Symphony - A Travesty
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 6:33AM
#2
RE: Symphony - A Travesty
As long as you agreed that composers do not need any "outside" assistance to be recognised as Greats, then, we cannot put now a new conditionality : the (in)famous and very unstable and subjective factor of taste. If "taste" is the key factor, then, there is no greatness, because there is no value (subjective value cannot build or support any Artform; it can only contribute to its popularity). So, the question is whether the Great composers are great based on their valuable work, (regardless of if all people will get it or not), or, eventually, the Great composers are going to be recognised as great, if people "like" them (and their work). So, Andrew, you have to choose. You cannot have them both.
The "effect" issue is well understood. What you avoid to answer, Andrew, is that the "effect" cannot affect the greatness of music of a Beethoven or Mozart. It can enhance or minimize the actual listening experience. However, the "means" (the effect) should not be confused with the "ends" (the Music). And, exactly, for that reason is not a matter of semantics only, but of substance: we are talking about two different matters, so its not "2x100%" or "50% of the whole 200%". We are talking about two different 100% and, for me, as a man who loves Music above the "effect", the one 100% is enough and the one who counts as far as the value of the composers and their work.
I don't know if you can get me now, Andrew. Can we have an accord as for the value of the Music, based on your first agreement or does the "taste" factor, eventually, prevail?
You seem to suggest that the 'Great' composers (and I note your capitalisation) are somehow ordained by a higher power beyond the wit or choosing of man. If so, I must have been off that day and missed it.
The rest of your post, I think, is predicated on this erroneous view, and with all its talk about first agreements and Artforms independent of human opinion is proving impossible for me to follow, let alone rationalise.
But then who am I to argue against the Divine Order...?
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 6:38AM
#3
RE: Symphony - A Travesty
Which I guess just proves that the effect of any work of art is 50% about the creator's intention and 50% to do with the listener's/viewer's interpretation.
Is this statement based on knowledge or philosophy (that is, guesswork where no knowledge exists)?
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 8:19AM
#4
RE: Symphony - A Travesty
The rest of your post, I think, is predicated on this erroneous view, and with all its talk about first agreements and Artforms independent of human opinion is proving impossible for me to follow, let alone rationalise.
But then who am I to argue against the Divine Order...?
You're obviously new to Parla's posts, Andrew - most of us have been struggling in like fashion for some time! Welcome aboard.
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 9:24AM
#5
RE: Symphony - A Travesty
Is this statement based on knowledge or philosophy (that is, guesswork where no knowledge exists)?
As with (almost) all posts, there's a healthy dose of IMO in there, along with a sprinkling of AFAICS and YMMV.
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 12:01PM
#6
RE: Symphony - A Travesty
But then who am I to argue against the Divine Order...?
Oh, I think you are as entitled to debate with Parla as the rest of us Andrew. Fear not.
But to the point. Parla's position seems to be that the creations of the "greats" appear like tablets from on high, as if inspired by a muse of perfection out of thin air and require the intervention of the cognoscente (like him) to interpret them for the rest of us, make the decisions as to who's worthy of consideration and who's not. Like a licence to worship at the altar.
The point of the including the audience for the "effect" such works create is not that those works would not be great without listeners, but the they are created in the context that listeners exist in and for those listeners. Beethoven and the others, like all artists, build on what already exists, push the boundaries and add their particular perspective. Audiences are aware of this too and receive new works with a whole range of experiences, expectations and perceptions, based in that sound world, but also on wider social contexts. It is a dialectical process, not a one-way street from on high to tabula rasa below.
Play a Beethoven symphony to someone with no experience of western music and it would probably sound alien and unmusical. This is why it is stupid to downplay the "greatness" of other genres like jazz or rock. They are a different universe to someone who worships at the classical altar, like Parla. To focus on an aspect that classical has and rock does not as evidence of the superiority of the former is elitist nonsense to me. Something that takes a year to create is not in itself evidence of its superiority over say a rock album (dare I say, like Hotel California or a new Kate Bush).
What the listener brings to music is far more relevant to perceptions of greatness than the elitists would have us believe, in my opinion. Parla does make a good case however, I just think he focuses on too narrow a compass.
Vic.
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 12:27PM
#7
RE: Symphony - A Travesty
To focus on an aspect that classical has and rock does not as evidence of the superiority of the former is elitist nonsense to me. Something that takes a year to create is not in itself evidence of its superiority over say a rock album (dare I say, like Hotel California or a new Kate Bush).
Vic.
This may sound reasonable now but in 100 years time do you think anyone will have heard of 'Hotel Californa'. Play it to someone in 100 years time and they will say 'That's just a lot of old hippies strumming guitars and whining on about nothing'. 'Yes but surely it's as valid as Beethoven' - No they will say, time has proved Beethoven to be better than 'hip fad' music. (...and yes I do know what will happen 100 years from now and strange as it may seem, Rock'n'roll, jazz and pop will all be classed as 'hip fad' music ... you heard it here first)
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 12:28PM
#8
RE: Symphony - A Travesty
Andrew, you like to answer with "no, but" (22/11) or "yes, but" (1/12). However, this is a kind of ambivalent answers; which is going to prevail the "yes/no" or the "but". Normally, the "buts" reverse the reply. Now, you change course and you said that I implied the "Great" composers "ordained by a higher power".
The point you miss is that Beethoven,Mozart and all the other ones have established their names in the History of Music, regardless of our individual "wit or choosing" or "personal opinion". The History is written by men, as we all know. So, the distinction I tried to make is that a composer/artist cannot be 50% great; either, he is or he is not (the capitalisation was meant to point out the grade of their greatness). The "beholder" or simply the "listener" can choose whether he/she likes him and his work, but cannot degrade or upgrade him and his work.
As for Guillaume, if the "listener" in abstracto was the only and the final judge to call a composer great, judging from this forum only, we would have a Babylon of opinions, all of the same value. If someone said Ibert is as great as Bach, it should valid and useless at the same time, since I could say the opposite and my statement would be of the same value as well. So, who prevails, eventually. To provide a possible tip: the composer, as a recognised professional (Bach was an undisputed musician) had the authority to write music. So had Mozart, Beethoven, etc. Is there any chance that the "listener", the "beholder" should have a sort of "authority" to listen this, in one or the other way, quite demanding music, so that he/she will be capable of comprehending first, appreciating and, finally, evaluating it?
So, the key question is whether, eventually, we believe there is value(s) in music making or not, along with the wider question of what music is all about.
Parla
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 3:52PM
#9
RE: Symphony - A Travesty
Vic, I think my last post answers your first paragraphs' assertions. However, I feel compelled to reply to the last two:
I have mentioned before, in one of our exchanges, that I am not an exclusive listener of the Classical franchise. I used to listen to all kinds of music in my youth, I was exposed to all sorts of listening experiences later on and I still have, in my very vast collection, a couple of thousands of Jazz and "other" music (american and french songbook, some folk, musical theatre, film music, etc.). So, my "compass" is quite wide to know almost everything in western music. Actually, I like (this is the actual verb) very much an artistic rendition of Eleanor Rigby, some Jazz albums like the legendary Kind of Blue, songs like Les feuilles Mortes or Jardin d'Hiver, etc., but I can recognise to what extent I can appreciate their artistic value, importance and impact in the course of History of Music.
Since I was "blessed" enough to live in different places in almost all
the continents of this world, I can assure you that none, even in Africa
said that Beethoven's music is unmusical or indifferent to them. To my
surprise, in Africa (not in Asia), local musicians show an insatiable
appetite to learn and study the works of the Classics to an extent that
is absolutely moving. Performing Arts are created, at a slow but steady
pace, and concerts of even Chamber Music (the most intimate and
difficult to penetrate the audience form) are mostly welcome. (And I don't think what the African listeners bring to music is that new and more "relevant" than the "perceptions of greatness" that they are aware of and seem to respect to the letter).
Finally, this "something" that takes a year to "create" definitely is not in itself evidence of superiority over..., but it is a serious indication for us to examine further the case and find out which is the actual evidence. Then, you may find out that the "rock album" has not even a written score and, if there is any, probably the lead singer and some of the rock musicians cannot even read it! You may find out that most of the songs use the most limited and subliminal resources of music. And the list can go on.
So, think it over, Vic. Is it possible for us to say easily Beethoven's 9th is a greater Symphony than his 1st or the Cello Concerto of Dvorak better than Vivaldi's or this pianist is far superior than another, and, at the same time, we declare we are not capable of identifying the "good" music from let's say the "less good" among the different genres? If yes, then, this is artificial, superficial, and a sort of political correctness.
Parla
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 4:40PM
#10
RE: Symphony - A Travesty
political correctness.
Argh...... Now we are getting onto a subject Vic knows all about.
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 5:55PM
#11
RE: Symphony - A Travesty
Far be it for me to argue against the greatness of the classical canon. And I'm not.
But what is missing from this discussion could be called a sociological perspective. Great works of any art form might survive and come to dominate in their own right. But isn't it also true that it takes a massive investment on the part of a minority to keep some alive? Different sections of society differently value certain forms, educated themselves and their young into them, promote them as a mark of being cultured, allocate disproportionate funds and status to their creators and interpreters, creating a kind of "high culture" to be revered, almost sanctified? It is into this context that great works are received and evaluated. They do not appear without cultural baggage and other factors affect their evaluation as fit or unfit for that high, special status.
For example, Shakespeare is the greatest poet and dramatist known to me, but how would his greatness survive to be appreciated without the massive injections of subsidised support, political decisions to include his work in the National Curriculum (with very good effect, I might add), and a collective acknowledgement to promote and support performances for the sake of the survival of our cultural inheritance, over and beyond enjoyment of the works themselves?
All I am saying, I suppose, is that it takes more than a kind of cultural survival of the fittest for what is great to retain its high status and promotion.
Vic.
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 6:21PM
#12
RE:
Then, you may find out that the "rock album" has not even a written score and, if there is any, probably the lead singer and some of the rock musicians cannot even read it!
The absence or presence of a written down score is a recurring bugbear of yours, but I've yet to grasp the point you're making with it. A lot of jazz most notably has no fixed score - so what?
As a jazz aficionado (or at least ex-aficionado) you will of course be aware of Keith Jarrett's Cologne album - which he improvised on the spot. But that doesn't prevent being a classic recording, does it?
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 7:18PM
#13
RE: RE:
As a jazz aficionado (or at least ex-aficionado) you will of course be aware of Keith Jarrett's Cologne album - which he improvised on the spot. But that doesn't prevent being a classic recording, does it?
A classic album in a flawed genre. If any of the music was any good it would have been written down since. I've had some 'classic' nights out that have involved a lot of alcohol. I look back and think how great they were, but I wouldn't want to replay any of them over and over again. Jazz is like that. AND Improvising on the spot has always involved a great deal of pre conceived ideas just waiting to be trotted out at the right moment. Classical piano recitals used to be made up of a lot of improvising, but we 'got over' that sort of thing a long time ago and dumped it onto Jazz and Rock.
Fri, Dec 2 2011, 10:44PM
#14
RE: Symphony - A Travesty RE: Symphony - A Travesty
kev, Sorry, I don't hear 'peace and calm' in VW's Pastoral symphony: I hear Owen's bugle calling out over 'sad shires' and the lament of the bereaved in the final wordless solo.
Sat, Dec 3 2011, 8:24AM
#15
RE: Symphony - A Travesty
...and yes I do know what will happen 100 years from now
Do Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms or Bach need the other 50% (of the listener) to be called great and their music unrivalled and unparalleled. I trust they are already there, regardless of any relationship between artist and listener, interpreter, producer (or engineer or audio equipment)...
Parla
Well of course they do. Who is there, other than "the listener", to call them great? Did they arrive at greatness in some sort of vacuum, without the inconvenience of someone having actually to hear their music and compare it with other music they had heard? Because without such comparison there can be no greatness. If Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms and Bach were the only composers who had ever existed, there could be no concept of greatness, not to mention any need for adjectives such as "unrivalled" or "unparallelled". It would simply boil down to a question of personal preference for one or another of those composers. Which of course is the situation we actually have - only with a vastly greater range of composers.