|
ahinton
|
 |
« Reply #135 on: 15:54:53, 04-07-2007 » |
|
Whichever composer we are talking about, just so much as a title does affect how the piece is heard, that's all. I believe that if something is called 'Voyage to Marrakesh', then one will hear it somewhat differently to if it is called 'Street life', especially if the allusional/representational aspects of the work are ambiguous.
Yes, of course that is true, although I have three brief things to add to it, since I don't think it covers the question fully. 1. On this basis, we (sorry, I'm suffering from Grewing pains here!) would all listen to quite a few pieces differently if we did not know their titles beforehand, yet the pieces themsleves would remain the same. 2. Titles with pictorial, literary or other non-musical references are not the same in this context as pieces simply called "Symphony No. 4", tout court. 3. I can't wait to hear the Spice Girls' Street Life in Marrakech in a piano transcription by Sorabji, played (with gritted teeth) by Ian Pace... Well, sometimes the very thing that makes something appear as 'art' or 'high culture' is little more than contrived aura. And contrariwise, highly commercial music ('low culture', if you like) frequently necessitates a degree of high standardisation.... These are both questions of 'what the music sounds like and what effects it has'.
That's what I didn't understand and still don't understand. When you write, as you now do, of a "contrived aura" and of "high standardisation", you seem to be referring to phenomena that are somehow pasted on to the music itself (for marketing purposes, or to create a convenient definitional categorisation, or for whatever other reason), since I don't believe that you are suggesting that the "classical" composer him/herself "contrives the aura" or that the pop group "highly standardises" itself; this is why I still fail to grasp your assertion that these are nevertheless "questions of 'what the music sounds like and what effects it has'". Perhaps I'm just being abit dense, but... It's not that difficult to create an aura around a work of art - one simply, for example, could shoot an otherwise very ordinary film in soft focus black-and-white, or have a whole work simply played at a quiet dynamic or at a tempo that seems to create a tension with the material. That's how the whole process of defamiliarisation works - but that in itself does not make the work any the more remarkable. When the aspects of a piece of music that make it sound like 'art' amount to little more than a certain aura, then you have just mystification. The only point being is that something's being 'arty' in that sense does not imply any quality. And that 'artiness' can be a defining factor in making something perceived as 'high' rather than 'low' culture. Debussy or Ravel (in very different ways) exploit understated 'Expression' in and of themselves, simply as another expressive device - the Expression may be more muted, but the expression is not, necessarily. But in other hands this can simply amount to little more than emotional reticence. And in certain cultural contexts, the simple fact of emotional reticence, tied as such values are to the expected behavioural patterns of the higher classes, are part of what makes something pass as 'high culture'. When I refer to 'high standarisation' in popular music, that is very straightforward - simply about formulaic tendencies in various respects, with nothing more than a surface veneer of individuality (what Adorno called pseudo-individualisation). [/quote] I find this interesting, yet I'm still not entirely sure whether you're talking here about the composer creating such an "aura" around his/her work, consciously or otherwise, deliberately or otherwise, or someone else taking a composer's work and doing this indepently of the composer's intentions... it's a question of whether the conditions under which it is produced make this more or less likely.
To what kind of "conditions" do you refer here? and how might you see them as directly affecting the nature of the music that emerges therefrom? The economic conditions under which it is produced (most of all, whether it has to be manufactured with a view to maximising market utility). Oh, well, that let's me out well and truly, then; not only am I not the public-school-educated son of a Lord (though no doubt you might think me to be a sonofa-something else!), I don't write much to commission (sadly), so the "economic conditions" under which I do my work would appear to be wholly independent of the kinds of potentially pernicious influence of which you write. And, all things told, I do think that is marginally more likely under the auspices of the institutions that support and maintain 'less commercial' music than with music produced entirely as a commodity.
Whichever way round you happen to see it (and, as far as it goes, I see it the same way that you do), the problem that I have with this notion is that it's not the "institutions" that actually compose the music that they may or may not support; I do believe that it's important to draw the relevant distinction between the music and its composers on the one hand and the institutions that from time to time may or may not support it on the other. Of course the two things are not equivalent, but I think you vastly underestimate the importance of the institutions supporting music-making and the economics of musical production. And, yes, I think those factors quite profoundly influence what gets composed and performed, and how. Not at all; what I don't do, however, is ascribe a particular kind of importance to such institutions that they neither possess nor deserve - i.e. the power to determine how a composer should write his/her music. More on other stuff, including Daphnis, later. Quick thought on that - I reckon it was the Dutoit/Montreal Symphony recording of the work that set into motion the whole 'post-modern' view of it that has now become fashionable.
Well, since you know well my non-view of the entire term "postmodern" and its usefulness (or lack thereof), you will realise that I can't really comment intelligently on that, but I do so agree with you that the work - one of Ravel's gretest in many ways - has had more than its (un)fair share of malignant performances over the years (I've heard several myself). Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #136 on: 16:12:27, 04-07-2007 » |
|
(Only four cigarettes so far today, after having been up for seven hours, by the way  ) Wow! Well, there you are! It's having an amazing beneficial effect already.  I shudder to think what will happen when you give up altogether. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 16:14:03, 04-07-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #137 on: 16:27:35, 04-07-2007 » |
|
George:  |
|
|
|
|
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 #138 on: 16:28:49, 04-07-2007 » |
|
It'll be faceious next, Ollie.  And sooner or later we'll have fascious. |
|
|
|
|
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 #139 on: 16:38:18, 04-07-2007 » |
|
2. Titles with pictorial, literary or other non-musical references are not the same in this context as pieces simply called "Symphony No. 4", tout court. That sort of title equally summons upon a plethora of allusions, historical and otherwise, every bit as much as a programmatic or descriptive one does. I find this interesting, yet I'm still not entirely sure whether you're talking here about the composer creating such an "aura" around his/her work, consciously or otherwise, deliberately or otherwise, or someone else taking a composer's work and doing this indepently of the composer's intentions... Primarily the former, though the latter can also be enacted to some degree through performance (and often is). it's a question of whether the conditions under which it is produced make this more or less likely.
To what kind of "conditions" do you refer here? and how might you see them as directly affecting the nature of the music that emerges therefrom? The economic conditions under which it is produced (most of all, whether it has to be manufactured with a view to maximising market utility). Oh, well, that let's me out well and truly, then; not only am I not the public-school-educated son of a Lord (though no doubt you might think me to be a sonofa-something else!), I don't write much to commission (sadly), so the "economic conditions" under which I do my work would appear to be wholly independent of the kinds of potentially pernicious influence of which you write. The majority of music of which we have heard is either written to commission, or has been performed/recorded by those who operate under those economic conditions. what I don't do, however, is ascribe a particular kind of importance to such institutions that they neither possess nor deserve - i.e. the power to determine how a composer should write his/her music. That's where I think you have a profound blind spot - if any composer is not to languish in obscurity (and is to be able to develop their craft through the experience of working with performers), they have to satisfy the demands of those institutions. And that is no small matter, and either (a) affects what they write if they are designing it for maximum career-success (a very common situation) or (b) filters out from what is being written only that which already satisfies such demands. |
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #140 on: 16:43:18, 04-07-2007 » |
|
Just some quick responses to some of this before going out to eat lunch in a thoroughly smoke-free pub! As I said, I don't want to pursue Sorabji arguments any further, so I'm going to leave most of those bits of text alone. (only four cigarettes so far today, after having been up for seven hours, by the way ) Well done! Soon you'll be able to pick out your "last cigarette" and try to make friends with it. I find this interesting, yet I'm still not entirely sure whether you're talking here about the composer creating such an "aura" around his/her work, consciously or otherwise, deliberately or otherwise, or someone else taking a composer's work and doing this indepently of the composer's intentions... How can anything be done inpedendipently of the composer's intentions?! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #141 on: 16:50:25, 04-07-2007 » |
|
I find this interesting, yet I'm still not entirely sure whether you're talking here about the composer creating such an "aura" around his/her work, consciously or otherwise, deliberately or otherwise, or someone else taking a composer's work and doing this indepently of the composer's intentions... Primarily the former, though the latter can also be enacted to some degree through performance (and often is). OK, so that, at least is now clear; what remains unclear to me is examples of this happening, how and why the composers who do it go about it and what specific differences such "aura creation" makes to the works that their composers subject to such treatment. it's a question of whether the conditions under which it is produced make this more or less likely.
To what kind of "conditions" do you refer here? and how might you see them as directly affecting the nature of the music that emerges therefrom? The economic conditions under which it is produced (most of all, whether it has to be manufactured with a view to maximising market utility). Oh, well, that let's me out well and truly, then; not only am I not the public-school-educated son of a Lord (though no doubt you might think me to be a sonofa-something else!), I don't write much to commission (sadly), so the "economic conditions" under which I do my work would appear to be wholly independent of the kinds of potentially pernicious influence of which you write. The majority of music of which we have heard is either written to commission, or has been performed/recorded by those who operate under those economic conditions. So can I be reasonably confident that your view of this situation is specifically confined to commissioned works and does not extend to self-funded ones? what I don't do, however, is ascribe a particular kind of importance to such institutions that they neither possess nor deserve - i.e. the power to determine how a composer should write his/her music. That's where I think you have a profound blind spot - if any composer is not to languish in obscurity (and is to be able to develop their craft through the experience of working with performers), they have to satisfy the demands of those institutions. And that is no small matter, and either (a) affects what they write if they are designing it for maximum career-success (a very common situation) or (b) filters out from what is being written only that which already satisfies such demands. Clearly, any composer who writes works deliberately with a view to satisfying to the letter some externally imposed demands or to achieve some kind of "career success" (i.e. as his her sole or principal motivation for writing those works) will indeed have fallen thereby into the kind of category of which you write. I don't believe, however, that this is by any means always true, even of commissioned works, but it's undoubtedly an interesting postulation and I, for one, would be curious to observe and assess the results of any thorough and scientifically conducted survey of this kind of thing in order to establish with some kind of certainty exactly what is seen to happen and how, in each such composer's case. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #142 on: 17:00:41, 04-07-2007 » |
|
So can I be reasonably confident that your view of this situation is specifically confined to commissioned works and does not extend to self-funded ones? No, because as I implied, the same processes are at work with respect to satisfying both wishes and necessities for performers who might play such things. On an obvious level, a five-hour work for fifteen contrabass flutes is not going to be performed as often as a fifteen minute work for medium size chamber ensemble (please do not use this opportunity to bring you-know-who back into the discussion). Clearly, any composer who writes works deliberately with a view to satisfying to the letter some externally imposed demands or to achieve some kind of "career success" (i.e. as his her sole or principal motivation for writing those works) will indeed have fallen thereby into the kind of category of which you write. I don't believe, however, that this is by any means always true, even of commissioned works, but it's undoubtedly an interesting postulation and I, for one, would be curious to observe and assess the results of any thorough and scientifically conducted survey of this kind of thing in order to establish with some kind of certainty exactly what is seen to happen and how, in each such composer's case. Every time someone is commissioned there are stipulations (as I say, obviously in terms of duration, instrumentation, and then on from that to other things). Any composer who wants their works to be played at all needs to consider the realities of concert life and whether what they do will be able to find any place in it. There is no work other than that produce in a hermit-like situation (no, don't bring him in here either) which is free from such things. Some people exploit them more cynically than others, of course; in a cultural climate that values simple bums on seats more than any other musical or other values, such cynicism is perhaps an inevitable state of affairs. |
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #143 on: 17:07:24, 04-07-2007 » |
|
I find this interesting, yet I'm still not entirely sure whether you're talking here about the composer creating such an "aura" around his/her work, consciously or otherwise, deliberately or otherwise, or someone else taking a composer's work and doing this independently of the composer's intentions... How can anything be done inpedendipently of the composer's intentions?! If someone other than the composer has "created an aura" (Ian's concept and term - not mine) around a particular composer's work, that may well have been done "independently" of the composer's intentions, I would have thought (although I confess never to have thought about the idea at all until Ian had mentioned it)... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
« Reply #144 on: 17:10:17, 04-07-2007 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Well, there you are.
|
|
|
|
Baziron
Guest
|
|
« Reply #145 on: 17:15:18, 04-07-2007 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #146 on: 17:18:27, 04-07-2007 » |
|
So can I be reasonably confident that your view of this situation is specifically confined to commissioned works and does not extend to self-funded ones? No, because as I implied, the same processes are at work with respect to satisfying both wishes and necessities for performers who might play such things. On an obvious level, a five-hour work for fifteen contrabass flutes is not going to be performed as often as a fifteen minute work for medium size chamber ensemble (please do not use this opportunity to bring you-know-who back into the discussion). OK, then - although, whilst I obviously agree with your assessment of the fact of a 5-hour work for 15 contrabass flutes, I'd be hard put to bring any composer of one back - or otherwise - into the discussion, since I take leave to doubt that any such work has been written; of course I accept that composers will tailor their works to the specific media for which they write (that's almost inevitable, I'd have thought - one doesn't start thinking about piano textures when writing a piece for string quartet - or contrabass flute), but I don't see that alone as affecting the content to anything like the extent that you were writing about earlier. Writing a piece for the Ardittis, say - or even for Ian Pace(!) - is hardly likely of itself to demand the kinds of constriction that one might associate with "upper class" "public school", "institutional" considerations. Clearly, any composer who writes works deliberately with a view to satisfying to the letter some externally imposed demands or to achieve some kind of "career success" (i.e. as his her sole or principal motivation for writing those works) will indeed have fallen thereby into the kind of category of which you write. I don't believe, however, that this is by any means always true, even of commissioned works, but it's undoubtedly an interesting postulation and I, for one, would be curious to observe and assess the results of any thorough and scientifically conducted survey of this kind of thing in order to establish with some kind of certainty exactly what is seen to happen and how, in each such composer's case. Every time someone is commissioned there are stipulations (as I say, obviously in terms of duration, instrumentation, and then on from that to other things). Any composer who wants their works to be played at all needs to consider the realities of concert life and whether what they do will be able to find any place in it. There is no work other than that produce in a hermit-like situation (no, don't bring him in here either) which is free from such things. Some people exploit them more cynically than others, of course; in a cultural climate that values simple bums on seats more than any other musical or other values, such cynicism is perhaps an inevitable state of affairs. I accept in principle all that you say here (and the composer who dare not have his name spoken is not, incidentally, the only one who has ever written music in something approaching the "hermit-like situation" that you mention) but, as indicated above, these kinds of considerations seem to me in most cases to be very different from those in which a composer might have his entire compositional modus operandi and content pre-determined through the vagaries of some kind of aristocratic dictatorship. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 17:33:36, 04-07-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #147 on: 17:28:27, 04-07-2007 » |
|
OK, then - although, whilst I obviously agree with your assessment of the fact of a 5-hour work for 15 contrabass flutes, I'd be hard put to bring any composer of one back - or otherwise - into the discussion, since I take leave to doubt that any such work has been written; of course I accept that composers will tailor their works to the specific media for which they write (that's almost inevitable, I'd have thought - one doesn't start thinking about piano textures when writing a piece for string quartet - or contrabass flute), but I don't see that alone as affecting the content to anything like the extent that you were writing about earlier. Writing a piece for the Ardittis, say - or even for Ian Pace(!) - is hardly likely of itself to demand the kinds of constriction that one might associate with "upper class" "public school", "institutional" considerations. You are really trying my patience here - I was answering a clear question and then you insist on changing the question. In this case the question was simply about how economic conditions affect the nature of compositional production. The permeation of the values of the higher classes and the public schools in Britain is another issue. And I'm sure you know as well as anyone that performers like myself or the Ardittis or other who play a wide range of difficult contemporary music are by no means the norm. Furthermore, none of us have complete programming freedom either (I know for a fact that Irvine would definitely second that statement). The institutions under whose auspices we play have their own programming and aesthetic agendas. I accept in principle all that you say here (and the composer who dare not have his name spoken is not, incidentally, the only one who has ever written music in something approaching the "hermit-like situation" that you mention) but, as indicated above, these kinds of considerations seem to me in most cases to be very different from those in which a composer might have his entire compositional modus operandi and content pre-determined through the vagaries of some kind of aristocratic dictatorship. I repeat my comments from above - here we are speaking about conditions of compositional production in the wide sense. The influence of the higher classes come into play as one particular manifestation of that, not least when they are the ones giving private money to support music-making. And when whole institutional sub-cultures are dominated by people from those backgrounds, who make decisions concerning 'taste' and the like, then the implications should be clear. Of course not everyone from such backgrounds or inhabiting such circles maintain the same values, but it's not difficult to discern norms. If you want a long exposition of the role of snobbish, arrogant artistic values in the history of Western high culture, please go and read a bit about it - I have other things to be doing rather than posting at great length about that on here. |
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
« Reply #148 on: 17:32:18, 04-07-2007 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Well, there you are.
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #149 on: 17:39:49, 04-07-2007 » |
|
OK, then - although, whilst I obviously agree with your assessment of the fact of a 5-hour work for 15 contrabass flutes, I'd be hard put to bring any composer of one back - or otherwise - into the discussion, since I take leave to doubt that any such work has been written; of course I accept that composers will tailor their works to the specific media for which they write (that's almost inevitable, I'd have thought - one doesn't start thinking about piano textures when writing a piece for string quartet - or contrabass flute), but I don't see that alone as affecting the content to anything like the extent that you were writing about earlier. Writing a piece for the Ardittis, say - or even for Ian Pace(!) - is hardly likely of itself to demand the kinds of constriction that one might associate with "upper class" "public school", "institutional" considerations. You are really trying my patience here By no means intentionally, let me assure you. I was answering a clear question and then you insist on changing the question. In this case the question was simply about how economic conditions affect the nature of compositional production. The permeation of the values of the higher classes and the public schools in Britain is another issue.
I was not and am not seeking to change the question, let alone "insisting on" doing so; I had understood - or rather (apparently) misunderstood - that you are regarding these two things as the separate considerations that we each agree them to be. And I'm sure you know as well as anyone that performers like myself or the Ardittis or other who play a wide range of difficult contemporary music are by no means the norm. Furthermore, none of us have complete programming freedom either (I know for a fact that Irvine would definitely second that statement). The institutions under whose auspices we play have their own programming and aesthetic agendas.
Yes, of course (but see above, in that your meaning is now clearer to me). I accept in principle all that you say here (and the composer who dare not have his name spoken is not, incidentally, the only one who has ever written music in something approaching the "hermit-like situation" that you mention) but, as indicated above, these kinds of considerations seem to me in most cases to be very different from those in which a composer might have his entire compositional modus operandi and content pre-determined through the vagaries of some kind of aristocratic dictatorship. I repeat my comments from above - here we are speaking about conditions of compositional production in the wide sense. The influence of the higher classes come into play as one particular manifestation of that, not least when they are the ones giving private money to support music-making. And when whole institutional sub-cultures are dominated by people from those backgrounds, who make decisions concerning 'taste' and the like, then the implications should be clear. Of course not everyone from such backgrounds or inhabiting such circles maintain the same values, but it's not difficult to discern norms. If you want a long exposition of the role of snobbish, arrogant artistic values in the history of Western high culture, please go and read a bit about it - I have other things to be doing rather than posting at great length about that on here. I've already done more than my fair share of such reading, thanks and I have in any case neither requested nor expected that you post "at great length about that on here"; I'm quite sure that we both have "other things to be doing" besides that... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
