Holy Moses it's Holy Minimalism!

I usually don't engage in discussions with people incapable of putting together a logical argument or distinguishing between attacks on somebody's opinion and the person himself. This time I'll make an exception.

Er, sonny, that was my point. Mondrian represents a different time and a different way of looking at art, one that wouldn't have been taken seriously in another time period.

As for jazz being inferior .......... Like Parla you seem to have decided that your way of looking at things is the only way. Silly? Take off the funny nose and the wig, lad!

No I did not make the same point as you did. I don't know why you are trying to be so offensive, maybe you are trying to be humourous, but it's not working. Notes and keys are like numbers or letters and cannot have value judgements attached to them. But what we do with them can be quantified on a scale of what is good and bad. Are you really suggesting that a newspaper article that is designed to be a factual statement can really have the same worth as a Shakespeare play. It may be a great newspaper article, on say parking congestion in Milton Keynes, but to give it the value of a Shakespeare play. I think not. Jazz musicians are like news writers, they play to an audience who really wouldn't know and do not care if a few notes are missing or if whole sections are badly improvised, as long as they are enjoying the evening, alcohol improves jazz somewhat. I don't know why in your last statement you want to speak for all the members of the forum. Did they vote you as their captain or do you just think you deserve the position. You need to think for yourself and not just repeat the words you have heard on TV, and for god sake chill out.

I think we all contributed to the no way out kind of debate. As a last (possibly) effort, I have to make as clear as possible the following points:

My argument about the superiority of Classical Music versus modern aspects of music, like minimalism, Jazz, Pop (I don't dare to go further; it's too much, at least for me) is focused on the fact that this life is built on values, references, rules, laws. I just even gave the example that, when the performers are judged, not on the basis of their popularity or taste, as "great" and "average" or even "bad", I cannot see how what they perform (the music) cannot be judged accordingly and is left to the "taste" of whoever happened to listen and get to know the work of Art. So, I guess all the Universities, Conservatories, Music Professors, Scholars, etc. have nothing to teach or to say, except "play what might be likeable, fascinating, appealing", "make them laugh" or even "fool them". And this is exactly what happens in Pop culture.

Jazz is great music but with the bar lower. First of all, it's not written music. The players have a theme (normally easy and simple) and then improvise. As long as they don't write down the improvisations, this music has the value of the moment. Those who manage to witness it, they may be astonished, like you Partsong with McCoy Tyner. However, for me it means and proves nothing, as long as even McCoy himself cannot repeat it. Bach, Liszt and some others did it. They wrote down their improvisations in final definitive compositions and, nowadays and as long as mankind exists, their compositions can be studied and performed. Can you find any score of any improvisation of McCoy Tyner, Partsong, and have you found anywhere any Jazz musician, no matter how great he may be, to be able to perform the exact improvisation of another player or even his own?

As for Minimalism, this argument of "economy of means" sounds like a cheap excuse to avoid the (awful) truth : Music stripped down to the minimum. Beethoven, Chopin or anybody else of the Classical field never use the "economy of means" to strip down the music or his work, but, on the contrary, to prove that sometimes less is more in the hand of the able, inspired and talented composer. That's why we study Chopin's Preludes and not whatever "object of virtue" of any minimalist "creator". (If you want to become a virtuoso violinist, you have to study Paganini, Sarasate,etc - they are the reference the undisputed value -. If you wish to become a complete soloist of violin, you have to study Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. If you want to prove you are a very accomplished cellist you have to be able to play Dvorak's concerto, etc.).

(Tagalie, it's not a matter of arrogance, but of strong conviction based on years of study, love for this Artform and relationship with people of this business. And think it over: if there is no "good" or "bad", as commonly understood notions, we are...in great danger and...lost, first in translation and then...).

Parla

A fascinating thread, this.  While I have nothing to add to the debate itself while Mark's original question stays below the radar, it does occur to me that the itch to rush to value judgements about others' tastes is regrettable.  "You are wrong", (such and such) is "of course inferior", claims that seem to imply that academic knowledge confers superior taste in music. 

It doesn't matter much what function music fulfils.  What matters is enjoyment, involvement, fulfilment, satisfaction - for the individual listener.   I don't know what it is that makes some people think they have the right to look down on others for their musical preferences, whether it's pop, rock, jazz, minimalism, or whatever.  To me it reads like pretentious snobbery, a claim to superiority because someone thinks the more academic knowledge involved in writing about music, the more superior the taste.  It's about as meaningful as debating the superiority or otherwise of accents.

Opinions expressed would carry more conviction, for me at least, if they weren't so judgemental and condescending.  Some people need to get over themselves, as my mother used to say.

Now what about the "holy" in relation to music (he adds hopefully)?

Vic.

Partsong, I understand your frustration, but you try to defend a kind of music that even musicians feel bored to perform (I  mentioned the example of Part's Spiegel am Spiegel in a previous post). The other problem is that you read my posts and possibly the ones of Magnus Opus not that carefully and, the worse, selectively. So, to answer your "summary":

Minimalism is underdevelopment in the course of Classical Music.

We (or at least those who actually) don't listen to Part's music, not because he doesn't use the sonata form, but because he does not employ any considerably great form of composition. (As I mentioned in my previous posts, it's not only the sonata form; it can be the Variations form, the Rondeau, the Sonata-Rondeau, the Fantasia, the Fugue, the Sonatina, Sonata without development and many more. I just claimed that, in musical terms, the Sonata form is the greatest invention, which, of course, is not used always and everywhere; in Lieder, it's never used, anyway).

It's "cheap excuse" to call "economy of means" what actually is simpy... "economy"...of music. By all means, economy of means is a virtue in Music, if it leads to any development, advancement of it and resulting in great works.

As for the "deviation" of the composers from the Sonata form and the "structure" of music, I think my previous explanation answers that. (Surely, they can deviate or use "other ways", provided they write good, developed, full-fledged compositions, not simple lines, repetitions, small repetitive cells, etc.).

As for the values : If they exist they are absolute anyway. If there are no values, actually, we have nothing to discuss. It's simply, I like that; I don't. And I don't care! So, this is the end station of our knowledge, expertise, civilisation: to agree on what we like for whatever reasons : simplicity, economy (of means, if you think so), immediacy?

Think it over. Values exist, even in taste, in what we..."like". Otherwise, we don't have even to claim what we like. We don't need reviews, articles, teaching, expertise. Much more, we don't need to exchange our views that do not represent any value (except for ourselves). It's irrelevant and indifferent to anybody else. Even if we find out that some of us have common "taste", it doesn't mean anything, unless we agree that this "common" appeal to all of us means something more, has a certain value...and, then, we may connect...

Parla