Jazz is the new classical.
Fri, Oct 26 2012, 3:43PM
#2
RE: RE:
That was never the issue here for me.
If that’s not the issue for you then it looks there is no disagreement between us. Other than to say that classical music – like all other types of music – is essentially a product. Someone will be prepared to pay for it – be it a CD, ITunes download or a ticket to the Proms – because that product delivers a benefit at a price we are prepared to pay. Otherwise you wouldn’t pay for it, in the same way that you wouldn’t pay for anything else you didn’t want or wouldn’t be prepared to pay the market rate for.
It strikes me that talk about responding intellectually, spiritually and emotionally to music rather obscures this fact and suggests that it is somehow outside the normal rules of economic exchange which affect everything else. Marx had a word for this – commodity fetishism. And there are some real commodity fetishists on this discussion board…
Fri, Oct 26 2012, 3:52PM
#3
RE: RE:
"If that’s not the issue for you then it looks there is no disagreement between us."
Best we stop here then ! I wish I knew exactly what it is we don't disagree on though!
Chris
Fri, Oct 26 2012, 4:41PM
#4
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
A very wise suggestion, Chris.
The semantics and the different notions "will get us nowhere", said Craig. Definitely, semantics and the perception of the various notions involved show the danger in approaching serious issues with triviality ("the only reason that anyone would want to listen to Gotterdammerung or Missa Solemnis is to gain enjoyment from doing so") and trivial issues seriously ("classical music is essentially a product" leading us to "commodity fetishism"). (However, that was a very intriguing suggestion by Oscar Wilde).
For all it might be worth, Craig, please kindly note: No, I definitely do not sit to listen to Missa Solemnis or Gotterdammerung to gain any enjoyment in any similar way as when I sit to listen to a song by J. Brell or R. Rodgers. Of course, I expect plenty in return, but it is much more and much beyond than enjoyment, pleasure or entertainment. Sometimes, it is a shocking or even frightening experience, a revelation for the mind, a celebration of the soul, a test for the emotions, a sense of humility towards the natural greatness of these monumental works and some more.
Parla
Fri, Oct 26 2012, 8:28PM
#5
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
Exactly so Parla. I couldn't begin to improve on that.
Chris
Fri, Oct 26 2012, 11:48PM
#6
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
So, Mr. Guillaume, thanks to Chris we managed to find out your actual motives for all these exchanges. Nothing about the love (or like) about Rossini, etc. Another form of "entertainment", this time identified as "cruel"! The series of revelations ("I've nothing better to do late at night", a "big fan of Jane Austen, that most cruel of writers", the "cybernetic image of Mr. Collins", etc) show who might be "fatuous"...Enjoy all the elements of absurdity that, unfortunately for you, are here (in your post).
The rest of your post, called "back to music", demonstrates that you can never get the points and issues which at least both me and Chris have tried to raise. Probably because the basis of your assumption is that at the end of the process we're "going to like something" (in music).
Parla
Sat, Oct 27 2012, 12:19AM
#7
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
So, Mr. Guillaume, thanks to Chris we managed to find out your actual motives for all these exchanges. Nothing about the love (or like) about Rossini, etc. Another form of "entertainment", this time identified as "cruel"! The series of revelations ("I've nothing better to do late at night", a "big fan of Jane Austen, that most cruel of writers", the "cybernetic image of Mr. Collins", etc) show who might be "fatuous"...Enjoy all the elements of absurdity that, unfortunately for you, are here (in your post).
The rest of your post, called "back to music", demonstrates that you can never get the points and issues which at least both me and Chris have tried to raise. Probably because the basis of your assumption is that at the end of the process we're "going to like something" (in music).
Parla
Parla, you continue to demonstrate just how obtuse you are. Once again I "can never get" whatever you're trying to inculcate in me. If you remember, I brutally attacked you once before, then as now because of your intolerable condescencion towards me. On that occasion I quickly relented and even supported you in the face of the considerable, and I may say justified, adversity you were then facing on this site. Now that those opponents seem to have given up and gone away, I'm not going to relent this time. Either learn to debate in a civilised manner or expect further abuse from me. In short, stop playing the sage. You've already exposed your lack of real knowledge so often that only relative newcomers to this site can take you seriously in that capacity.
Sat, Oct 27 2012, 10:24AM
#8
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
The goader goaded!
But it all makes good reading for a Saturday morning. Less gloomy than the newspapers anyway.
But overall it has been an interesting discussion, for me at least!
Chris
Sat, Oct 27 2012, 6:03PM
#9
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
So, your last post, Guillaume, does constitute a threat or warning or is it merely another "abuse" from you?
If that is the way you have to resort anymore, be my guest. I do not feel neither "threatened" nor bothered. If that is your style, I sincerely hope the other members can find it interesting and constructive. I just defend what I know and learned all these years. I do not defend or present myself as an expert, musician, "sage" or even a writer. In any case, in a forum of anonymity, who can claim any credit for himself. We simply post messages. If you do not agree, dislike or do not comprehend them, you may ignore, dismiss, overtake them. You do not have to resort to "cruel", "brutal", "further" or "extreme" abuse. Unless this constitutes a "civilised manner" to respond, funnily not followed by others and for so long.
Finally, I do not wish to change the way you face the music (and dance). I just want to pass the message I happen to learn from people from this business for mere consideration and possible debate. If there is no potential agreement, it won't be the end of the world. In any case, as it normally happens, we'll all keep doing what we know best...
As a final remark, do not always play the "abuse" card. You fail to be obnoxious; vous etes toujours charmant!
Cordialement,
Parla
Sat, Oct 27 2012, 7:24PM
#10
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
Parla
I probably shouldn't get into this, but in defense of guillaume will you at least concede that some of your posts are unnecessarily patronising? In response to my last post you wrote " What it is probably too difficult to understand by at least most members of this forum........" How are other forum members supposed to react when they read this?
And after this, you say, "As long as you accept that there is at least "effort and understanding" along the way, possibly we may understand each other ......." In other words, anyone who disagrees with me thereby makes no sense.
The fact is that this is a highly contentious area, open to many different responses. Your view, as far as I can read it, is a standard platonist (or objectivist) conception of aesthetic truth - and, as such, is highly problematic. As a philosophical view, it is widely regarded to be obsolete, or at least untenable. (I know, by the way, because I have spent many years teaching philosophy.) In addition, it is clear from many comments you have made that you think there is really only one alternative to this and that is that all judgements boil down to "mere taste". But that is incorrect, too. (Philosophers call this crude subjectivism and it is usually believed to have been refuted by G.E.Moore in his Principia Ethica. No-one has much to say for it anymore.) There are many subtle alternatives to what I have called the objectivist account: see David Humes famous essay "On the Standard of Taste", for instance.
But in a sense, all this is besides the point. Who is wrong and who is right - it isn't important. What I am trying to point out is that no-one (even you) has the right to lord it over anyone else in this discussion because it requires far too much specialist training and knowledge. Without out, it isn't even possible to state a position with enough clarity for genuine disagreement to take place. Far better to engage in friendly, respectful debate and treat each other as if we were friends.
Sat, Oct 27 2012, 8:44PM
#11
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
Eliza,
I agree wholeheartedly with this:
"Who is wrong and who is right - it isn't important. What I am trying to point out is that no-one .... has the right to lord it over anyone else in this discussion because it requires far too much specialist training and knowledge. Without out, it isn't even possible to state a position with enough clarity for genuine disagreement to take place. Far better to engage in friendly, respectful debate and treat each other as if we were friends."
I think it applies to both sides though.
And I must say I'm very unconvinced that reading either Principia Ethica or Of the Standard of Taste will be particularlarly helpful. (I've read both, for my sins). On the other hand when you write that "[the] standard platonist (or objectivist) conception of aesthetic truth ..... is highly problematic" you are surely right on the money. Isn't that a significant part of what we've been discussing? (assuming problematic to mean contentious). Amongst philosophers the subject is still very much alive. I might add that, like Croquet, which seems a mild game until you actually play it, arguments between philosophers with opposing views have, in my experience, often made the exchanges in this forum seem very genteel in comparison!
I suppose what I'm leading up to, Eliza, is that it would be good to have your views on these aspects of the subjects we've been trying to discuss.
I hope I haven't said anything offensive!
Chris
Sat, Oct 27 2012, 8:49PM
#12
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
Chris
Not offended!
Not suggesting it would be helpful to read these things now, only that we are all idiots when it comes to this subject. Wherever we tread, others have gone before and left much bigger footsteps. Not worth upsetting each other, I mean, or treating each other with contempt.
Also, I was not trying to offend you, Parla. I have enjoyed many of your posts and have learned much from them. I hope you aren't busy typing up a titanic rebuttal.....
Anyhow, time for Bruckner 9 on the ipod and an early night.
Eliza
ps all this from such a silly thread.........!
Sat, Oct 27 2012, 11:37PM
#13
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
Thanks a lot, Eliza, for a much more friendly and conciliatory post. However, I hope I am allowed to respond:
-The first segment of my whole sentence ("What is probably...), isolated as you put it, can be interpreted as you deem it necessary. However, the whole sentence simply states something I have observed and, if I am wrong, you may, equally simply, say so, developing your argument(s).
-In the second segment you chose, the interpretation is a bit arbitrary. I don't mean anyone "who disagrees makes no sense", but rather that we cannot converge our views (you may read the whole sentence).
-I don't know how many of my posts on various threads you have read, but I do not see my views on Music as an issue of philosophical approach or as a "conception of aesthetic truth". The issue is as difficult as simple it is: Music, like any craft, Art, profession has its own defining rules and can be judged clearly and definitely by them, regardless of our personal, emotional reaction to the listening experience, which, based on the various individual performances, is not definitive and standard.
Besides, I have made the following distinction, which actually covers the issue of taste or the personal emotional response:
There are two ways to approach a work of Art, thereby the works of Music: a) the artistic/technical/musical observation of the work, where one (who is able to do so) may identify the features of the work in question. This does not involve personal reaction since it constitutes an observation of the work. b) the personal reaction to the listening experience, which, by definition can vary among each individual listener. Here, the "taste" card fits perfectly and does not affect the actual artistic value of the work.
The above distinction is what I've been taught, when I was a student of composition, in my early years of my life. So, it does not constitute my personal view only and, in any case, it has nothing to do with philosophical theories and other fine things. It demonstrates also the objective and subjective character of the musical work.
Besides, I can assure you that I do not try to "lord it over anyone else in the discussion". I just state my views, inviting further debate. So far, only the "taste" card plays regularly and with enough vigour. Chris had made some considerable efforts to bridge the gap but without success (however, I fully appreciate and welcome them). I trust you may contribute with something more tangible and conciliatory. You are most welcome.
I sincerely hope you do not find this..."titanic" and please kindly do not take it as a..."rebuttal".
Parla
P.S.: I agree that all this for such a silly thread is really too much. Probably, we may establish a new pertinent one, but who dares or cares...
Sun, Oct 28 2012, 8:24AM
#14
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
Thanks from me too Eliza for your last post. I had already settled down with iPod (and Victoria) by the time your reply arrived.
A few final words from me on this subject. Like Parla "I do not see my views on Music as an issue of philosophical approach", rather, like most members who have felt compelled to contribute, my own contributions arise from a passionately held feeling about music which I struggle to articulate in words. If some are upset by the arguments that ensue and sometimes boil over, well, for my part I apologise for any offence caused, but would add that I've found those discussions of 'difficult' subjects by far the most rewarding in the forum and time and again they have given me much food for further thought, which far outweighs any annoyance felt, and will continue long after the threads are forgotten. I suppose, in the context of some previous discussion here, one could say 'it does not have to be enjoyable to be rewarding!'
So my final comment is to say 'thank you' to all those who have had the courage and/or persistence to contribute, especially Parla, Eliza, Guilllaume and Craig. And to Ian, apologies for hijacking your thread!
Chris
Sun, Oct 28 2012, 5:16PM
#15
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
Thanks a lot, Chris, for a most gentle, friendly and conciliatory post, which, if not helping to give us a resolution to our debate, is offering a perfect vehicle to accept some sort of truce (and peace), for some period of time, till, upon a new pretext, the usual topic emerges again.
Parla
"Are you suggesting that you wouldn’t enjoy being spiritually comforted? Or being profoundly moved?"
No Craig, I said that enjoyment is not the whole story. I added "I don't dispute that aspects of all of these could include enjoyment". OK?
"The issue I was seeking to explore was the suggestion that one’s response to classical music is superior or nobler or of a different order to one’s response to, say, jazz."
That was never the issue here for me. But I would argue that, overall, the 'balance' between intellectual, spiritual and emotional responses is different for jazz than for classical music. Superior or not depends on what you value most.
Chris
Chris A.Gnostic