Stop and prepare : Cage

[Quijote]

There you go again with the poor poor simple thing patronising attitude that is oh so typical of those who fawn over the likes of the unmade bed.

My comment to Preston was in response to his "natural/synthetic" stance. Is he talking specifically about electronic (sine-wave modulators etc) music from the early 50s (à la Stockhausen / Cologne electronic workshop) or electroacoustic (a very different kettle of fish)? I suspect he doesn't know, hence my mild exasperation. But I'm sure he can speak for himself.

I hardly "fawn" over Emin's 'Bed' but I do defend it against the That's-not-art Brigade.

[Quijote]

Because I find it ugly, boring, contrived, unpleasant to listen to and gain no pleasure from it at all.
One should really ask why you have a problem accepting that many people simply dislike certain forms of 'art' or 'music' - just accept it and enjoy what you do without belittling others who don't.

I do not belittle anyone for disliking certain forms of art or musical genres, nor do I have a problem accepting that. I am curious to find out the real motivations behind such standpoints, beyond the ugly/beautiful, interesting/boring, pleasant/unpleasant binaries.

[Peter]

I hardly "fawn" over Emin's 'Bed' but I do defend it against the That's-not-art Brigade.

That's your problem as Preston aptly put it. Rolf Harris is obviously a prominent member of this 'brigade' you despise as the following article reveals.

Tracey Emin may have expected the usual reaction from the art world after dismissing the work of Matisse, Picasso and Van Gogh this week but she also got an unexpectedly scathing broadside yesterday from the children's entertainer. Emin also said in yesterday's edition of The Independent that she sometimes felt her work was "totally insignificant and meaningless". She appeared to have the wholehearted support of Harris, who railed against modern artists he claimed were conning the public with their controversial installations.

He said pieces such as Emin's My Bed were putting the public off visiting galleries because they failed to understand the exhibits.

Harris, 71, who encouraged millions of children to draw and paint with his long-running television shows, said: "I've always imagined that something to do with art should have something to do with something artistic – and somebody who's studied and learnt how to be extra special with whatever medium they're doing. I don't see how getting out of bed and leaving the bed unmade and putting it on show and saying that's worth, I don't know £31,000 ... I don't believe it, I think it's a con."

[Peter]

I do not belittle anyone for disliking certain forms of art or musical genres, nor do I have a problem accepting that. I am curious to find out the real motivations behind such standpoints, beyond the ugly/beautiful, interesting/boring, pleasant/unpleasant binaries.

See post 45 above.

[Quijote]

That's your problem as Preston aptly put it.

No, Preston uses the word "loss" (not even aptly, as I don't feel it a loss at all that I may enjoy Emin's "The Bed"). I'll answer your Rolf Harris and Hallewell tirades later. This is going to be fun.

[Megan]

Philip, do you think we who dislike , modern art, electronic music etc. are in the minority, and that we must be missing out on something really essential because of flawed or biased judgement ?
Earlier today, [link provided by Peter], I listened to Parmegiani, and thought it a kind of tormented experimentation of different sounds. It may be ok for private study, but its certainly not something one would sit down in the evening and relax to, it's just not aesthetically pleasing in my opinion .
Would you seriously consider a series of recorded sounds from , motor cars, buses, underground trains leaving the station, tooting of a steam train, as in one of the links I listened to , would you categorize this as music?
I wouldn't think this stuff is even marketable.

.

[Quijote]

Philip, do you think we who dislike modern art, electronic music etc., are in the minority, and that we must be missing out on something really essential because of flawed or biased judgement ?

Megan : it appears (so I have read and so I have been told) that many people dislike classical music; ergo, people who like it are in the minority. Are they (those who dislike classical music) missing out on something really essential because of flawed or biased judgment?

Earlier today, [link provided by Peter], I listened to Parmegiani, and thought it a kind of tormented experimentation of different sounds. It may be ok for private study, but its certainly not something one would sit down in the evening and relax to, it's just not aesthetically pleasing in my opinion.

To be frank, downloading extracts from Parmegiani (or others) for listening on a computer sound system does serious disservice to the music. But at least you made the effort, for which I thank you. You raise points about "relaxation" and "aesthetically pleasing" : in effect, you are raising the idea of "function". Is all music about relaxation? What about music for funerals? Or music for state occasions? Or music for getting men ready for war? Do you seriously expect me to believe that you put on the Grosse Fugue for relaxation? Or the Missa Solemnis? Electroacoustic music (and much of Beethoven's) fulfills different functions; muzak is not (or should not) be one of them.

Would you seriously consider a series of recorded sounds from , motor cars, buses, underground trains leaving the station, tooting of a steam train, as in one of the links I listened to , would you categorize this as music?
I wouldn't think this stuff is even marketable.

The normal term for what you describe is musique concrète. Perhaps you found a link to the early "concrète" examples where Schaeffer is asking us to listen 'acousmatically', that is to say, to try to divorce the sound from its source and concentrate on the sound itself (its intrinsic qualities). If you have the time, may I suggest a prior reading of Pierre Schaeffer's Traité de l'Objet Sonore before we proceed? In the interim, a series of recorded sounds from motor cars, buses, underground trains leaving the station and the tooting of a steam train would be, er, a series of recorded sounds from motor cars, buses, underground trains leaving the station and tooting of a steam train. Then again, listening to a Bach violin Partita on CD is nothing but electronically produced digital 'blips' - for what you are hearing on CD is not a violin.
Marketable? Manifestly, it sells - to a minority (like classical music).

[Megan]

Philip, thank you for your thoughts, and interesting points.
Yes, I suppose I would have to say that people who, say they dislike classical music, are missing out.
What are they missing?. It's a bit like the old arguement about the small jug being filled and the much larger jug also filled. Someone , I guess, can be happy listening to Doris Day, and I am sure it is happy music for them, and has a beneficial function for them, but there is a vast difference between that and the immense pleasure and satisfaction a person gets from listening to , for instance, Bach's B minor Mass. Without being stuffy, the Bach engages all ones aesthetic , imaginative , rational and intellectual faculties, and the heart as well, and at a far higher level than dear Doris Day.
I remember Karajan once said, why would one listen to discordant music, rather than pleasing music.
I am sure that Stockhausen, has got its attractions, but not for me really.
My first response to your thought provoking question, What is the function of music? would be; it is a non-linguistic way of communicating emotion.
But, I will have to think deeper than that.

[Megan]

Philip said:
Then again, listening to a Bach violin Partita on CD is nothing but electronically produced digital 'blips' - for what you are hearing on CD is not a violin.


But nevertheless, it is a recording from a violin.

[Preston]

No, Preston uses the word "loss" (not even aptly, as I don't feel it a loss at all that I may enjoy Emin's "The Bed"). I'll answer your Rolf Harris and Hallewell tirades later. This is going to be fun.

I used the word loss because perhaps instead of you being right, the other people, who are not supportive of electroacoustic, Avant-Garde, etc., are right. Therefore, you are missing out on their understanding, which is the greater truth, of the situation, so therefore it is your loss.

I used the word electronic because I figured it was fine to use and do not have a full understanding of what electroacoustic is. Either way, when I used the word electronic, I was not talking about the keyboards of the day and things like that. I was talking about the computer synthesizers, and all that wild and synthetic sounding music.

I agree with Megan, that people who do not listen to classical are missing out. I am not saying that they are wrong, just that they are missing out.

[Quijote]

My first response to your thought provoking question, What is the function of music? would be; it is a non-linguistic way of communicating emotion.
But, I will have to think deeper than that.

Megan, you have edited your last comments, which of course you have the right to do. In your original response to the notion of "what is the function of music" you said (I have to paraphrase because I can't entirely recall) music for funerals is to comfort and music for a Mass is for ... [I can't remember]. My point is that I respond to a given reply. If you then change your original posting it changes the "tenor" (Peter should appreciate this term, cf. cantus firmus) of the argument, post mortem, so to speak.
Anyway, your modified view is now that music's function (all music?) is to communicate emotion. Is that a fair summary of your position? I need to know before I continue (with your postings, at any rate).

[Quijote]

Philip said:
Then again, listening to a Bach violin Partita on CD is nothing but electronically produced digital 'blips' - for what you are hearing on CD is not a violin.
But nevertheless, it is a recording from a violin.

Yes, that is so.

[Quijote]

I used the word loss because perhaps instead of you being right, the other people, who are not supportive of electroacoustic, Avant-Garde, etc., are right. Therefore, you are missing out on their understanding, which is the greater truth, of the situation, so therefore it is your loss.

Quite so, Preston, you used the term "loss", and not "my problem", so I'm glad we have clarified Peter's misreading of your lucidness. Or his ... oh dear, I'm getting confused with all these conflicting clauses. I don't know if I'm "right" about Emin or electroacoustic music, by my appreciation of it can hardly be termed a loss on my part.

I used the word electronic because I figured it was fine to use and do not have a full understanding of what electroacoustic is.

QED, Preston. Or as Peter would say (in blind but brave error) cogito ergo sum.

Either way, when I used the word electronic, I was not talking about the keyboards of the day and things like that. I was talking about the computer synthesizers, and all that wild and synthetic sounding music.

Nor was I.

I agree with Megan, that people who do not listen to classical are missing out. I am not saying that they are wrong, just that they are missing out.

Thank you, Preston, my (humble) point too (about other genres of music).

[Quijote]

And now to draw our attention to the the Hellewell and Harris postings from our cherished administrator, Peter (still a chilling term, even though he never chose the mantle). My 'Insane-elder-brother-in-the-attic-PDG' would love the sheer alliterative 'Beano'-ness of that binary, I'm sure. Fun over, let's get down to some serious debunking and calling a "cat a cat" (in UK English, that translates as calling "a spade a spade").

Where to start? Well, let us begin with sources, and general intellectual/academic credibility. Would you, Peter, like to tell us the source of the Hellewell article you mention? Or in very simple terms : Who is David Hellewell, and why should we give credence to his views (apart from the fact that he concurs with you, or vice-versa)?

I shall start to "dismantle" the article you have cited (with much evident glee, it seems) later. And I think I should be paid for doing so.

[Quijote]

Or, ... (he gasps suddenly, smelling a rotten fish [forgive the Biblical allusion]) is all this just a ploy of Peter's to get people involved in the forum? If so, even more reason to expect some sort of remuneration.