I do believe this article should be on the main page of the Forum:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/toms...=ILCNETTXT3487
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/toms...=ILCNETTXT3487
-
-
And why do you believe that?Originally posted by Philip View Post'Man know thyself' -
Because I believe this article belongs here (on the main forum) for its more precise pertinence (relevance). One should click on the link in the article to see what musoc.org is about. Do read the comments that follow this article. Enjoy.Comment
-
I have read it and still don't see why it should belong here - whilst not agreeing with the criteria or all the comments on that website, neither do I agree with the inverted snobbery that seeks to equate classical music with the level of a pop tune on X factor. I make no apologies for saying that the music of Beethoven is superior in every way to the mindless formulaic trash that is pumped out daily by desperate talentless wanabees - as a teacher of harmony at a conservatoire I would have thought that would be crystal clear to you as well.Originally posted by Philip View Post
Rather than getting het up about a minor site of little influence or importance the author of the article should concern himself more with the complete swamping of our lives everywhere you go with a trashy culture that panders to commercialism and the lowest common denominator. Television has been turned into nothing but endless repeats of mind numbing reality shows, quizzes and vacuous celebrity worship.
He would also find that a survey amongst young people (or even older people) about their views of classical music would reveal a damned sight more ignorance and intolerance than anything he perceives the other way round - that fact though is conveniently ignored. I realise it's heresy these days to speak the truth and a host of accusations are slung at you such as snobbish, elitist etc.. in order to bury it.'Man know thyself'Comment
-
Interesting.Comment
-
Hmm - I thought I'd get a more thoughtful response than that from you - your original post was obviously designed to provoke some kind of a debate? Well in your absence I'll develop my argument a little further if I may, and please forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth, you will no doubt correct me in your own inimical style!Originally posted by Philip View Post
From previous discussions on similar issues you seem to suggest that there is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' music and that we can't make such judgements? So let us take an example of a simple tune such as 'God save the King/Queen' - now would you agree it is perfectly possible to harmonise it using just two chords throughout, tonic and dominant? Now would you also agree that such a harmonisation would be boring, simple and dull and that there are much more sophisticated and interesting alternatives available to a composer? This is just one example of how music can be 'better' and it is no doubt similar to the sort of thing you have to do with your students? I'll leave it there for now just to see what your views are at this stage.'Man know thyself'Comment
-
As I have eaten well this afternoon and am still enjoying a bottle of Beaujolais Nouveau as I continue my agreeable digestion, I shall indulge you. See posts that follow...Comment
-
Firstly, I am surprised that you feel such an article (with its link to a more provocative one) does not belong here on the BRS. Perhaps you would have preferred that I posted it on the General Forum under the more neutral “Articles à propos of nothing” thread”. If that is the case, you should either delete it or transfer it to the relevant forum. The choice is yours.Comment
-
As I formulate further responses, I would appreciate if you would (all) refrain from posting until I have finished.Comment
-
Secondly, if anyone is getting het up, it is you. You have singularly misunderstood my purpose in posting the article, and seek yet again to put words into my mouth, as you admit above. My purpose in posting the article (with its link) was to point up the mauvaise foi in musoc.org’s ridiculous 10-point check list of what constitutes a musical “art work”. Whilst I agree that the label “classical music” is inadequate (for its impreciseness) , this sort of thought-policing verges on the fascist, in that it is reminiscent of the Nazi régime's strictures about what is to be considered valid art (degenerate or otherwise).Comment
-
Whilst we are on the topic of "setting in concrete" what constitutes an art work (according to music.org), here is the list in question (with which I do not agree, for the record):
Quote
To count as Art Music, a work (as a whole) must meet ALL* the following criteria:
- It must acknowledge, build on or work from a musical heritage based on structure and tonality and its precursors
- It must be musically and intellectually complex, coherent and sophisticated (i.e. display and encode, in various permutations, articulation, originality, discursiveness, subtlety, intricacy, novelty, contrast, suspense, symbolism, logic, humour, passion etc through the use, in various combinations, of non-trivial harmony, modulation, variation, variance of musical phrase length and metre, periodicity, through-composition, counterpoint, polyphony etc.)
- It will therefore:
Require a high level of musicianship (concentration, insight, accomplishment) on the part of performers, who must draw on musical education, personal experience and imagination, knowledge of a work's idiom, and the accumulated body of historical performance practices (even for a merely competent performance)
- Require relatively high levels of concentration, understanding and competence from listeners for non-superficial appreciation and comprehension
- It must aspire (i.e. be the composer's intention) to provide the listener with emotional and intellectual enjoyment and satisfaction through musical complexity, sophistication and coherence (as above), and thereby communicate exceptional and/or transcendent reflections on the human condition
- It must be written for acoustic instruments and/or unamplified voices (Mechanical and electr(on)ic devices may be employed for textural effect, but not as the main 'instrument'. Technical amplification, for recording purposes or to enhance performances in arenas of poor acoustics, are not part of the composer's effects or intention, and are not counted.)
- It must be the original work of a single author (Texts notwithstanding. If a composer dies before finishing a work, its completion by another composer, if based on detailed notes left by the dead composer, may be considered a kind of 'amalgam' art work.)
- It must be preserved and transmitted as a score, written in orthodox musical notation, alterable only by the composer (If the composer dies before completion, elaboration of the score may be made by another composer, though only of the dead composer's notes. 'Orthodox' means readily intelligible to professional and proficient amateur musicians.)
- It must be conceived for performance according to the instructions and faithful to the intent of the composer (Performers should follow the score precisely, in as much detail as the composer provides; improvisations and ornamentations are permitted where the composer allows or expects, according to practice or tradition.)Comment
-
Thirdly, I do not think that the original Guardian article was positing any cultural relativism. Rather, in your post, you reveal your own tangential agenda (even though some points I may well agree with). I really don’t watch much TV (news only, in the main), and I’m quite sure there is a lot of rubbish on it (formulaic trash – a good term, I will grant you). As to surveys, I remain suspicious of them, but they are fun. And as to speaking the truth, well, …Comment
-
Nearly finished ... bear with me ...Comment
-
No, we can make judgements, but they are in the main subjective. And I will make one for you. Comparing B’s 3rd movement of the Triple concerto and the Beatles’ Eleanor Rigby (check spelling), I find (in my judgement) that the harmony in the latter is far more interesting than in the former. Is one "better" than the other?Originally posted by Peter View PostComment
-
I'm done now for the moment. Back to my digestion ...Comment
Comment