# The Invisible Museum



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The following is paraphrased by me from the book _Music: A Very Short Introduction_ by Nicholas Cook (Oxford).

[In the nineteenth century, great changes in society occurred; the capitalist model of production, distribution, and consumption became embedded in society. This created the rise of a new middle class, and the creation of "bourgeoise subjectivity" or the idea of "fine art" as an object of sublime contemplation.

The inner world of emotions and feelings became celebrated and explored. Music turned away from the world and changed its former utilitarian function. This was the age of Beethoven and Rossini. Beethoven wrote the music he wanted to write, unlike the Bach cantatas which were contracted by the Church for use on specific occasions and then set aside. Indeed, Bach was forgotten for over 100 years.

Beethoven's music spoke directly to the individual. Thus, Beethoven's music struck critics and listeners of that time as "abrupt and discontinuous" in comparison to his predecessors Haydn and Mozart; "the music of a madman."

The Beethoven cult shows little sign of abating; even now, it it seen as the central pillar of the classical tradition.

So now, the idea of music as a commodity, with the composer at the ultimate authority at the center, as the generator of the music, gives the composer a unique power and authority which we still recognize. Performers are subservient, like waiters in tuxes who are, if effective, forgotten. The conveyance of the spirit of the composer is central.

The Beethoven myth epitomizes capital; music that is a commodity, like fine wine, which can be stored in the cellars of the "invisible museum" for posterity. The music selected for inclusion is known as "the canon" or "the repertory" to performers & listeners. Thus, the term "classical music" came into being. This term implies that high standards are applied, against which music of all other times and places must be compared.

The concert hall is a kind of cathedral which one enters, remaining quiet and reverent during the performance. The memorization of the pieces, without sheet music, gives the impression that the performer is "possessed" by the music, as in a holy revelation. Thus, as conventional religion was subjected to onslaught by science, music provided an alternate route to spiritual communion.

Music was also changing in its relation to words; instrumental music became to be seen as "pure" and independent of words and plots, unlike earlier cantatas and operas. These ideas about music are still affecting us today, as the idea of "authenticity" in music.

This attitude towards music, formed in the era of Beethoven, has created somewhat of a crisis in the modern world. Sound recording and reproduction has proliferated, and while it has given music the autonomy that nineteenth-century aestheticians claimed for it, it has turned many of these assumptions upside-down, or at least leveled-out the playing field.

The more we behave as consumers, the more music's authority is undermined, becoming a matter of choice and reflecting our lifestyle and purpose. Music is available from all over the world, which undermines the nineteenth-century idea of a single "gold standard" of music. The idea of music as "high art" becomes more questionable, as we see different worlds and universes of "musics" which exist and evolve independently.

This, in turn, undermines the notion of "high art" as distinct from "low art," although this confident distinction still exists in the standard format of music history or appreciation textbooks. The story of European music is told, appended with a chapter or two on jazz and popular music. It is obvious that there is a kind of Apartheid at work here, which separates popular music from the "art" tradition (and, indeed, carries over into a backlash against contemporary "art" music).

If we are to achieve a true "musicological" understanding of music itself, then such an uncritically ethnocentric and elitist view of music is entirely inadequate for understanding music in today's pluralistic society.]

(end of paraphrase)


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

The walls of the museum may be invisible but the curators and gatekeepers who determine the catalogue are still highly visible.

BTW is there anything more élitist than spelling it with an accent. ;~)


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

The classical/popular comparison I think is irrelevent, popular music has it's own traditions now and can be assessed within its own styles. Classical music can have it's own museum, though the increased awareness of composers who are outside of the usual canon will broaden people's appreciation of that whole tradition.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starry said:


> The classical/popular comparison I think is irrelevent, popular music has it's own traditions now and can be assessed within its own styles. Classical music can have it's own museum, though the increased awareness of composers who are outside of the usual canon will broaden people's appreciation of that whole tradition.


Yes, that's the point being made in the book. Still, the élitist notion persists, and is alive and well on this forum..._isn't it?_


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I totally agree with the point being made about elitism in music, yet I strongly identify with musical romanticism, the individualism and the importance of music. I don't really like that he kinda seems to conflate that with being a close-minded snob.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I totally agree with the point being made about elitism in music, yet I strongly identify with musical romanticism, the individualism and the importance of music. I don't really like that he kinda seems to conflate that with being a close-minded snob.


That's perfectly fine that you strongly identify with musical romanticism, the individualism, and the importance of classical music, as long as you're not being a close-minded snob about it.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> That's perfectly fine that you strongly identify with musical romanticism, the individualism, and the importance of classical music, as long as you're not being a close-minded snob about it.


I believe not in the importance of classical music  I believe in the importance of music X3


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I believe not in the importance of classical music  I believe in the importance of music X3


That's good; but in many minds, the ethnocentric view that Western CM is the "gold standard" against which all other music is to be judged, is rather like a musical Apartheid, and this involves our perception of other people, cultures, and musics as being inherently inferior...Doesn't it?


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The following is paraphrased by me from the book _Music: A Very Short Introduction_ by Nicholas Cook (Oxford).


You offer no comment million. I'm not sure what to make of this paraphrase. Two things spring immediately to mind. One is that the composer since Beethoven (Cook's milestone, not mine) does not have quite the degree of autonomy Cook seems to suggest. If the concert halls and radio stations won't pay for and play the music, it becomes difficult to distribute (covered at length in numersous other threads.)

The second is this...



> This attitude towards music, formed in the era of Beethoven, has created somewhat of a crisis in the modern world. Sound recording and reproduction has proliferated, and while it has given music the autonomy that nineteenth-century aestheticians claimed for it, it has turned many of these assumptions upside-down, or at least leveled-out the playing field.
> 
> The more we behave as consumers, the more music's authority is undermined, becoming a matter of choice and reflecting our lifestyle and purpose. Music is available from all over the world, which undermines the nineteenth-century idea of a single "gold standard" of music. The idea of music as "high art" becomes more questionable, as we see different worlds and universes of "musics" which exist and evolve independently.


Good.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> ...the composer since Beethoven (Cook's milestone, not mine) does not have quite the degree of autonomy Cook seems to suggest. If the concert halls and radio stations won't pay for and play the music, it becomes difficult to distribute (covered at length in numersous other threads...


That's true of any kind of music or entertainment. In this sense, that just emphasizes CM's present role as just another consumer product. This doesn't degrade the idea of "autonomy," though.

"Autonomy" in this sense is being used to show how the composer is the ultimate authority at the center, as the generator of the music. This gives the composer a unique power, autonomy, and authority which we still recognize.

The same sorts of "authenticity" judgements are still made by us today, and have trickled-down into popular music.

For example, rock and roll bands, like The Beatles, are more respected by rock critics and fans than fabricated "pop" groups like The Monkees, The Spice Girls, and Milli Vanilli. This is due in large part to the fact that most good rock bands write their own songs, like "composers."


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> That's good; but in many minds, the ethnocentric view that Western CM is the "gold standard" against which all other music is to be judged, is rather like a musical Apartheid, and this involves our perception of other people, cultures, and musics as being inherently inferior...Doesn't it?


Maybe for some people? Not so much for me o3o


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> "...in many minds, the ethnocentric view that Western CM is the "gold standard" against which all other music is to be judged, is rather like a musical Apartheid, and this involves our perception of other people, cultures, and musics..."





BurningDesire said:


> Maybe for some people? Not so much for me o3o


I don't see how you can listen to music without the underlying perception that it is created by people, especially when it's a singer...and that music is an extension and expression of people.

Even so, if you subscribe to the nineteenth-century view that Western music is the "gold standard" against which all other music is to be judged (which you just admitted to), then this is the reason for much of the inequality and unrest in other cultures.

Isn't this élitist attitude of Westerners the motivation behind terrorist acts such as the Boston Marathon bombings?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Isn't this élitist attitude of Westerners the motivation behind terrorist acts such as the Boston Marathon bombings?


They hate us for our Beethoven!


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't see how you can listen to music without the underlying perception that it is created by people, especially when it's a singer...and that music is an extension and expression of people.
> 
> Even so, if you subscribe to the nineteenth-century view that Western music is the "gold standard" against which all other music is to be judged (which you just admitted to), then this is the reason for much of the inequality and unrest in other cultures.
> 
> Isn't this élitist attitude of Westerners the motivation behind terrorist acts such as the Boston Marathon bombings?


My inner snob is quietly seething. 

Western classical music is the greatest music we have. What's wrong with saying that? It's certainly not cultural racism to believe that, by the way. It might be an expression of preference which is stated as fact, but Crikey, I sat through a Chinese opera once and it was like being tortured by sadists.

Terrorists attack because they're demented with hatred. It isn't our fault they attack, it's theirs...


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't see how you can listen to music without the underlying perception that it is created by people, especially when it's a singer...and that music is an extension and expression of people.
> 
> Even so, if you subscribe to the nineteenth-century view that Western music is the "gold standard" against which all other music is to be judged (which you just admitted to), then this is the reason for much of the inequality and unrest in other cultures.
> 
> Isn't this élitist attitude of Westerners the motivation behind terrorist acts such as the Boston Marathon bombings?


uh no, I didn't admit to any such thing >_> I believe in the idea that music and composers are important, and I believe that composers should be free to express themselves. I also believe music is really amazing and special. This need not be at all tied elitism, and I'm a bit offended you're accusing me of this.

I never said Western music was a gold standard to judge other music. I think that is an absurd notion. Neither have I ever said that classical music is some gold standard or inherently superior to any other kind. I think music is important. That music can come from anywhere, from any kind of person, and in an infinite variety of forms.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> uh no, I didn't admit to any such thing >_> I believe in the idea that music and composers are important, and I believe that composers should be free to express themselves. I also believe music is really amazing and special. This need not be at all tied elitism, and I'm a bit offended you're accusing me of this.
> 
> I never said Western music was a gold standard to judge other music. I think that is an absurd notion. Neither have I ever said that classical music is some gold standard or inherently superior to any other kind. I think music is important. That music can come from anywhere, from any kind of person, and in an infinite variety of forms.


_I'm sorry. _I'm not clear if you are a musical elitist or not, or if you are aware of any such thing. I took your responses as an unspoken assumption that Western CM is the "gold standard" without considering the long-range cultural consequences of such a tacit assumption, because it apppeared that you disagreed with my statements. Perhaps you'd like to more actively clarify your position rather than simply "react" to my statements.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> _I'm sorry. _I'm not clear if you are a musical elitist or not, or if you are aware of any such thing. Perhaps you are taking it as an assumption that Western CM is the "gold standard" without considering the long-range cultural consequences of such a tacit assumption.


I'm not! 

I am not a musical elitist and I don't believe in any gold standard in music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> They hate us for our Beethoven!


Well, I wouldn't say it that way. It's more like, we can use unmanned drones on them and kill civilians and it's OK, because we are justified in everything our culture stands for.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I'm not!
> 
> I am not a musical elitist and I don't believe in any gold standard in music.


Okay, I hear you, but this thread is not directed at anyone personally. I'm trying to expose a cultural bias. If your responses appear to tacitly agree with those biases, then it's your responsibility to more actively respond, rather than simply reacting or denying.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, that's the point being made in the book. Still, the élitist notion persists, and is alive and well on this forum..._isn't it?_


Eiltist notions are evident across all kinds of areas, and so all kinds of music. It probably reflects and defends people's lack of knowledge of things outside their scope.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starry said:


> Eiltist notions are evident across all kinds of areas, and so all kinds of music. It probably reflects and defends people's lack of knowledge of things outside their scope.


Still, in a pluralistic society like America, negligence is not an excuse.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I never said it was, but ignorance is everywhere you can't ignore it really even if you want to.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I think in the west we've actually gone too far the opposite direction, apologising for everything and anything: empires, church, culture. We're not elitist at all - we're suffering a crisis of confidence and identity, especially in Europe.

But terrorist attacks are the fault of the terrorist, not the fault of the victims of terrorism...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starry said:


> ...ignorance is everywhere you can't ignore it really even if you want to.


You can ignore it quite nicely if you're ignorant of it.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Too much throwing around of loaded terms, too little plainly-spoked reasoned argument.

I wish musicologists would talk more about music and less about musicology.

But with these sorts of texts its impossible not to be an elitist and like Beethoven, and not be an elitist and think one bit of music happens to be better than another, unless perhaps the piece on the worse end is Beethoven's 9th. Best ignore it and get on with the business of music in whatever capacity, attempting not to discount something just because you don't know or like it.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> They hate us for our Beethoven!


They hate us for our superior standard of living that allows us time and means for enjoying classical music, for our freedoms which include the freedom of artistic expression, and for our refusal to bend our necks before some 7th century religious tradition, according to some strains of which all music is _haram_ (sinful). I guess, Beethoven fits in there somewhere.

As for the ethnocentric view of Western classical music, maybe someone more knowledgeable than I could tell me of a musical tradition that would be as varied (both classical and non-classical) and contain as much beauty as the Western one. Until then I am firmly convinced that this tradition is, indeed, superior.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> That's good; but in many minds, the ethnocentric view that Western CM is the "gold standard" against which all other music is to be judged, is rather like a musical Apartheid, and this involves our perception of other people, cultures, and musics as being inherently inferior...Doesn't it?


More than occasionally, I've seen on another (very general) open classical forum, questions about Indian classical music. The sheer jingoism of too many answers, 'this is the classical music section' (LOL) is appalling, and demonstrates the very closed circuit mentality.

The Beethoven wedge -- I've forgotten the name of the writer, but still floating about in theory circles is that author's 'definition' of 'what is a sonata.' Written in the Romantic era, using Beethoven as the pinnacle, that definition is so narrowly boxed in that it excludes hosts of other sonatas, let alone those of Scarlatti, from being 'sonatas.'

The 'Beethoven' effect, then -- yes, I think we hear far too much about and from Luigi, and the de facto hegemony of the German music industry of the time only spread that throughout Europe, dominating publishing, academic thought, 'what was best' of theory, German conductors slating German repertoire on podia outside of Germany.

Of course, I've always thought 'individualism' highly over-rated, right up there with 'self-expression.'

But who, then, 'votes the market?' The 'Plebes?' -- many of whom would dump 80% or more of twentieth century music? Certainly not the 'purists' who reflexively exclude, say, Indian Classical, Indonesian Gamelon music, etc. Shall we rule out the extremists who seem to want no more tonal music, past or present, or their opposites who want only tonal music?

The Hegemony is not yet undone, _(hell, people are still seriously quoting or referring to Adorno _ though it may no longer be 'German' the classical music scene is still redolent with it.

I look forward to your proposals to change the situation, though somewhat defining it is a good start.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> If your responses appear to tacitly agree with those biases, then it's your responsibility to more actively respond, rather than simply reacting or denying.


And is it your own habit always to post actively? You missed, or chose to ignore my point that your OP quoted (sorry, 'paraphrased') without comment. Are you swallowing Cook uncritically, conveying views with which you are in total agreement? Or are you simply waiting to see which way folks will jump, betraying their elitism and intolerance, or their sensitivity to world culture?


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> They hate us for our superior standard of living that allows us time and means for enjoying classical music, for our freedoms which include the freedom of artistic expression, and for our refusal to bend our necks before some 7th century religious tradition, according to some strains of which all music is _haram_ (sinful). I guess, Beethoven fits in there somewhere.


Their attitude has nothing to do with Islamic ideas or whatever you're suggesting. It's certainly not suggesting that music is sinful - precisely the opposite. It is saying that nothing is sinful - nothing except elitism. They have a whole-hearted endorsement of pop musics and the like - they can hardly be puritans.



SiegendesLicht said:


> As for the ethnocentric view of Western classical music, maybe someone more knowledgeable than I could tell me of a musical tradition that would be as varied (both classical and non-classical) and contain as much beauty as the Western one. Until then I am firmly convinced that this tradition is, indeed, superior.


Unless something is bad there is no need not to have it - it is not an either/or question. There is great beauty in other traditions there is not in the Western Classical canon - and a different listening experience. I say this as someone who lives on Western Classical most of the time and indeed studies it. Granted they are usually not as 'exciting' as Classical, but that is sort of the point. They are not transitory and so do something which Western Classical, which delights in its passing nature, cannot.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> And is it your own habit always to post actively? You missed, or chose to ignore my point that your OP quoted (sorry, 'paraphrased') without comment. Are you swallowing Cook uncritically, conveying views with which you are in total agreement? Or are you simply waiting to see which way folks will jump, betraying their elitism and intolerance, or their sensitivity to world culture?


I'm not sure that millions is quite as in total agreement with Cook as he might appear.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A museum? Who says it's invisible? From a recent article by Alex Ross:

"It's possible that the indifference to classical music observed in younger generations has something to do with the musty, clubby atmosphere of the repertory. To outsiders, the typical concert must look a bit like zombie night at the Bohemian Grove."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Alex Ross: "It's possible that the indifference to classical music observed in younger generations has something to do with the musty, clubby atmosphere of the repertory. To outsiders, the typical concert must look a bit like zombie night at the Bohemian Grove."

Or a worship service in a Church. I think Western classical music is pretty tied-up with Catholicism, etc.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't see how you can listen to music without the underlying perception that it is created by people, especially when it's a singer...and that music is an extension and expression of people.
> 
> Even so, if you subscribe to the nineteenth-century view that Western music is the "gold standard" against which all other music is to be judged (which you just admitted to), then this is the reason for much of the inequality and unrest in other cultures.
> 
> Isn't this élitist attitude of Westerners the motivation behind terrorist acts such as the Boston Marathon bombings?


Well, I think you've lost your mind, at least temporarily.

"The West' is not marketing Beethoven to the Arab nations, it is dependent upon their oil, and Western flat out mercenary capitalism sees a golden opportunity to market, for example, Barbie Dolls to Arab kids -- without at all thinking about those nation's cultural disposition on women.

About Beethoven, or classical music, it ain't. Perhaps the Jingoism of assuming your culture is the best and of course others want to have it is the only common point.

Remember too, that _the most extreme of the Muslim fundamentalists do not want any peaceable co-existence, they just want us 'gone' -- completely._

There is also a tenet to destroy all things western, cultural, historic, and another to raze anything standing which was made or erected in times prior to the birth of Mohammed, including some ancient statues of Buddha (mission accomplished), and the pyramids, etc. Not that this is new, the reformation destroyed a lot of priceless art and artifact.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't think that what Cook says is a big deal to me. Most of it (apart from the Marxist rhetoric) strikes me as pretty commonsense. I don't think I have a Eurocentric or elitist view of classical music, or of any other music. I don't see it as a religion, or like a political party or ideology which I have to swear my allegiance to and abide by no matter what. I just see it as music. I listen to many types of classical music, not only European, but from other places. I don't see the likes of great American composers like Ives or Bernstein as any lesser than their European counterparts or contemporaries, such as Mahler and Shostakovich, for example. Indeed, I see them having just as much in common as being different and unique.

I'm not a fan of the canon becoming like a stranglehold on classical music, and it becoming museum piece or like a dead art. But that's how its going, the way it is (or was?). I think that with factors like the digital revolution/internet and ageing of concert audiences for 'straight' meat and three veg type classical concerts, classical music is likely to change a lot the next few decades. I don't know the solution but in terms of Australia, I know that concert - and radio - programming was more adventurous and relevant to a wide audience (not just the warhorse brigade) say 20 years back. But that's talking of only some groups, we also got groups here doing stimulating and engaging programs, reaching out across boundaries of style, era or genre, looking at the commonalities between things, and these too are having a measure of success (eg. the Australian Chamber Orchestra tries hard to program things beyond the boring meat and three veg paradigm - and its commercially the most viable classical music outfit we've got). So there is hope for the future I think but I think the dogmas of the past have to be jettisoned and new ways have to be developed to ensure the ongoing viability and relevance of classical music. But the only constant here is change, its the only thing we can predict at the moment. But that's probably how its always been, more or less, I think that in the past things have been more flexible though for various reasons (eg. better economic conditions). Maybe we're just in a bit of a trough at the moment, and we'll rise up soon?

But I always find it funny when elites call other elites who don't agree with their ideology to be 'elites.' Eg. left wing elites calling right wing elites 'elites' when, you guessed it, they're both elites. So I dunno the utility of this term at all. Maybe we should be more specific and say 'bogeymen' or something? (a joke!)...


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

Millions' paraphrasing, inevitably, condenses and distorts. It gives the misleading impression that the book might be chiefly about elitism, or (to quote Sid) a Marxist interpretation of musical history. So far as I can tell, it is neither of these things.

The Look Inside extract on Amazon also distorts, by its incomplete nature, but at least you can read some of the original and put the paraphrase back into context.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Music-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192853821

Try the bit from the Introduction, and you'll get a better idea of what Cook is trying to do.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

KenOC said:


> A museum? Who says it's invisible? From a recent article by Alex Ross:
> 
> "It's possible that the indifference to classical music observed in younger generations has something to do with the musty, clubby atmosphere of the repertory. To outsiders, the typical concert must look a bit like zombie night at the Bohemian Grove."


Personally I've never understood that. Why would someone have a problem because he is expected to sit still at a classical concert and the performers are dressed up nice? The music is glorious, that's all that matters. That's just a lame excuse for laziness and lack of desire to learn anything about the world outside of pop culture.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I don't think that what Cook says is a big deal to me. Most of it (apart from the Marxist rhetoric) strikes me as pretty commonsense. I don't think I have a Eurocentric or elitist view of classical music, or of any other music. I don't see it as a religion, or like a political party or ideology which I have to swear my allegiance to and abide by no matter what. I just see it as music.


Well, thank you for being polite, Sid, and not telling me I've "lost my mind" like my other "friend" has done. And also, thanks for not pestering me with private messages to the point I have to temporarily turn the option off.

Despite the "Marxist rhetotic," Europe did become industrialized in the nineteenth century, which created a large middle-class of consumers, which is what Nicholas Cook is referring to. And I'm not blaming Beethoven specifically; I'm saying that the general view that Western culture is superior has caused many problems, and in the past as well, with Britain's colonialism, our manipulation of events in the Middle East in the 1950s, etc, and I am by no means alone in seeing this; its a valid position, and I resent being insulted by other posters about this. But you, as always, remain a gentleman, Sid.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Millions' paraphrasing, inevitably, condenses and distorts. It gives the misleading impression that the book might be chiefly about elitism, or (to quote Sid) a Marxist interpretation of musical history. So far as I can tell, it is neither of these things.
> 
> The Look Inside extract on Amazon also distorts, by its incomplete nature, but at least you can read some of the original and put the paraphrase back into context.
> 
> ...


They still may not like what Cook is saying, because, like most musiciologists, Cook is not an élitist, but urges the reader to see all forms of music as valid. In the first part of the book, Cook is simply laying the groundwork for dispelling the élitist attitude of the West. I suggest you buy the book and read it before you accuse me of distortion.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Despite the "Marxist rhetotic," Europe did become industrialized in the nineteenth century, which created a large middle-class of consumers, which is what Nicholas Cook is referring to. And I'm not blaming Beethoven specifically; I'm saying that the general view that Western culture is superior has caused many problems, and in the past as well, with Britain's colonialism, our manipulation of events in the Middle East in the 1950s, etc, and I am by no means alone in seeing this; its a valid position, and I resent being insulted by other posters about this. But you, as always, remain a gentleman, Sid.


Thanks Million, for helping this reader to understand where you are coming from.

Posters insulting? Surely not?


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> They still may not like what Cook is saying, because, like most musiciologists, Cook is not an élitist, but urges the reader to see all forms of music as valid. In the first part of the book, Cook is simply laying the groundwork for dispelling the élitist attitude of the West. I suggest you buy the book and read it before you accuse me of distortion.


If I bought the book and read it, I might be able to contribute to this thread about a year after it had died. Are you seriously expecting only those who have read the book to comment? Especially since you took no position in relation to your paraphrase. (I tried the same with a book by Antony Storr but it bombed).

In any case, I'm not 'accusing' you of distortion. It's a plain fact that to paraphrase is to distort.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> If I bought the book and read it, I might be able to contribute to this thread about a year after it had died. Are you seriously expecting only those who have read the book to comment? Especially since you took no position in relation to your paraphrase. (I tried the same with a book by Antony Storr but it bombed).
> 
> In any case, I'm not 'accusing' you of distortion. It's a plain fact that to paraphrase is to distort.


Well, the "net effect" looks like you are discrediting me.

What's with your "like" of my post #37? You're attacking me here, and followed me over to the "prog rock" thread to further harrass me.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> What's with your "like" of my post #37? You're attacking me here, and followed me over to the "prog rock" thread to further harrass me.


Would you like me to 'unlike' then? At least if I follow via your thread posts, you can't 'accuse' me of hectoring via PMs.

It also saves us the trouble of going via Twitter.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Would you like me to 'unlike' then? At least if I follow via your thread posts, you can't 'accuse' me of hectoring via PMs.


No, that was a reference to another friendly member.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> No, that was a reference to another friendly member.


Can you not set that person on ignore somehow, to block the pm's?


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

_Music: A Very Short Introduction_ was a must-read for when I was doing music interviews for Oxford last year. I must confess I simply couldn't force myself to read it, and so was probably at a disadvantage in certain aspects in terms of discussing 'issues' in musicology. Moving on:

Being entirely honest, this:



millionrainbows said:


> Despite the "Marxist rhetotic," Europe did become industrialized in the nineteenth century, which created a large middle-class of consumers, which is what Nicholas Cook is referring to. And I'm not blaming Beethoven specifically; I'm saying that the general view that Western culture is superior has caused many problems, and in the past as well, with Britain's colonialism, our manipulation of events in the Middle East in the 1950s, etc, and I am by no means alone in seeing this; its a valid position, and I resent being insulted by other posters about this.


is infinitely clearer to me than Cook. I certainly don't think you distorted it in the OP because it seems to me that he and many others quite simply obscure their points with what I must assume is 'Marxist rhetoric' (not being able to identify such a thing). I didn't care for the book in its original incarnation.

'The Invisible Museum' is probably a reference to "The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works" by Lydia Goehr. Not sure if that's relevant.

Any idea of 'superiority' is bound to fail unless qualified. Superior how? Superior for putting people to sleep? Western music, as society, is superior to other societies and musics in many ways. It is also markedly inferior in many ways.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> That's good; but in many minds, the ethnocentric view that Western CM is the "gold standard" against which all other music is to be judged, is rather like a musical Apartheid, and this involves our perception of other people, cultures, and musics as being inherently inferior...Doesn't it?


I agree with that 100%, while at the same time wonder why one culture should 'sponsor' as it were, in their own country, the music of other cultures at the expense of their own.

Is this also a call to embrace other genres within our own culture? Do we give due credit to the Vanilla / Frangipani scent wafting into our ears from the scented candle of new-age music, and regard it as highly as Indonesian Gamelon music? Prog Rock is as 'valuable' as, say, Brahms, then? There is good argument to be open to and look for the real value of those other genres and the music of other cultures, but the generality has me thinking you are advocating my accepting a quarter as one dollar, so to speak.

I mean, start a Site dedicated to 'Art Music' -- don't define Art Music, and see how much of what is submitted as being Art Music. Who determines what Art Music is, 'everybody?'

If these other musics have that much worth (I think many of them do) then they are already within that 'free market' of what consumers choose to consume. The culture from whence they spring is often enough busy promoting that art. All those outside that culture need do is have a glance at Amazon, or see if there is a traveling band playing in their area.

Quick, how many members here have recordings of Indonesian Gamelon Music, 'Classical' traditional Japanese (instrumental and vocal), Korean, East Indian music (some of which has as long, or longer, an ongoing tradition than western CM)?

Does that make this site a museum, or just a site where people are primarily interested in works from their own culture, and specifically the 'classical music' from that culture? The amount of music is huge. I think lumping it all together is counterproductive to showing each off to its best advantage.

Yet I more than advocate anyone 'stuck' in classical only to open their ears to all other musics 'musical,' because including them offers just that much more.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I agree with that 100%, *while at the same time wonder why one culture should 'sponsor' as it were, in their own country, the music of other cultures at the expense of their own.*
> 
> Is this also a call to embrace other genres within our own culture? Do we give due credit to the Vanilla / Frangipani scent wafting into our ears from the scented candle of new-age music, and regard it as highly as Indonesian Gamelon music? Prog Rock is as 'valuable' as, say, Brahms, then? There is good argument to be open to and look for the real value of those other genres and the music of other cultures, but the generality has me thinking you are advocating my accepting a quarter as one dollar, so to speak.
> 
> ...


Hey, this is America, buddy, not Europe. This country is by its very nature a diverse mix of cultures. What did you have in mind, American Indian music? Read the inscription on the inside of the Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Besides, the purpose of this thread is to point out that the notion of a Western canon as _"a gold standard" against which all other music is somehow deficient"_ is élitist, and ultimately destructive.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Hey, this is America, buddy, not Europe. This country is by its very nature a diverse mix of cultures.


May I make a very small point? Just to say that 'Europe' also has a very diverse mix of cultures. (I'll assume that by 'America' you didn't just mean the USA).


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

That's definitely not a small point (I'm sure you're being ironic). Americans can certainly simplify and talk like Europe is a country with one people in it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Hey, this is America, buddy, not Europe. This country is by its very nature a diverse mix of cultures. What did you have in mind, American Indian music? Read the inscription on the inside of the Statue of Liberty:
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> ...


The 'mixed culture' you speak of, until somewhere in the last quarter of the 20th century, was an overwhelming majority of descendents of immigrants from Europe and Eastern Europe, 'Caucasian,' 'European' and not much of anything else.

Post WWII, and since, legal and illegal, the 'complexion' of the country is 'browning' from that Euro-Caucasian base.

Most Americans know nothing of Native American Music, while they have at least heard of a didgeridoo or a sitar.

Putting aside the minuscule native American community (both North and South America having the dubious distinction of being the place, over several hundreds of years, of the greatest genocide on record), we are left with the 'North American' cultural contributions of Jazz and pop music, especially rock in its various forms.

Hollywood scores, pre and post WWII, are 'staffed' by a host of European emigres, almost all of them arriving with their training fully completed in Europe. (For a very fresh new take on those, just listen to the Brilliant 'fused' score of Tarantino's _Django._)

Again, I am more than a little 'for' anyone opening their ears and eyes to what is a richness from other than the Euro Tradition, but If that is not the specific point of the OP, I still don't quite otherwise know or understand _the point_ of the OP. Strikes me as rather non-specific.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Beg Pardon, that golden canon by which all other cultures are measured is fairly universal within each culture, about that culture. In that regard, there are many, from many cultures, who have blinders on their eyes and wool in their ears. This should not startle.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Beg Pardon, that golden canon by which all other cultures are measured is fairly universal within each culture, about that culture. In that regard, there are many, from many cultures, who have blinders on their eyes and wool in their ears. This should not startle.


Well, I guess you're making a good point there, while missing mine.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, I guess you're making a good point there, while missing mine.


I think he said he agreed with your point (gold standard, elitism etc) 100%. As do I, I hasten to add.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, thank you for being polite, Sid, and not telling me I've "lost my mind" like my other "friend" has done. And also, thanks for not pestering me with private messages to the point I have to temporarily turn the option off.
> 
> Despite the "Marxist rhetotic," Europe did become industrialized in the nineteenth century, which created a large middle-class of consumers, which is what Nicholas Cook is referring to. And I'm not blaming Beethoven specifically; I'm saying that the general view that Western culture is superior has caused many problems, and in the past as well, with Britain's colonialism, our manipulation of events in the Middle East in the 1950s, etc, and I am by no means alone in seeing this; its a valid position, and I resent being insulted by other posters about this. But you, as always, remain a gentleman, Sid.


Well what I was saying was by inference about the bit of Cook's book you posted. I said I wasn't Eurocentric (if anything, I'm highly critical of Europe in many ways), so what more do you want? I acknowledge the harms done by colonialism etc.

But honestly, I don't see it as a matter of class struggle now. I see it as about cold hard cash and the ageing of classical audiences - and where does that leave us? Especially one of the biggest markets of classical, the USA, having all those orchestras go belly up with the GFC a few years back. So I see that good financial management is the most important thing for classical to survive in a financial sense. We can blame all the elites we want to (except, of course, the elites on our own side of the fence - eg. the academic elites versus the political or economic ones?) or we can just accept some sort of reality and deal with things as they come. Forget the dogmas, Marxist or other. But you know what? I am talking about this in a way that's totally theory to me anyway. I'm not in the music industry, not in classical music. So I'm just putting my two cents worth in, that's it.

You know in an interview years ago Ned Rorem, the American classical composer, said that in the past a composers problem was that people would reject his work. But now he said, the problem is that nobody (or not enough people) care about what a classical composer is doing, what most composers are doing. So I see that as part of the demise of classical - pegging something like the decline of classical music on Beethoven or the industrial revolution (I'm sorry to be simplifying things here, I got little time now) is not how I see it. Its a matter of history, but we got to deal with things here and now. There's always barriers to composers. There is today as there was in various dictatorships, or under the monarchies of the ancien regime. Money is always a big issue - where to get funding for what you want to do, how to get commissions, sponsorship and so on. So I think its better to think about today's barriers and problems, not about Beethoven or the bourgeois which to me is like way over, honestly.

I think that its academics who worry about issues like the canon and so on. I know about the canon but I don't see it as a case of me having to worship it. & I don't even think the warhorse brigade who have what I see as disproportionate influence on concert programming in some (many?) cases even think about the canon. They just want what they know, what they're familiar with. I'm okay with that, but I don't like it when it becomes part of an agenda to exclude other things. Talking of Beethoven, he composed 9 symphonies, yet its always that the 5th or the 9th that get most often performed. Bums on seats, the lazy way to do programming, the dead way. There are others doing other, more innovative and more relevant ways. But who cares about them? Who even knows about them? Not many, it seems.

Nothing to do with you personally. I am not insulting you personally. IF that was implied to you in my earlier post, I didn't mean it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ...I said I wasn't Eurocentric (if anything, I'm highly critical of Europe in many ways), so what more do you want? I acknowledge the harms done by colonialism etc....honestly, I don't see it as a matter of class struggle now. *I see it as about cold hard cash* and the ageing of classical audiences - and where does that leave us? Especially one of the *biggest markets of classical*, the USA, having all those orchestras go belly up with the GFC a few years back. So I see that *good financial management* is the most important thing for classical to survive *in a financial sense.* We can blame all the elites we want to (except, of course, the elites on our own side of the fence - eg. the academic elites versus the political or economic ones?) or we can just accept some sort of reality and deal with things as they come. *Forget the dogmas, Marxist or other. *But you know what? I am talking about this in a way that's totally theory to me anyway. I'm not in the *music industry,* not in classical music. So I'm just putting my two cents worth in, that's it.


You are talking Marxist dogma, Sid. Yes, now in this era it is a matter of cold, hard cash...which is "Marxist" because it's all based on economics. The consumer culture created by industrialization turned CM into a "commodity," just like the rest of the proliferation of other popular music genres. A plurality of musical subcultures has replaced monolithic, institutionally approved culture of nineteenth-century thought.



Sid James said:


> ...pegging something like the decline of classical music on Beethoven or the industrial revolution...is not how I see it...There's always barriers to composers. There is today as there was in various dictatorships, or under the monarchies of the ancien regime. *Money is always a big issue - where to get funding for what you want to do, how to get commissions, sponsorship and so on.* So I think its better to think about today's barriers and problems, not about Beethoven or the bourgeois which to me is like way over, honestly.


Since you're still talking economics, how can you say this is not a question of economics and markets, and a "bourgeoise middle class" of consumers which has transformed CM into a commodity like all other music? Sorry if that sounds Marxist.



Sid James said:


> I think that its academics who worry about issues like the canon and so on. I know about the canon but I don't see it as a case of me having to worship it. & I don't even think the warhorse brigade who have what I see as disproportionate influence on concert programming in some (many?) cases even think about the canon. They just want what they know, what they're familiar with. I'm okay with that, *but I don't like it when it becomes part of an agenda to exclude other things.* Talking of Beethoven, he composed 9 symphonies, yet its always that the 5th or the 9th that get most often performed. Bums on seats, the lazy way to do programming, the dead way. There are others doing other, more innovative and more relevant ways. But who cares about them? Who even knows about them? Not many, it seems.


Contemporary music is now a sub-genre, and has become a "niche" market, but a viable one. Just because it has a smaller "client base" does not mean CM as a whole is in a "state of crisis."

No, classical music is not "dead" or in crisis. To be sure, the tradition has become static, in the sense that its center of gravity is no longer keeping pace with the passage of time; but if few modern masterpieces join the canon, this has been counterbalanced by expanding the canon backwards into history, now including "historically informed" recordings of old composers, pre-Renaissance composers, and so on.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> You are talking Marxist dogma, Sid. Yes, now in this era it is a matter of cold, hard cash...which is "Marxist" because it's all based on economics. The consumer culture created by industrialization turned CM into a "commodity," just like the rest of the proliferation of other popular music genres. A plurality of musical subcultures has replaced monolithic, institutionally approved culture of nineteenth-century thought.
> ...


Well I'm not really denying that, I'm just questioning the use of doing these pot shots at the bourgeois or capitalism or whatever when these are now the facts of life. The industrial revolution happened what, 200 years ago. So did the Enlightenment and all that questioning of the ancien regime, the move towards parliamentary democracy and all that. Communism as an ideology - well, the Russian, East European, Chinese, and other sundry types - bit the dust decades ago. China is now capitalist in all but name, basically. Cuba is slowly opening up as well now.

So what do we do? Turn the clock back to the ancien regime with its court orchestras and aristocrats sponsoring music for a select elite? I mean that's what I'm questiong, all that stuff has happened, its over. For example, for better or worse, the late Margaret Thatcher changed the face of Britain, changed some fundamentals in the economy, and we got to deal with that legacy, its over, its happened, we got to face the here and now, not go back 20-30 years. We can go back into history to garner useful things from the past (I'm all for understanding history) but to do it as part of some sort of blame game agenda, what's the use of that? Brings up bad connotations - eg. Stalin and Hitler both hated the bourgeois. & no prizes for guessing what hate and blame leads to. Its not utopia. Get it?



> .....
> 
> Since you're still talking economics, how can you say this is not a question of economics and markets, and a "bourgeoise middle class" of consumers which has transformed CM into a commodity like all other music? Sorry if that sounds Marxist.
> 
> ....


Well yeah, it is, and I am too quite critical of aspects of this, but the only thing I can do is support the music I like. That's it. & ultimately I don't know if some academic in a univeristy is going to achieve anything by blaming various people today, in 2013, and going back to ideology sourced from 1849. I mean really, but as I said, I am drawing inferences from the extract you posted.

Needless to say I am no fan of Marxism, I think its kind of panned out in reality in ways that tell me that its largely a failure. In the old USSR they got rid of capitalism, but what then? Gubaidulina in an interview said that composers could do three things. Go along with the regime and serve them, writing commissions that where basically agitprop (eg. Khrennikov is an example of that). Or garner some concessions, even favour, from the regime but still subvert it from within in various ways (eg. Shostakovich, who made most of his bread and butter during the Stalin regime with film scores, which was considered the lowest of the low in music at that time/place - in the Khrushchev era he got limited freedom, but still not as much freedom as there was outside USSR, in the West). The third box was what Gubaidulina fell into - be largely ignored by the regime (she also was put into the film score writer box, so where Schnittke and Part) or worse get unwanted negative attention (party hacks looking over your shoulder at every move you make - eg. when it was originally performed in Moscow, Seven Words could not carry that sort of religious title, of course the regime supressed religion).

So there you go. I agree we can improve the current system. In any case it is changing, and will change. But what are the alternatives if you think about it? I mean not in terms of academic theory but in terms of reality. I'll just leave you with that thought.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

People must embrace the new on its own terms, our our "plates will be fixed for us."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I enjoyed the discussion in this thread, and I agree with everyone. 

The thing that bothers me most is the claim that Bach was forgotten for over 100 years. Which 100 years was that?


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2013)

A hundred years is hyperbolic.

Maybe seventy.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Perhaps the "key" to understanding the appeal and need of CM is that its "center of gravity no longer keeps pace with the passage of time." As a genre, it is therefore somewhat immune to postmodernist trends and factions. It is the "eye" in the center of the post-modernist hurricane. (We call them by names: Hurricane Arnold, Huricane Igor, Hurricane Pierre, and so on.)
If a masterwork gets added every ten years, it will survive on fumes.


----------

