|
Ian Pace
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: 20:01:02, 02-05-2007 » |
|
I don't play 'arcane contemporary music'. I play music that engages with me and where I feel I can communicate that engagement. At least that's how it works when I do my own programming.  Same here. But a huge number of other people would think it is arcane. The kind of money that goes into ensemble funding actually wouldn't do a great deal towards constructing or enlarging a community arts centre. There's a bit of a scale problem there. There is also the money that goes into all the festivals and other organisations who book those ensembles, into radio stations, and so on. I don't think you can answer the thread title but I've already given my response to it: for me the word 'good' is too loose to be useful. At least without resorting to a degree of subjectivity which according to my understanding of your posts you would reject. As I said earlier in the thread, that all such things ultimately come down to subjective criteria is obvious. My beef with t-i-n's definition was that he was simply pointing out that fact rather than offering any such criteria. But if 'the word 'good' is too loose to be useful', then the question 'what makes a good piece of music' must also surely be - in which case I ask why you are bothered about posting to this thread, other than to nit-pick? |
|
|
|
|
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 #31 on: 20:02:32, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Your other response was: I did try to frame mine in a way that acknowledged the frequently interpersonal nature of the criteria, which I think is important. It's not a claim to universality, but it is a claim that the criteria are often shared, and bonded over (which can be both a good, bad and an indifferent thing). Which is just to say that 'some people will agree over the criteria', without giving actual criteria. Indeed (and yes, that is the bit I wanted you to take another look at). The main reason I didn't directly answer the question in the thread title earlier was because you asked me for a definition. In giving one, I did explain that defining the terms was not the same as answering the question. My answer to the question 'What makes a good piece of music?' is indeed that the criteria, and indeed the types of criteria, are variable but that there are criteria. What you say of your own answer - that whilst very general (deliberately so, so as not to narrow this in terms of genre and so on) ... [it] does try to ground criteria of value in terms of responses to the music - is equally true of mine. Where it differs from a populist argument is in the eschewal of the notion that, by necessity, these sorts of experiences are necessarily those that people want. Yes, but I'm puzzled by your implication that I failed to eschew such a notion. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 20:07:40, 02-05-2007 » |
|
I refuse to engage with any of the important issues facing today's musicians, preferring to respond in a facile and flippant way which carries no intellectual weight and exposes me as no better than any other subsidised academic.
I think I shall go out and eat something now. Wonder if there's any nice food to be had in Antwerp?
Richard, you'll be wanting a tourist guide: http://www.boosey.com/pages/cr/catalogue/cat_detail.asp?musicid=7492 |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 20:09:34, 02-05-2007 » |
|
if 'the word 'good' is too loose to be useful', then the question 'what makes a good piece of music' must also surely be - in which case I ask why you are bothered about posting to this thread, other than to nit-pick? Ian Some of us read beyond the title to the first message: I'm intrigued by the wide range of opinions evident on the board and wonder if indeed there is any way of coming up with an answer to this question that will satisfy most commentators? If not, what does that say for the future of [discussion of] musical quality - is it [are they] of any importance in the twenty-first century? [my emphasis] |
|
|
|
|
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 #34 on: 20:10:10, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Your other response was: I did try to frame mine in a way that acknowledged the frequently interpersonal nature of the criteria, which I think is important. It's not a claim to universality, but it is a claim that the criteria are often shared, and bonded over (which can be both a good, bad and an indifferent thing). Which is just to say that 'some people will agree over the criteria', without giving actual criteria. Indeed (and yes, that is the bit I wanted you to take another look at). The main reason I didn't directly answer the question in the thread title earlier was because you asked me for a definition. In giving one, I did explain that defining the terms was not the same as answering the question. This is really pedantic now - I would have thought that asking for a definition of what makes a good piece of music might reasonably be read to imply asking for an answer to the question. My answer to the question 'What makes a good piece of music?' is indeed that the criteria, and indeed the types of criteria, are variable but that there are criteria. Now you are saying 'The question can be answered' (because 'there are criteria'), but these criteria are still all-elusive! What you say of your own answer - that whilst very general (deliberately so, so as not to narrow this in terms of genre and so on) ... [it] does try to ground criteria of value in terms of responses to the music - is equally true of mine. Maybe, but not in terms of the nature of those responses. Where it differs from a populist argument is in the eschewal of the notion that, by necessity, these sorts of experiences are necessarily those that people want. Yes, but I'm puzzled by your implication that I failed to eschew such a notion. That's not an implication, it's an elaboration of the original definition. |
|
|
|
|
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 #35 on: 20:12:32, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Some of us read beyond the title to the first message: I'm intrigued by the wide range of opinions evident on the board and wonder if indeed there is any way of coming up with an answer to this question that will satisfy most commentators? If not, what does that say for the future of [discussion of] musical quality - is it [are they] of any importance in the twenty-first century? [my emphasis] Sure - do you think they are? I do, because of issues of subsidy, broadcasting priorities, the increasing commercialisation of music-making, etc., but I'm sure you know that. But what do you think - is there a future for musical quality or discussion thereof? Do issues of quality matter in the twenty-first century? |
|
|
|
|
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 #36 on: 20:14:00, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Now you are saying 'The question can be answered' (because 'there are criteria'), but these criteria are still all-elusive! No - I'm really not! I'm simply suggesting that they differ widely, and that the fact they exist at all is possibly more interesting and more noteworthy than trying to list them all. That's not to say that it wouldn't also be interesting to list some of them, but I assume each contributor to this thread will list some of their own (albeit in some cases by implication). Not all questions are best answered directly. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 20:18:49, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Claude Lanzmann's epic and hugely depressing film Shoah, for example It was only a matter of time!  But a huge number of other people would think it is arcane. I think you'll find it was you who called it arcane. There is also the money that goes into all the festivals and other organisations who book those ensembles, into radio stations, and so on. Thanks, I'm familiar with the concept of infrastructure. I think you'll find community centres have them too. There is nowhere near as much money in the business as you're implying. I ask why you are bothered about posting to this thread, other than to nit-pick? There's this chap who keeps firing questions off at me. I suspect if he stops I'll go away. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 20:19:30, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Now you are saying 'The question can be answered' (because 'there are criteria'), but these criteria are still all-elusive! No - I'm really not! I'm simply suggesting that they differ widely, and that the fact they exist at all is possibly more interesting and more noteworthy than trying to list them all. That's not to say that it wouldn't also be interesting to list some of them, but I assume each contributor to this thread will list some of their own (albeit in some cases by implication). Not all questions are best answered directly. Indeed, but better that than not answering at all. No-one is going to be able to, or pretend to, 'list them all', I reckon, but could we have just one that you would advocate, maybe? |
|
|
|
|
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 #39 on: 20:21:04, 02-05-2007 » |
|
I'm intrigued by the wide range of opinions evident on the board and wonder if indeed there is any way of coming up with an answer to this question that will satisfy most commentators? If not, what does that say for the future of [discussion of] musical quality - is it [are they] of any importance in the twenty-first century? [my emphasis] Sure - do you think they are? I do, because of issues of subsidy, broadcasting priorities, the increasing commercialisation of music-making, etc., but I'm sure you know that. But what do you think - is there a future for musical quality or discussion thereof? Do issues of quality matter in the twenty-first century? I think one argument could be that even if the current institutional support for what we understand as 'contemporary music' is founded on untenable assumptions about quality, the sort of things you're talking about as liable to replace it are equally so. In that sense, I think the question of whether the definition I offered implies what you said it did about 'amassed subjectivities' is crucial. To me, it doesn't, which means that replacing the current system (such as it is) with something based exclusively on popularity in a proportional-representation-type system would be dangerous, because the nature of such a majoritarian system combined with the mass market would mean that minorities got excluded. |
|
|
|
|
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 #40 on: 20:21:58, 02-05-2007 » |
|
But a huge number of other people would think it is arcane. I think you'll find it was you who called it arcane. Ah right, so the rest of the populace are actually huge fans of a wide range of modernist music, then? (I knew you wouldn't like Shoah being brought up, but that's not entirely surprising from one who would prefer to keep politics out of discussion of Celan) |
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #41 on: 20:28:17, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Ah right, so the rest of the populace are actually huge fans of a wide range of modernist music, then? I've played Ferneyhough and others to audiences from a wide range of backgrounds and in a wide range of places and I reckon most people who hear what I play can get some kind of handle on it. Plenty of people can approach some modern pieces who can't get a handle on Mozart because they don't have the long-term musical memory required to cope with sonata form but can immediately identify with, say, the athletic element or the tonal palette involved in some modern pieces, or can relate them more closely to other musical idioms they're already familiar with, jazz being the obvious one. And I hate to say it, Ian, but I suspect there are six million ghosts out there tired of having you drag them into every petty message board spat. You might want to have a read of this. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 20:30:50, 02-05-2007 by oliver sudden »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 20:38:30, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Ah right, so the rest of the populace are actually huge fans of a wide range of modernist music, then? I've played Ferneyhough and others to audiences from a wide range of backgrounds and in a wide range of places and I reckon most people who hear what I play can get some kind of handle on it. Plenty of people can approach some modern pieces who can't get a handle on Mozart because they don't have the long-term musical memory required to cope with sonata form but can immediately identify with, say, the athletic element or the tonal palette involved in some modern pieces, or can relate them more closely to other musical idioms they're already familiar with, jazz being the obvious one. Amazing that Ferneyhough hasn't become massively popular all over the place, then. And I hate to say it, Ian, but I suspect there are six million ghosts out there tired of having you drag them into every petty message board spat. You might want to have a read of this. Here we go again - maybe you would have liked to say that to Paul Celan, also, in the context of his poetry? Like in previous cases, it becomes a 'spat' when you butt in to offer high-handed comment on other responses to the issue in preference to offering an answer of your own (which only come with a lot of pushing). Whatever we do, don't mention the most calamituous event of the twentieth-century, or any art-work that has anything to do with it (which excludes rather a lot, actually). I can't imagine those six million ghosts would appreciate your dismissal of a film like Shoah (if one accepts that it is a reasonable artistic response to the events in question) as an archetypal example of an art work that brings the question of what people might like, as against what might be important, into the fore. I would have thought those ghosts would prefer the events being 'shoved down people's throats' (as you have put it) than nicely swept under the carpet in the interests of 'sociability'. Actually, I don't think they should necessarily be shoved down people's throats, but I do think they are important in the context of 20th-century history and indeed culture. Something tells me that Paul Celan might have agreed..... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 20:41:21, 02-05-2007 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 #43 on: 20:42:21, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Now you are saying 'The question can be answered' (because 'there are criteria'), but these criteria are still all-elusive! No - I'm really not! I'm simply suggesting that they differ widely, and that the fact they exist at all is possibly more interesting and more noteworthy than trying to list them all. That's not to say that it wouldn't also be interesting to list some of them, but I assume each contributor to this thread will list some of their own (albeit in some cases by implication). Not all questions are best answered directly. Indeed, but better that than not answering at all. No-one is going to be able to, or pretend to, 'list them all', I reckon, but could we have just one that you would advocate, maybe? Absolutely! (It did rather sound before as if you were expecting me to address the question in a very comprehensive manner.) One of the things that would lead me to consider a piece of music good (rather than simply to my own taste) would be if the composer is sufficiently in command of his materials both to sustain my interest in the piece and to stimulate my mind to make connections between the piece and things outside the piece, which could be either (or preferably both) other pieces of music in my listening experience (by the same and by other composers) and/or other phenomena in the world. That last category is likely to include issues concerning the way individual human consciousnesses relate to each other, and the way human consciousness at a more collective level relates to its preceived environment (both diachronic and synchronic). |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #44 on: 20:45:35, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Amazing that Ferneyhough hasn't become massively popular all over the place, then. Well, I'm doing what I can...  Whatever we do, don't mention the most calamitous event of the twentieth-century Not at all. Just don't take its name in vain, was what I was getting at. Celan experienced it. You bring it up at the drop of a hat. It didn't need to be here, it trivialises it to bring it up continuously and it ruins discussions. Surely you've noticed? By the way, you might find that if you get down from that soapbox people will find you less of a pain in the neck to talk to. Have a lovely evening.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
