Stop,Repair,Prepare

[Quijote]

Philip, as you have so often stated, there is an art in reading text. Maybe you need some instruction in that art? Read the very first line of this thread and you will find my views on this subject. And this is my last word on this subject. Now, I must run ......

Yes, now you have come out of the shadow to say so, much clearer, thank you. Perhaps on the "Comedy Corner" would be more suitable. Still, if you'd seriously like a debate about Beethoven and contemporary art (often heated, always fascinating) why don't you join in?

[Peter]

Yes, now you have come out of the shadow to say so, much clearer, thank you. Perhaps on the "Comedy Corner" would be more suitable. Still, if you'd seriously like a debate about Beethoven and contemporary art (often heated, always fascinating) why don't you join in?

Michael was simply expressing his views on the content of that article and I agree with him - we are presumably allowed an opinon? I'm sure had we criticised a 19th century work it wouldn't have bothered you one bit, but heresy to have a negative opinion on anything contemporary! If I said I thought Wellingtons Sieg was the worst thing Beethoven ever did you'd probably have no problem with that despite it's political context and 'what the artist was trying to say'. Echoing Maurice's remarks I too like much contemporary work but I judge for myself what I consider good art/music in just the same way I judge work from any other century. I look forward to your Beethoven related remarks on this. (This message has not been edited).

[Quijote]

"As to Maurice Colgan's comment, I'll put the poor creature out of its misery later.)" Philip.

Many have tried. :-)

Thank you for the "telegram", Maurice Colgan. Then it is up to me to administer the coup de grâce. But this will play against the bull analogy I was developing above. Instead, you, 'Mauricio', will be the designated "foolish picador" who ran too close and got gored ...

[Quijote]

I have nothing against good contempory Art, Philip.

That you have nothing against good contemporary [spelling] art is splendidly reassuring, Maurice. But do you mean the plastic arts, sculpture, installations (video or otherwise), conceptual, representational or more generally abstract, would you say? Your all-encompassing ("sweeping") position segues nicely into my next comment.

Your sweeping statements expose your immaturity.

Oh dear, Maurice, have you been reading your old Reader's Digest copy of "How to Argue Effectively" again? Or perhaps a copy of that renowned publication going under the title of "The Bar Room Philosopher's Guide to Rhetoric, Oratory and Other Techniques"? Your use of hackneyed stock phrases exposes you in a merciless light, I fear. My immaturity? My dear boy, try and be more rigorous in the application of that "natural intelligence" you trumpet. I do believe you are trying to play me at one-upmanship, which is most tiresome.

I have created quite a lot of contemporary art meself. :-) (more than 700 paintings, wood carving and ceramic items, along with concrete sculpture) Yes, little ol' Philistine me. :-)

Ok, I'm not going to question that, I've never seen your stuff. But you will understand me if I say that I have seen little in your postings and general intellectual position that may tempt me.

[Maurice Colgan]

Thank you for the "telegram", Maurice Colgan. Then it is up to me to administer the coup de grâce. But this will play against the bull analogy I was developing above. Instead, you, 'Mauricio', will be the designated "foolish picador" who ran too close and got gored ...

Shades of Hemingway! My sword is ready. :-)

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

[Maurice Colgan]

Philip, posturing is of little consequence.

I have far better things to do than play your little games.

So far I have not seen anything deep or significant in your writing here.

I'm just playing. Being in my third childhood, already :-) Shalom.

Now back to some real work: http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

[Quijote]

Michael was simply expressing his views on the content of that article and I agree with him - we are presumably allowed an opinon? I'm sure had we criticised a 19th century work it wouldn't have bothered you one bit, but heresy to have a negative opinion on anything contemporary! If I said I thought Wellingtons Sieg was the worst thing Beethoven ever did you'd probably have no problem with that despite it's political context and 'what the artist was trying to say'. Echoing Maurice's remarks I too like much contemporary work but I judge for myself what I consider good art/music in just the same way I judge work from any other century. I look forward to your Beethoven related remarks on this. (This message has not been edited).

Of course, we are all free to express an opinion. You do me a disservice, Peter. It depends on the 19th century work in question. I do not think it "heresy" to have a negative opinion on anything contemporary, and I shall give you a example (one of many, across all artistic genres) : I am a great admirer of Cage, but his EurOpera II infuriated me, as it was one of those works that one could imagine "conceptually" without having to sit through 45 minutes of the piece. In other words, I got the "message" after 10 or so minutes.

Wellington's Sieg is a poor example (as is the "Glorious Moment", op. 136), as it musico-political remit is really quite narrow. The "Ode to Joy" would be a far better example. More on this point later, as promised.

But the real issue here on this thread launched by Michael is this : "Ha ha ha, isn't contemporary art silly?", and "How dare they appropriate Beethoven in this fashion?" Am I wrong?

[Quijote]

Philip, posturing is of little consequence.

I have far better things to do than play your little games.

So far I have not seen anything deep or significant in your writing here.

I'm just playing. Being in my third childhood, already :-) Shalom.

Now back to some real work: http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

So Maurice, were those incisive comments from page 8 of your "How to Argue Effectively" Reader's Digest Guide? For the record : I am not posturing (another unsubstantiated comment of yours), and I am not playing games (ditto my previous comment).

There is an interesting contradiction though, Mauricio : you say "I have far better things to do than play your little games" then go on to say "I'm just playing". Would you care to elucidate?

I put certain words in bold because I know the Reader's Digest does things like that. Makes it easier to digest, seemingly.

[Quijote]

But the real issue here on this thread launched by Michael is this : "Ha ha ha, isn't contemporary art silly?", and "How dare they appropriate Beethoven in this fashion?" Am I wrong?

Always a bad idea to quote oneself, but I think there is probably a more insidious subtext at play : "Ha ha ha, isn't contemporary music [for which read : modern "classical" music] silly?" I wonder.

What about modern composers "quoting" Beethoven passages in their works? The list is quite long, I can assure you. What might you say about that?

[Maurice Colgan]

Philip, Not playing with you is sooooo easy. When actually playing you.:-)

Goodnight. Case closed.

now back to Beethoven.

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

[Quijote]

Philip, Not playing with you is sooooo easy. When actually playing you.:-)

Goodnight. Case closed.

now back to Beethoven.

Ho ho ho, Mauricio, what a card you are. Goodnight. And we are still going to talk about Beethoven (and others).

[Quijote]

Philip, Not playing with you is sooooo easy. When actually playing you.:-)

Goodnight. Case closed.

now back to Beethoven.

Maurice, would you care to explain to me what you mean by "Not playing with you is sooooo easy. When actually playing you." ? And could you also explain what you mean by "not wishing to play my little games" and then go on to say that you are "just playing"? It is all most confusing.

[Quijote]

I am going to take up each point individually. If I don't complete the task tonight (fatigue), I'll pick up from where I leave off later (i.e. tomorrow).

So :

[...]I find the idea of pushing a piano around a room whilst strumming out the theme of Beethoven's 9th ridiculously amusing and pointless.

Well, taking that precise action out of its wider context would naturally appear amusing and pointless. The work in question (not having experienced it directly, only conceptually, through the article) is clearly not simply about pushing a piano around and playing any piece or other. One well might say the following about Beethoven : "I find the idea of a group of men and women wearing formal clothes playing a limited arrangement of sonic objects reduced to a set of 12 chromatic notes with fixed timbral streaming as pointless as it is meaningless."

If I said that, you would say I had no comprehension of Beethoven / classical music. But you allow yourselves to say equivalent things about contemporary art.

[Quijote]

However I couldn't care if they walk round in circles for hours playing twinkle twinkle little star, it would still be a pointless act of vandalism to a beautiful historic Bechstein.

I believe I have already dealt with this (rather reactionary) point. Peter's definition of 'vandalism' is clearly a highly personal one, and not universally shared. Am I wrong?

[Quijote]

I have read the article and I'm pleased it speaks to you. Perhaps you could explain further 'the great political and social significance' it has for you and why this is lacking in Beethoven's 9th symphony and needs this further illumination? I mean these issues are hardly new or original and does it need such blatantly simplistic and obvious methods to make people think?

I must defer to Churnel, as the question is for him. However, if he does not reply, I will take up the point later.