Receive a weekly collection of news, features and reviews
The right to shelter or food or clean water are so fundamental that none can deny them and they should be protected (both legally and in practical terms). Listening to Music might be an optional need and, in certain ways, a right, but not a human right.
However the right to compose, sculpt or write is protected as long as the content does not pose a legal threat to others. I think were getting into murky waters.
Goofyfoot, "the right to compose, sculpt..." is protected as a legal right (contractually agreed by the State and the artists or institutions involved). As you mentioned correctly, this "right" is also conditional ("as long as the content does not pose a legal threat to others"). So, there are no "murky waters", since we are talking about human rights in this thread (the Music as a human right).
Tjh, I guess we fell in another never-ending Q & A saga. However, I have to point out that this thread is about Music (being considered/treated) as a human right, not about personal privileges. Anyhow, here is my response to your last post:
- No, I am not "proud of others when they become knowledgeable in Classical Music". They can be!
- Privilege is obtaining a goal which one (not "others") has not reached. Of course, this "goal" should be of a certain specific value to the interested one(s).
- In this way, none can "threaten the ideal which my privilege depends on". Therefore, my quotes (1) and (2) can stand, since they represent different cases of application.
- My privilege cannot depend on other's views of the "ideal" I value, as their privilege cannot rely on my view on the ideal they value. It is a solitary process.
- Likewise, by claiming I become a "better educated person" (among other benefits), through being indulged in Classical Music, I mean it in the sense that I became a better person vis a vis to what I was before, not in comparison with other people. So, the "me only" (of quote 2) can stand as well, since it refers to my development, not my stance vis a vis others.
- As I said in a previous post, sitting next to me is your privilege regardless of my acknowledgment (whether I acknowledge it or not). So, you do not have "to insist" and you do not have any reason to claim this privilege. It is your personal issue and statement. As for the Shostakovich case (and not only), you can respect his "authority" (I trust his authority is confined to Music, not to others' "privileges"), but, still, you can feel the same (privileged to sit next to a great composer).
- "Lack of action" is not a call for action "at any level" as "disinterest" is not something that cannot be accepted in any particular case. For example, the disinterest of my family to Classical Music does not bother, prevent or offend my involvement with my object of interest, as long as this "disinterest" is not expressed in any form of reaction. On the other hand, the disinterest and inaction of governments, institutions, influential people etc., which can constitute potential or immediate threat to the development of Music, may result in a reaction from my side or any other interested person, institution etc.
That is for the moment, tjh, till the next round.
Parla, human rights are protected legal rights in a civil society. Recognized human rights in places like Eritrea is incomparible to that of the the UK or the U.S.. Theoretically, human rights can exist despite a lack of protection but should we really be focusing upon epistemology?
I do not want to focus on anything except on what the title of the subject suggests, goofyfoot.
All legal rights are not necessarily human rights. If Music is a human right, then, I wonder in which way. The actual question is whether Music per se constitutes such a need, so that one may pursue and treat it as a human right, regardless of the right of freedom of expression of the composer or the optional request of some people to be included in some forms of education.
Parla, I didn't say all legal rights are human rights. I said that all human rights are legally protected in a civil society. Cogitating about the social possibilities of music without a recognized form of praxis is nothing more than an intellectual past time.
Sorry, 'an intellectual pastime'.
Goofyfoot, all human rights have been "identified and recognised" in certain documents of not exact and direct binding character, such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights. However, these documents constitute the guidelines for the individual States to adopt these recognised Human Rights in their National Legilsation...accordingly. Changes, adaptations even re-interpretations can happen, based on the developments of the needs of the particular society or group of people and the priorities of the Nation. Of course, we have to consider that this list(s) of Human Rights are not exhaustible.
So, what the journalist, who interviewed Dudamel, tried is to incite a possible debate on whether Music can be considered as such a "need" to mankind, so that people like Dudamel (or Lang Lang in China) may pursue this issue by providing Music to the least advantaged and to the least favourable places (Music available to all, as at least Lang Lang claims in some of his Chinese interviews).
My view is that none really even "cogitates" about the social possibilities of music (even in general), although some efforts for a certain type of a sort of "recognised praxis" can be identified in few of the activities of artists such the two above, which, in one or the other way, may end up to another kind of superficial behaviour.
Here's an article that covers the 'nuts and bolts' of this topic.
Tjh, thanks for keeping this...topic alive.
- Music per se cannot have its own "dignity". People dealing with it might feel their involvement (performing, producing, teaching, listening etc.) requires a sense of dignity. Whether this "dignity" can be considered as human right is questionable.
- In some cases (in small countries or those with centralised political system), government's inaction can easily contribute to the fall of a Symphony Orchestra and the shrinking of the Music's development. However, I did not mention only the governments. There are institutions, big companies, high-ranking individuals who shape the things to come. Their decisions can affect the development of Music and we have witnessed it in most part of the globe, either with positive (not that many cases) and negative results (becoming the rule, I'm afraid).
- Tjh, the privilege of pursuing, indulging, comprehending the Music cannot be affected by the "influentials", since I can still listen to the Music, follow the concerts I may choose, organise or contributing to the organisation of some concerts or activities on Music, read the material I need, talk and deal with the people involved in Music and so on. The "influentials", for the time being, do not have declare a war against Music, so that I may start feeling "threatened". However, even if there is a persecution or ban of Music, I will always feel privileged to have dealt and still deal seriously and wholeheartedly with it, because none can affect what I feel and, eventually, who I am.
The latest news, features, blogs and reviews delivered weekly to your inbox!
If you are a library, university or other organisation that would be interested in an institutional subscription to Gramophone please click here for further information.
Gramophone is brought to you by Mark Allen Group
Gramophone is part of MA Music, Leisure and TravelAbout Mark Allen Group | International licensing