Another new piano

[Chaszz]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009...no-geoff-smith

[Peter]

Thanks Chaszz - I saw this this morning on tv and was really rather impressed. A very interesting development and hopefully it will inspire some great music.

[Joy]

Well, this was very interesting and I can see the advantage it could have on Indian music among others. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Chazz.

[Chaszz]

Well, this was very interesting and I can see the advantage it could have on Indian music among others. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Chazz.

With music at sort of a confused crossroads now, perhaps microtonality can provide a direction for development of a new esthetic. I think a lot of composers are tired of tonality but loathe to embrace atonal or twelve-tone musics because of their repellant characters. Microtonality can work for the masses of people as we see in Indian music. Perhaps its newness would be enough to give general musical creativity a needed shove.

[Megan]

I am wondering whether the pianist will need to keep adjusting the pegs to achieve the desired effect for every piece of music played.

[Chaszz]

I am wondering whether the pianist will need to keep adjusting the pegs to achieve the desired effect for every piece of music played.

In partial answer, I think tunings were routinely changed in pre-tempered days.

[Peter]

With music at sort of a confused crossroads now, perhaps microtonality can provide a direction for development of a new esthetic. I think a lot of composers are tired of tonality but loathe to embrace atonal or twelve-tone musics because of their repellant characters. Microtonality can work for the masses of people as we see in Indian music. Perhaps its newness would be enough to give general musical creativity a needed shove.

It isn't of course new to Western music - The Italian Renaissance composer Nicola Vicentino (1511-1576) experimented with microintervals and built a keyboard with 36 keys to the octave, known as the archicembalo. In the 20th century there has been much interest from many composers including Ives, Bartok and Symanokski.

[Chaszz]

Interesting posting, which raises many questions. To state that music is "at a sort of confused crossroads now" implies there is a less confused route to be taken. What is the nature of this "confusion"? What "path" would that be? Is there a teleos at work? Some sort of "historical imperative"? Further, microtonality as Peter points out, is nothing new (see his comment above). More recently (that is to say, since the late 1940s) microtonality has been "dealt with" by composers such as Cage, Stockhausen, Boulez, Ligeti et al. Maybe a lot of composers are tired of tonality, but many are not (Reich, Glass, Tavener, Pärt, Görecki ... the list goes on). Personally, I see no crisis in general musical creativity, as the numerous contermporary music festivals around the world show (Huddersfield in the UK and Strasbourg in France, to name but two).

This era seems to be one with no general overall artistic direction. When we look at 1850, for example, we can say that Romanticism held general sway, in art, literature and music, in Europe and even in the U.S., with certain exceptions, such as the new infiltration of Realism into French painting and novel-writing. In the Romantic era you could lump artists as disparate as Delacroix and Melville into one style. Even Ingres, for all his severe classiciam, had a strong Romantic undercurrent. The 17th century was Baroque (even in barely developed Latin America!), the 18th rococco and later neoclassic, the 16th had the Renaissance in Italy which later influenced all of Europe. The tweflth and thirteenth the Gothic, the eleventh the Romanesque. The twentieth century had the Modern movement, at least the first two-thirds of the century anyway. Painting, architecture, poetry, modern music, all had similar agendas and more-or-less similar aims. Though Stravinsky and Schoenberg were quite different is some ways, in others they and Shostakovitch and Prokofiev shared a wide similar direction. Against this was another camp of late Romantic hoildovers such as Sibelius and Strauss, but still, a fairly simple situation, one style fading into another over time.

Now we have postmodernism, which is really a grab-bag of just about anything and everything with no overall direction. The arts are cut off from one another, with visual art having no direction within itself except perhaps Dadaist-derived ironic nihilism in many different forms; architecture not Dadaist but serious yet divided into the postmodernist and modernist camps; classical-type music serious and not Dadaist very much since Cage's death, but split into many directions as you indicate. Jazz seems to have reached the end of its development and alternative rock seems somewhat enervated. Can anyone point to a realtionship between a prominent classical composer, or even a rock musician, and a prominent painter or sculptor today, as one could have between Watteau and Mozart, or Delacroix and Schumann? How sum it all up except confusion? Perhaps I'm old-fashioned in looking for a more or less unified movement or direction, but art history has taught us to look for one. Or even a true dominant artist like a Frank Llloyd Wright, a Picasso, a Beethoven, a Tolstoy. Who could fill that role today? I cannot think of another period like this. Perhaps civilization is too complex now to allow more unity in the arts.

Or possibly only the perspective of history allows one to see the pattern, which is too obscured during one's lifetime to perceive. But I doubt this is true of our era, which seems to me just more or less a mess.

Now, as I read what I've just written, I do see a pattern: lack of definite direction, shock value, nihilism, modernism having broken the rules and postmodernism having thrown away altogether any notion of rules, overall chaos, each artist for herself. So this does make a sort of sense. But when I walk into most group art shows and see each artist's pathway unrelated to almost any other's, all off in different directions, I think of Shakespeare's

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more;
it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Substitute Art for Life and you get my meaning. So maybe this is what our age in the arts is genuinely about. OK, but I kind of doubt it will yield many - or any - Wrights, Beethovens and Tolstoys.

[Chaszz]

Thank you Chaszz for this posting. Rather
You say that Stravinsky and Schoenberg were quite different “in some ways”, whilst maintaining “similar directions” with Shostakovitch and Prokofiev. What on earth does all that mean, without concrete examples and back-up arguments? And then you glibly compare this to so-called late Romantic holdovers such as Sibelius and Strauss, without mentioning Mahler, Elgar or Nielssen. And you call that a fairly simple situation, with “one style fading into another over time”. I call that rather an “evolving vernacular”, for want of a better term.

>> 1. Similar directions re aiming to expand harmony beyond 19th c. tonality. This movement from tonality thru polytonality to atonality was IMO the common feature of most important 20th c. "modern" "classical" music. 2. I certainly recognize Elgar as a late Romantic. I simply didn't want to list all the composers in that movement, which could have included several more in addition. 3. I don't see that 'evolving vernacular' is so different from 'one style fading into another." In either phrasing, the situation can be described simply, which was my point and which is different from the multiplexity of conditions today, which would need to be described as "evolving vernaculars." And I'm not sure 'evolving' is the right word, as it evokes an entity
which evolves. Perhaps 'random change' is better. 'Random changing vernaculars.' Yes. <<

Here is one problem then : the idea of “stylistic development” as a historical imperative, which is what you assume takes place. I think you make the false assumption that “style” is an a priori construct, where it is in fact highly contextual and fluid, and needless to say, ahistorical.

>> Style of course can't be "set" or predicted a priori. It must happen. However it is not ahistorical in my view, since it reflects the culture of its time. I fully realize that the "fluid" conditions of our era do not make a single style possible or necessarily desirable. <<

Turning now to your peroration on postmodernism, we are back to your lament about lack of direction. Once again, who is say what “direction”? I do not agree for one moment that the arts are “cut off from one another”. If we are to look at contemporary dance as just one example, the cross-currents are myriad (Cf. Merce Cunningham and Cage, though that already is “old hat”). Similar analogies can be made between the music of Xenakis (for music) and Le Corbusier (for architecture). The visual (or plastic) arts indeed have elements of Dadaist-derived ironic nihilism, but much does not : video and static installations come to mind here. To continue, if ever there was a “music” that encapsulates common artistic trends (sonic, sculptural / architectural, narrative, mimetic / visual-textural), then I would have to say it is electroacoustic. This, unfortunately, is a common gap with many people, and it is up to such practitioners to remedy that.

>> These are good points; I don't dispute them. Except that once again when you speak of Le Corbusier you are speaking of modern and not postmodern art, which is what I am zeroing in on.

What is truly astonishing is your comment : “classical music [is] serious and not Dadaist very much since Cage’s death […]”. What should it be, serious or Dadaist? Or both? Or neither? I don’t see your point here.

>> My point here, simple and non-astonishing I think, is that the non-Dadaist nature of most contemporary music preclues a link with much, perhaps most, visual art (excluding architecture), which is Dadaist-derived. Just providing evidence for my assertion of non-unity in the arts, which you asked me to clarify. <<

Polystylism (a horrible term) is here, agreed, and was “predicted” already by Leonard B Meyer many years ago (cf. his book “Music, Arts and Ideas, Chicago University Press, 1968). Where is the problem with that?

>> For a possible problem with polystylism, please see my comments outside the quote box at the end, where I use Sophocles as an example. <<

Other contentious points you raise : “Jazz seems to have reached the end of its development”. Rather a sweeping statement, that begs the question : where could it have gone? Is Jazz closed to other influences?

>> It went where roccoco music went, and all previous musics. I cannot see that any important new jazz has been made since John Coltrane. Who is the jazz artist today that can astonish and delight an audience, as Louis Armstrong did in the twenties and thirites, Charlie Parker did in the forties, and Miles Davis and John Coltrane did in the fifties thru the seventies? <<

“Alternative rock seems somewhat enervated”. I must confess that I do not understand this; ergo, it needs clarification on your part.

>> I just don't hear any great new bands. Good, yes, but not great. Who is the rock artist today who can asonish and delight an audience as the Beatles, Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan did in the sixties and seventies? <<

You next ask an interesting question : “Can anyone point to a relationship between a prominent classical composer, or even a rock musician, and a prominent painter or sculptor today, as one could have between Watteau and Mozart, or Delacroix and Schumann?”

It is interesting firstly because of the term “classical” composer juxtaposed with a rock musician. What is your definition of a “classical” composer today? I think you mean “serious art composer”, for want of a better term. Fair enough, if I assume correctly. Let us answer it, then : Schoenberg & Kandisnsky / Picasso & Webern / Feldmann & Rothko. But why should we feel obliged to point up such relationships? This I fail to see.

>> 1. The relationships you point out are modern, not postmodern. Modern art is what I referred to as the last somewhat unified, definable direction. Not a style per se, but at least a movement or collection of similar movements. As opposed to today. <<

You say you are perhaps old-fashioned in wanting to look for unified movement or direction. Yes, I think this is so. Art history is to blame, Chaszz.

>> This is true and sums up the differences between us. However art history is also a cultural phenomenon which influences the arts, and is now more pervasive than ever before since the 'museum without walls' is everywhere. More importantly, I think comparisons with the past show the basic shallowness of today's multitudinous situation. Which may not be wholly unprecedented after all, but is perhaps sort of an "interregnum" between more important cultural eras. Sort of like the Dark Ages. And it you don't think this is a sort of Dark Ages, watch Jay Leno when he asks average people questions like who was Richard Nixon and who is now vice-president. (From Wikipedia: "Most responses are outrageously incorrect; for example, one person believed that Abraham Lincoln was the first president, and another could not identify a picture of Hillary Clinton. Sometimes the questions are of the "What color is the White House?" level, such as asking in what country the Panama Canal is located in, with a wrong response.") <<

In conclusion, why worry about any perceived “confusion” in the arts? Enjoy them as they are. Leave the categorizations to later scholars. My final recommendation (whether you come from a modernist, classical, jazz, electroacoustic or ethnic angle) : if the work “works”, then it “works” for you.

>> I am not worried, just commenting. (It would be nice if this topic was my biggest worry.) <<

Thank you Chaszz for raising such fascinating points. You were courageous. You have my vote, and your opinion is vital. I mean that. No joke or sarcasm. Bravo. This is why I like this forum : honest opinion, up for criticism. Your turn now to demolish my arguments.

My replies are interspersed in the quote, and begin and end with >> and <<.

I can't demolish your arguments, some of which are quite good. I've replied selectively where I thought I could clarify my own assertions somewhat, as you requested. In my next-to-last reply, I think I've pinpointed the differences between us, and a little more specifically how I see culture today. To expand a little, I think that our polystylism (good word), while probably necessary, may preclude really profound art. Because possibly, for example, Sophocles when competing with his older rival Aeschylus and his younger rival Euripides, with all three mining Homer for stories to dramatize, was able to reach a more profound human level than if all three had been retelling stories from different backgrounds and traditions. The echoing and undergirding of a common interest perhaps enables a higher reach. And a more profound depth. Who is the artist in any field today, in our polystyle culture, who can astonish and delight an audience as the geniuses of the past, most of whom were well-known in their own time, did?

Regrettably perhaps, I have little interest in more debate to determine who is "right." Please excuse me, I'm not trying to be elitist or dismissive; I just don't really have the level of interest in settling and determining the "rights" or "wrongs" of the topic, which a continuing debate would likely require. I think the differences between the ways we evaluate culture are clear, and let's leave it at that.

[PDG]

Let us turn to poetry. Here is a very short list of poets who can astonish and delight an "audience" as the geniuses of the past (and who are / recently were jolly famous, too) :

Ted Hughes, Sylvia Plath, Philip Larkin ...

Pam Ayres: Jolly and famous!

[Michael]

Hence : Quentin Tarantino, Eric Rohmer, Ridley Scott, David Lynch ...

I don't want to go off-topic, but I thoroughly enjoyed Tarantino's latest, "Inglorious Bastards". (Please excuse the correct spelling.)

[Michael]

Me too. Though the weakest element was Brad Pitt. Otherwise, very enjoyable.
So, we agree : a post-modern artist who delights and (sometimes) astonishes his audience, and who is famous in his own time.

I don't want to hi-jack this thread with a discussion of the film, but I have to mention that the other protagonist (the dreadfully British chappy who was recruited by Mike Myers) was played by Michael Fassbender, who lived for many years here in Killarney and went to school with my son.
Now, enough about the film.....please return to "Another New Piano" which had actually drifted off into something else .......
(I must say that Peter and Chris are very patient moderators!)

[Michael]

What is your point, Michael? And what are you afraid of, exactly?

Death, loneliness, burglars ..... I could go on.....oh, I see what you mean!
I get uneasy when I go off-topic ..... like I'm doing now ....