a performer, but I have listened to music by a number of the composers who post here. A lot of it is very challenging and I certainly don't claim to have understood all of it; some of it has made a deeper impression than the rest, and there is certainly music that I personally want to come back to and consider further. For me - and I suspect for many of the listeners here - the element of challenge and of broadening one's understanding and learning something new - indeed, doing something active - has to be an essential part of what it is to appreciate music. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
At every one of these [classical] concerts in England you will find rows of weary people who are there, not because they really like classical music, but because they think they ought to like it. (Shaw, Don Juan in Hell)
|
|
|
|
SimonSagt!
|
|
« Reply #83 on: 23:33:10, 17-11-2007 » |
|
What an interesting post, p-w. And how pleasant to have such a point of view put in a manner that is clear, reasonable, unpretentious and not condescending.
I think I disagree with many of your premises, but I shall no doubt mull over them some more over the next few days.
bws S-S!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Emperor suspected they were right. But he dared not stop and so on he walked, more proudly than ever. And his courtiers behind him held high the train... that wasn't there at all.
|
|
|
|
Bryn
|
|
« Reply #84 on: 23:42:15, 17-11-2007 » |
|
A contemporary Rollo, freshly rolled in from the hostelry, worse the wear as usual, writes: how pleasant to have such a point of view put in a manner that is clear, reasonable, unpretentious and not condescending. outlining three characteristics conspicuously absent from his own contributions here, and adding a final one he specializes in. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SimonSagt!
|
|
« Reply #85 on: 23:46:27, 17-11-2007 » |
|
A contemporary Rollo, freshly rolled in from the hostelry, worse the wear as usual, writes: how pleasant to have such a point of view put in a manner that is clear, reasonable, unpretentious and not condescending. outlining three characteristics conspicuously absent from his own contributions here, and adding a final one he specializes in. I don't mind your irrelevancies and recent petty little attacks, but try to be accurate. Furthermore, I haven't been out to any hostelry this evening, nor have I had any alcohol. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Emperor suspected they were right. But he dared not stop and so on he walked, more proudly than ever. And his courtiers behind him held high the train... that wasn't there at all.
|
|
|
|
Ena
Guest
|
|
« Reply #86 on: 01:10:04, 18-11-2007 » |
|
Ee by gum it's obvious to someone as common as meself that Baziron's original question has been answered! Here we have a thread asking about Contemporary Music - but what do we find? Well there's one simple-minded coot peddling his own vitriol, and (by my simple reckoning) at least two (possibly three) ACTUAL composers more intent on quibbling with 'im than saying awt about what they write.
So, surely, we've cause to see at least one 'protestant' being shackled and goolied by possibly 3 'catholics'! Added to that, we now have a termite burrowing right through the lot of you.
I don't know much about religion (apart from t'Mission), but it all seems like some religious cult to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
C Dish
|
|
« Reply #87 on: 02:17:45, 18-11-2007 » |
|
Composers say plenty awt about what they write on other threads here. Perhaps we should have stayed away from this tendentious thread in the first place.
"The other day I wrote a B-flat for an indeterminate instrument, then I threw it away and decided to start over the next day. Amen."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
inert fig here
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #88 on: 04:14:38, 18-11-2007 » |
|
Richard is a composer. So is Autoharp. So are several other members of this forum, including myself. As best I understand it (and you may of course correct me if I am wrong), you are not a composer. Now, whilst composers may not expect to know everything about contemporary music, even though they are the makers of it, it is surely less than reasonable to assume that they have no more knowledge of the subject than someone like you would be expected to have? These remarks are by virtue of the terms they use rather deceptive. We do not think that "contemporary music" is a useful or even possible concept! And so the same goes in respect of the phrase "contemporary composer." There is something jumped-up about them is there not? A much more logical useful reasonable and sensible distinction would be between the two concepts " traditional music" and " experimental music." Likewise we have the " traditional composer" and the " experimental composer." Note that by "traditional" here we do not at all mean some one who copies what has been done in the past; we mean rather some one who uses all that has been done in the past as the foundation for new works of a beauty and greatness which would not have been possible had they not had that foundation in tradition. To put it another way our distinction is between the people who know what it is they are doing and those (whether or not they call themselves "composers") who do something without knowing what it is. Between those who are in control in other words and those who vaguely dither to little effect. Or between the builder of a sand-castle and the architect of a cathedral. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #89 on: 08:56:50, 18-11-2007 » |
|
Richard is a composer. So is Autoharp. So are several other members of this forum, including myself. As best I understand it (and you may of course correct me if I am wrong), you are not a composer. Now, whilst composers may not expect to know everything about contemporary music, even though they are the makers of it, it is surely less than reasonable to assume that they have no more knowledge of the subject than someone like you would be expected to have? These remarks are by virtue of the terms they use rather deceptive. We do not think that "contemporary music" is a useful or even possible concept! And so the same goes in respect of the phrase "contemporary composer." There is something jumped-up about them is there not? No; one can sit perfectly still at the computer keyboard and type those terms, as indeed I did - and by them, I meant, of course, music being written today by composers and those composers who are living and working today as distinct from those who are no longer alive and accordingly no longer doing so - no more, no less. A much more logical useful reasonable and sensible distinction would be between the two concepts "traditional music" and "experimental music." Likewise we have the "traditional composer" and the "experimental composer." Note that by "traditional" here we do not at all mean some one who copies what has been done in the past; we mean rather some one who uses all that has been done in the past as the foundation for new works of a beauty and greatness which would not have been possible had they not had that foundation in tradition.
This is far too simplistic and, by being so, also misleading. What is a "traditional" composer? ONe who writes in accordance with what are perceived to be compositional traditions, one may reasonably presume - but which ones? There are so many. Futhermore, Busoni deprecated the use of the term in the sense of its interpretation as a stultifying influence, at the smae time as he himself drew on many aspects of Western musical traditions in making his own often entirely individual music, some of which might be regarded as "experimental". Right - now what do "we" mean by an "experimental" composer? ONe who allows the experiments in the laboratory that is his/her composition desk be revealed as finished articles before and/or without first deriving conclusions from those experiments that might then give rise to pieces of music? (I'm trying to play devil's advocate here for the purposes of understanding your meaning). How does a listener determine whether and to what extent any piece of music is "traditional" or experimental"? And why on earth should anyone presume these two phenomena to be mutually exclusive? Did Beethoven not experiment in his final quartets? Did Chopin not experiment with new harmonies and forms? Did Liszt... Well, that's more than enough to be going on with. Yet these are just three accepted masters who both drew on traditions and looked to the future at the same time by exploring new things. As to your last sentence, name me one composer who has never drawn on past musical history in his/her work! To put it another way our distinction is between the people who know what it is they are doing and those (whether or not they call themselves "composers") who do something without knowing what it is. Between those who are in control in other words and those who vaguely dither to little effect. Or between the builder of a sand-castle and the architect of a cathedral.
Composers cannot always expect to have advance knowledge of every detail of what they will do, to the extent that, however much control they exert over their ideas, there is an aspect of composition that is a kind of voyage of discovery - and that is a fact steeped in the traditions of the past, as we know from the works of so many universally accepted major figures in musical composition over many generations. There is a vast difference between this and people just throwing things onto paper or the computer without having a clue what they're up to or what the results might be and then claiming that the end result is a finished piece of listener-ready music; I would have thought that you knew this already, even if a certain other person here does not - or doesn't want to. Some observers might find certain cathedrals very ugly, however knowledgeable and technically accomplished the architect (and don't forget that Xenakis was an architect!); few would comment similarly on sandcastles, however, since these are by nature ephemeral and not public buildings in the first place. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
