# "Music is made by people..."



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Seen on Twitter recently:

"What's something that seems obvious within your profession but your profession misunderstands anyway?"

"Music is made by people, performed by people, and listened to BY PEOPLE, in the world, culturally & socially. It's not about one guy conversing with the heavens or some dumb ***t like that"

_(The reply comes from a musicologist. I slightly edited it to remove an aspect of it that would probably distract from the main point)_

Thoughts?


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> "Music is made by people, performed by people, and listened to BY PEOPLE, in the world, culturally & socially. It's not about one guy conversing with the heavens or some dumb ***t like that"


That's one historically conditioned perspective that might be offset by many others. Wagner certainly saw himself as having a quasi-prophetic role and divinely inspired gifts. Many composers that served the church saw their art as a tribute to God, and the beauty of their music as patterned on the beauty of God's creation.

I read the quote as anti-romantic, anti-idealist, secular, and modernist, (not to mention extremely vulgar) but it doesn't reflect a universal sentiment by any means. Reading the unedited version of the comment that includes "white" as qualifying "guy", the ideological agenda behind these comments becomes clearer still. The author made a decision to include that adjective--it's not a distraction from the point she was making; It was a vital part of her statement.

One might "translate" her comment as follows: "We have to stop thinking of classical music as something that only idealistic, stuffy, out-of-touch, head in the clouds, dead white men compose." It's rather more like a plea than an assertion of truth.

And why does the author so casually equate a white man conversing with the heavens with "dumb *****"? What kind of ill-bred person speaks like this?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Logos said:


> Reading the unedited version of the comment that includes "white" as qualifying "guy", the ideological agenda behind these comments becomes clearer still. The author made a decision to include that adjective--it's not a distraction from the point she was making; It was a vital part of her statement.


A vital part of _her_ statement; not a vital part of the intent of the thread.
The fact that you focus on the race aspect of it when I explicitly avoided it makes _your_ ideological agenda clear also.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Logos said:


> I read the quote as anti-romantic, anti-idealist, secular, and modernist


Definitely anti-romantic and anti-idealist, but not necessarily modernist. There was no shortage of modernists who were just as disdainful as the romantics were (though their reasons were different) of composing music primarily for the sake of people. In fact, for much of the twentieth century the notion of composing for people had come to be associated with totalitarianism. I forget the exact wording, but Goebbels famously said something like "Art must be conscious of its responsibility to the people," by which he meant that art for art's sake was socially useless and therefore degenerate. This, in turn, gave art for art's sake an ideological boost on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

When Benjamin Britten won the inaugural Aspen Award for Services to the Humanities in 1964, he wrote in his acceptance speech, "I certainly write music for human beings--directly and deliberately." It seems like such a trivial, self-evident thing to declare; the fact that Britten nonetheless felt he had to spell it out shows how much the opposite view had become ingrained in the culture of classical music here in the west.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Seen on Twitter recently:
> 
> "What's something that seems obvious within your profession but your profession misunderstands anyway?"
> 
> ...


Not clear as to the point here Nereffid - perhaps it needs to be explicitly stated?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"Thoughts?" Animals unable to express themselves?


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> A vital part of _her_ statement; not a vital part of the intent of the thread.
> The fact that you focus on the race aspect of it when I explicitly avoided it makes _your_ ideological agenda clear also.


If the intent of the thread is to be totally removed from _her_ intent, why not entirely rephrase the proposition--and without the obscenity? The purpose of the woman's statement isn't even clear without the racial angle. It makes her sound anti-religious more than anything else.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

In the original statement, I read "people" as indicating the common, "real", earthy, presumably multi-ethnic people (with an emphasis of women), as opposed to the idealistic, white male artist who is "unreal", monkish, intellectual, unearthly, and removed from the common people.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

Nereffid said:


> Seen on Twitter recently:
> 
> "What's something that seems obvious within your profession but your profession misunderstands anyway?"
> 
> ...


The two sentences don't contradict each other: music can be both about one guy conversing with the heavens and be made and performed by people 'in the world', whatever that means.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2018)

I agree with the tweet.

The most wonderful music I have ever heard comes from a place where composers and musicians and music lovers all connect in a communicative way.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2018)

@Logos, I think when you bring your ideological race agenda into the mix it doesn't seem to adequately address the issues surrounding the false notion that western classical music has an insular, mono-cultural history. There's also an interesting argument that can be made about religion and whether music should be composed primarily for religious purposes as well and whether institutions (the church being one of many institutions that have created/influenced both stylistic trends and purposes for music) should treat music as being 'above' or more important than the actual people and how music functioned in society. I'm personally against that kind of elitism, but it's an interesting point to discuss and I think it might be more relevant to the topic of the thread.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

> @Logos, I think when you bring your ideological race agenda into the mix it doesn't seem to adequately address the issues surrounding the false notion that western classical music has an insular, mono-cultural history.


The unedited statement was:

"Music is made by people, performed by people, and listened to BY PEOPLE, in the world, culturally & socially. It's not about one *white* guy conversing with the heavens or some dumb ***t like that"

Race was a central concept in her assertion--In fact the general tenor of her words isn't at all clear without it.

I think of classical music as European common practice period music, 1650-1900. Is that insular or mono-cultural?



> There's also an interesting argument that can be made about religion and whether music should be composed primarily for religious purposes as well and whether institutions (the church being one of many institutions that have created/influenced both stylistic trends and purposes for music) should treat music as being 'above' or more important than the actual people and how music functioned in society.


From an traditional point of view, sacred music is part of ritual and praise--an offering to God. In that sense, it is more important than the humble slaves of Christ making the offering, who are encouraged to think of themselves as lowliest of men. Is that elitism?

But was the woman in question really thinking about sacred music? I think not. She was speaking about Great White Men, sitting alone on a mountain top contemplating the divine, and occasionally deigning look down on everyone else.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2018)

Logos said:


> The unedited statement was:
> 
> "Music is made by people, performed by people, and listened to BY PEOPLE, in the world, culturally & socially. It's not about one *white* guy conversing with the heavens or some dumb ***t like that"
> 
> ...


Europe has always been quite a diverse continent, and even within those limitations (why the reference to harmonic progressions btw?) there is a lot of scope to talk about music's function in society, the human element of music, that's all I'm saying really.



> From an traditional point of view, sacred music is part of ritual and praise--an offering to God. In that sense, it is more important than the humble slaves of Christ making the offering, who are encouraged to think of themselves as lowliest of men. Is that elitism?


Yes, sacred music is part of ritual and praise, but I am talking more about institutions than humility. The notion that institutions in general should purport the idea that certain types of music are somehow 'more important' than other types, or even 'more important' than learning about the context of actual human beings in the creation and enjoyment of any type of music is an elitist notion, and that's what I am getting at.



> But was the woman in question really thinking about sacred music? I think not. She was speaking about Great White Men, sitting alone on a mountain top contemplating the divine, and occasionally deigning look down on everyone else.


I wasn't talking specifically about sacred music either.........I wish to take the discussion to the topic of elitism in institutions and organisations that use or teach music. The idea that the 'composer' or any 'great artist' and their works are somehow above the rest of humanity is an elitist idea, at least that's what I gather from it. I like the idea that composers are human beings and that we interact with other people just like anyone else. That we have always lived in a world were are interactions with other individuals (musicians, music lovers) and cultures (styles and purposes of music) shape our ideas and music we write seems to have more of a basis in reality than the idea of an artist as a recluse in an ivory tower.

I don't really understand your point about race, though. Talking about race and racists is part of the discussion of the creation and performance of music as an interaction/communication between members of society. Could you clarify your position on that matter?


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

> Europe has always been quite a diverse continent, and even within those limitations (why the reference to harmonic progressions btw?) there is a lot of scope to talk about music's function in society, the human element of music, that's all I'm saying really.


Yes, that's a large subject. I speak of the common practice period because its music forms the central core and the overwhelming majority of the classical music repertoire. In ordinary usage, when people are speaking about classical music they're thinking of the kind of music composed between Louis XIV's accession and World War I; in other words, the common practice period.



> The notion that institutions in general should purport the idea that certain types of music are somehow 'more important' than other types, or even 'more important' than learning about the context of actual human beings in the creation and enjoyment of any type of music is an elitist notion, and that's what I am getting at.


All educational curriculum involves value judgements. Would you form a curriculum that spends equal time on every book and every work of art and every incident as if everything were equally important?



> I like the idea that composers are human beings and that we interact with other people just like anyone else.


Right but emphasizing their "humanity", you're reacting against a part of their (19th century composers especially) human culture: namely 19th century romantic idolization of the artist as hero or demigod. To embrace their humanity fully you have to accept the fact that that culture included deification as part of its mental architecture.



> I don't really understand your point about race, though. Talking about race and racists is part of the discussion of the creation and performance of music as an interaction/communication between members of society. Could you clarify your position on that matter?


It isn't my point, it's hers--as I interpret it. My interpretation is that she is lamenting the fact that scholarship is still focused on the study of a few dead white male composers who are seen as heroic, inspired geniuses. She wishes instead that the study of classical music would broaden to include more kinds of persons and that it would be seen from a larger sociological, egalitarian perspective that examines music's relationship to ordinary people.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2018)

Logos said:


> Yes, that's a large subject. I speak of the common practice period because its music forms the central core and the overwhelming majority of the classical music repertoire. In ordinary usage, when people are speaking about classical music they're thinking of the kind of music composed between Louis XIV's accession and World War I; in other words, the common practice period.


That's not what 'common practice period' refers to. It refers to a common language of tonality based on the retrospective analysis that there are similar chord progressions from Baroque music to late Romantic music.



> All educational curriculum involves value judgements. Would you form a curriculum that spends equal time on every book and every work of art and every incident as if everything were equally important?


I prefer an education that recognises the biggest cultural influences, knowing that these are also the result of value judgements throughout history and that value judgements can certainly change, and that, yes, we cannot spend equal amounts of time of every work of art, but it's probably wiser for an education system to allow us to question why certain things are deemed important and what reasons there may be that, for example, Felix Mendelssohn's music was published and performed more widely than his sister's. (I won't dwell on this example or try to provide an answer for it; there are other musicologists who have written at great length about them both.)



> Right but emphasizing their "humanity", you're reacting against a part of their (19th century composers especially) human culture: namely 19th century romantic idolization of the artist as hero or demigod. To embrace their humanity fully you have to accept the fact that that culture included deification as part of its mental architecture.


This is absolutely true, I accept this as a cultural construct and it's certainly an interesting one.



> It isn't my point, it's hers--as I interpret it. My interpretation is that she is lamenting the fact that scholarship is still focused on the study of a few dead white male composers who are seen as heroic, inspired geniuses. She wishes instead that the study of classical music would broaden to include more kinds of persons and that it would be seen from a larger sociological, egalitarian perspective that examines music's relationship to ordinary people.


Well, what's your point of view?


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

> That's not what 'common practice period' refers to. It refers to a common language of tonality based on the retrospective analysis that there are similar chord progressions from Baroque music to late Romantic music.


It's an historical period defined by a common musical language. And that period lasted from roughly the early 17th century to the early 20th.



> I prefer an education that recognizes the biggest cultural influences, knowing that these are also the result of value judgements throughout history and that value judgements can certainly change, and that, yes, we cannot spend equal amounts of time of every work of art, but it's probably wiser for an education system to allow us to question why certain things are deemed important...


By all means question why certain things are deemed important, but we must also humbly keep in mind that we have our own fallible, temporal value judgements that spring from a different cultural context from that of past centuries. But when it comes to _ influence_, some things and persons are factually more important than others, not merely deemed more important. Not everything makes a equally big ripple in the pond of history.



> Well, what's your point of view?


I'm not sure upon which aspect of this diffused discussion you're asking me to give an opinion.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Well, Beethoven made it absolutely clear that he felt that his worth as an artist made him superior to most other types of human beings.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Logos said:


> It's an historical period defined by a common musical language. And that period lasted from roughly the early 17th century to the early 20th.


It seems that, for the vast bulk of music listeners, that period has not ended. Not at all.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2018)

Logos said:


> I'm not sure upon which aspect of this diffused discussion you're asking me to give an opinion.


Basically, I am asking if you actually wish to respond to the thread that Nereffid started by telling us your opinion as to whether you agree or disagree with the quoted tweet and why.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

"I too am a king!" --Beethoven, upon a slight from the Prussian Court


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It seems that, for the vast bulk of music listeners, that period has not ended. Not at all.


Right, but among "classical" composers and the academy, it did.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

All this over a twitter thank goodness I dont tweet


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

shirime said:


> Basically, I am asking if you actually wish to respond to the thread that Nereffid started by telling us your opinion as to whether you agree or disagree with the quoted tweet and why.


Classical music was made for aristocrats, the clergy, aristocratic clergy, and later the haute bourgeoisie. Those were the "people" that composers aimed to please first and foremost, and sometimes solely--contrary to the democratizing perspective that the woman was wishfully projecting. I think her statement accurately describes the fact that classical music is fixated on dead white males, but I don't think that's likely to change since the overwhelming bulk of the repertoire was composed by dead white males. It's a hopeless lament.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I would have to agree that music is made, performed and listened to by people, to give it a supernatural connection is also what some people do that is a personal thing, so different things to different people, what on earth has gender or race to do with it? Different races do have their own style as for gender I won’t even go there. Today classical music is enjoyed by all of the so-called classes.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Man creates nothing; he can only rearrange what Nature gives him. Just for starters, the forest is vibrant with Life!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Agree with the reply in the OP. To converse with heavens is to put music on a pedestal and missing the point of music. To think the sounds in our limited frequency and time range, and our highly selective constructs of music is anything beyond being heard by ourselves is silly to me. But I do understand how it feels when it seems you are the only one being affected by a certain piece of music, or when the piece of music is more cutting edge in contrast to our collective experience in music. There is a certain feeling of elitism, as if that piece of music has a greater purpose than we are aware of.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MarkW said:


> Well, Beethoven made it absolutely clear that he felt that his worth as an artist made him superior to most other types of human beings.


He was obviously wrong.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MarkW said:


> Well, Beethoven made it absolutely clear that he felt that his worth as an artist made him superior to most other types of human beings.


I am not aware of any evidence that he thought that was the case. A superior artist, certainly, a state he placed above hereditary nobility.


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

Logos said:


> Classical music was made for aristocrats, the clergy, aristocratic clergy, and later the haute bourgeoisie. Those were the "people" that composers aimed to please first and foremost, and sometimes solely--contrary to the democratizing perspective that the woman was wishfully projecting. I think her statement accurately describes the fact that classical music is fixated on dead white males, but I don't think that's likely to change since the overwhelming bulk of the repertoire was composed by dead white males. It's a hopeless lament.


The overwhelming bulk of blues rep was created by dead black males. Nothing hopeless in that fact, nor is it lamentable.

Politicizing repertory is a distraction. The only criteria that is meaningful is asking "does the music interest/move me?" Who wrote it, and when, are secondary concerns. I think it is anti-artistic to advocate advancing music based on the race and/or sex of the creator. I also don't put "classical music" at the top of the pyramid. It is merely one of many kinds of music.

The music is mutually exclusive from its creator, has a life of its own, and to conflate the two defeats the purpose of music, imo.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

San Antone said:


> The overwhelming bulk of blues rep was created by dead black males. Nothing hopeless in that fact, nor is it lamentable.


The black blues repertoire (if that is even the appropriate word to use here) has been completely overshadowed by white musicians' versions of that musical language. Beethoven on the other hand has never been overshadowed by a non-white man copying or reshaping his music to the detriment of his Beethoven's prestige.



> Politicizing repertory is a distraction.


Wagner gave his work an explicitly political purpose of reforming society through art. Art has always been used to express aesthetic, moral, and political ideals.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Seen on Twitter recently:
> 
> "What's something that seems obvious within your profession but your profession misunderstands anyway?"
> 
> ...


I half agree. Music can be about so many things. I don't mind if someone intentionally excludes "conversing with the heavens" and if someone else aspires to that. I don't mind if someone emphasizes "made by people, performed by people, and listened to by people" and if someone else doesn't aim for whatever that means at all.

If there is an "essentialist" answer to what music is "for," it is for social bonding, displaying and evaluating each other's status. It is for dancing and what we would call religious ritual.

But even if that's why we evolved musical behavior, and even if all the music of civilization is a betrayal of that essence, I don't care. I'm just here a short time, which is quickly passing away, and I intend to enjoy myself while I can.


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

Logos said:


> The black blues repertoire (if that is even the appropriate word to use here) has been completely overshadowed by white musicians' versions of that musical language.


LOL. It hasn't been overshadowed in the least. Various derivative styles, e.g. rock, turned the music into a commodity which is hardly as culturally relevant. Speaking for myself, acoustic early blues created by blacks, and some whites, cannot be overshadowed.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

San Antone said:


> It hasn't been overshadowed in the least.


Since when have Robert Johnson, Lead Belly or Muddy Waters received one percent of the fame, adulation or critical attention that George Gershwin, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or even Eric Clapton receive in any given month? Aside from a very small group of connoisseurs, they're unknowns; When they are referenced (which is seldom), it's usually in relation to much more famous white musicians who have taken inspiration from them.

You seem to think that admitting that they have been overshadowed is equivalent to saying they are of lesser value; but worthy and valuable things can be overshadowed due to historical or economic circumstances.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2018)

Nereffid said:


> Seen on Twitter recently:
> 
> "What's something that seems obvious within your profession but your profession misunderstands anyway?"
> 
> ...


It seems to me to be as valid a personal view about music as any other. What's difficult to understand is what is "misunderstood" (as the Twitter question asks). Of course music is made by people...What's to misunderstand about that? And of course some think it's inspired by the Almighty.

I think maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Nereffid said:


> Seen on Twitter recently:
> 
> "What's something that seems obvious within your profession but your profession misunderstands anyway?"
> 
> ...


It's always reassuring to see a musicologist so absolutely sure of where the inspiration to compose comes from and that there's no greater force in life than the puny intellect of man or a scholar with the inability to compose. I would also doubt that Bach or Beethoven would agree. Terrible quote by a musicologist who perhaps should have known better and not projected his personal views so strongly on others.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

janxharris said:


> He was obviously wrong.


Was he though? I'm not saying Beethoven is a god or anything, but come on, who is the superior human - any average guy on the street or _Beethoven_?

If a building was burning in 1770 and I could save baby Beethoven or two other babies who would grow up to be farmers, I would save Beethoven. I would do this not because I'm selfish, but because I respect Beethoven's unique genius and his profound contributions to Western classical music which set him above all other men including myself.

Contrary to the tweet that inspired this post, I think the problem is quite the opposite. Today we don't regard music, especially classical but including other forms, with enough spiritual signifance. This leads to the nihilism of postmodernity, yada-yada...

FWIW, thinking that music is a communion with God is not just a fallacy of arrogant, racist white men. Every culture all over the world with religion has sacred music which is used to express its peoples' relationship with God. Then again, I'm sure this writer also thinks that religion (but most of all white people's religion) is ridiculous and oppressive, so my point would be entirely moot to them. I'm beginning to think the Left's entire goal when it comes to culture is to destroy everything serious, profound, religious.

This author is disrespecting composers like Anton Bruckner who thought, and many of his fans including myself who still do think, his music was a communion with a God, or at least an attempt at such a thing if it's at all possible.

Why does this person who made the tweet think she has the right tell people music has no deeper significance than a social one? Like a lot of other things when it comes to music, that's subjective!


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Logos said:


> Since when have Robert Johnson, Lead Belly or Muddy Waters received one percent of the fame, adulation or critical attention that George Gershwin, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or even Eric Clapton receive in any given month? Aside from a very small group of connoisseurs, they're unknowns; When they are referenced (which is seldom), it's usually in relation to much more famous white musicians who have taken inspiration from them.
> 
> You seem to think that admitting that they have been overshadowed is equivalent to saying they are of lesser value; but worthy and valuable things can be overshadowed due to historical or economic circumstances.


I'm tired of this argument. Listen to Robert Johnson's "Hellhound on My Trail" and then Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song." One is poorly recorded, rural, and subtle. The other is excellently recorded, urban, and catchy. Which one do you think would be more popular? I'm not even saying the Zeppelin tune is better, in fact I prefer Johnson's song. Yes, Johnson deserves credit for inspiring Led Zeppelin, but it's hardly difficult to see why he doesn't get radio play and Zep does.

As far as RJ being less appreciated in popular culture, well popular culture appreciates what ever is popular. Popular culture doesn't appreciate Richard Wagner as much as it does Taylor Swift, which is much more egregious than appreciating Robert Johnson less than Led Zeppelin (who, FWIW, had a lot of their own talent, and whose success is not owed just to the black blues musicians they were influenced by and sometimes stole from). As far as RJ being less appreciated in the musical literature, that's clearly false. He's #11 on Rolling Stone's 500 albums. I'm sure that compilation has been heard 10x less than almost every other record on the list. And, there are so many articles about black blues musicians' influence on rock music that it can hardly be called an untold history.

What I'm saying is that RJ and co. have been overshadowed in pop culture, but that's explicable and not a result of racism. RJ and co. have NOT been overshadowed in the musical literature/music criticism.

Yes, plenty of white musicians "stole" the "black sound" (there is so much ambiguity in all these terms that it's hard to even comprehend the argument at any detailed level) and had success. Black musicians like Chuck Berry did the same thing with the same influences and had success also. (I know Berry not being as successful as Elvis among whites is considered racist, but Elvis probably wasn't as successful as Berry was among blacks and if he was that's only because those blacks were living in a predominantly white society, so that point is totally moot).


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> there's no greater force in life than the puny intellect of man or a scholar with the inability to compose.


Well she'd be right there, wouldn't she, only not so puny.



Larkenfield said:


> I would also doubt that Bach or Beethoven would agree.


Well obviously some disagree - that was the point of what she said.



mathisdermaler said:


> Why does this person who made the tweet think she has the right tell people music has no deeper significance than a social one? Like a lot of other things when it comes to music, that's subjective!


As is your opinion that she is dissing Bruckner. She has the right as much as you.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Nereffid said:


> Seen on Twitter recently:
> 
> "What's something that seems obvious within your profession but your profession misunderstands anyway?"
> 
> ...


I'm not aware of what led to his debate on Twitter but in musicology, the tendency to include cultural, social (and aesthetic) elements in discussions of music has been the trend since at least the 1980's.

Those interested could do worse than read Joseph Kerman's 1980 article "How we got into analysis, and how to get out." It can be downloaded for free on Google Scholar. This is one of those seminal essays which turned the tide away from more or less strict technical analysis to approaches more inclusive of the world which exists beyond the confines of the score. With this, Kerman went against the focus on structural integrity which was in the 19th century linked to a Messiah-like view of the composer, then in the 20th century to scientific determinism. It began in Germany but after the Second World War became entrenched in university music departments with serialism and its ofshoots.

On the whole, those debates are a matter of history now. Music has always been a form of communication between people, as that implies situated within its own context. Far from detracting, this enriches our appreciation of it. Neither does it negate the importance of technical analysis, but it does question the ideologies of so-called objectivity which came out of it.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Well she'd be right there, wouldn't she, only not so puny.
> 
> Well obviously some disagree - that was the point of what she said.
> 
> As is your opinion that she is dissing Bruckner. She has the right as much as you.


But MacLeod, you are treating the tweeter as if she is much more innocent than she is.

Oh, she just innocently went on twitter to express her subjective opinion about how someone else enjoys/understands music the wrong way!

No. The tweeter's motivations were clearly rotten. She made the tweet because she thinks it's wrong for someone to appreciate music in a religious way (specifically music by old white people). Which of those people told her she had to like the music they like and experience it the same way? That would be wrong and she's doing the exact thing to us


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2018)

mathisdermaler said:


> But MacLeod, you are treating the tweeter as if she is much more innocent than she is.
> 
> Oh, she just innocently went on twitter to express her subjective opinion about how someone else enjoys/understands music the wrong way!
> 
> No. The tweeter's motivations were clearly rotten. She made the tweet because she thinks it's wrong for someone to appreciate music in a religious way (specifically music by old white people). Which of those people told her she had to like the music they like and experience it the same way? That would be wrong and she's doing the exact thing to us


The fact that you are provoked by someone else's opinion does not mean that they set out to provoke, but even if they did, so what?

I'm treating her opinion (on Twitter - not some cultured journal, but a place to write short snappy, potentially provocative opinions) the same as anyone else's. Her "motivations" are irrelevant. She has an opinion. She is entitled to express it (as are you to say that, in your opinion, her motivations are rotten, as am I to say I disagree etc).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Rather than protecting music as a sublimely meaningless activity that has managed to escape social signification, I insist on treating it as a medium that participates in social formation by influencing the ways we perceive our feelings, our bodies, our desires, our very subjectivities—even if it does so surreptitiously, without most of us knowing how. It is too important a cultural force to be shrouded by mystified notions of Romantic transcendence.” –Musicologist Susan McClary, relevant I think here.

And we know what else she is famous for saying… :lol:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

mathisdermaler said:


> Was he though? I'm not saying Beethoven is a god or anything, but come on, who is the superior human - any average guy on the street or _Beethoven_?
> 
> If a building was burning in 1770 and I could save baby Beethoven or two other babies who would grow up to be farmers, I would save Beethoven. I would do this not because I'm selfish, but because I respect Beethoven's unique genius and his profound contributions to Western classical music which set him above all other men including myself.
> 
> ...


Simply - I find it troubling to think of one human being as superior (whatever that means) to another. History is full of where such views lead.

As for composers claiming Godly inspiration - nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Just as we express opinions and expect them to be taken as such without resorting to IMOs, musicologists do the same. I more or less agree with the tweet - it is both literally true and aesthetically a fairly sensible view. But it is rather limited and unimaginative. I suppose more of the context in which it was said might make it more clear whether the point was made against an equally defensible view. Yes, it is true that some composers probably _thought _they were "talking to God" without being schizophrenics. And many more musicians might have thought (or even still think) that they do what they do _for_ God. But does anyone these days (even chanting monks) believe they are playing to God?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Seen on Twitter recently:
> 
> "What's something that seems obvious within your profession but your profession misunderstands anyway?"
> 
> ...


_"Music is made by people, performed by people, and listened to BY PEOPLE, in the world, culturally & socially."_

A truism.

_"It's not about one guy conversing with the heavens or some dumb ***t like that"_

The writer doesn't believe in God?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Just as we express opinions and expect them to be taken as such without resorting to IMOs, musicologists do the same. I more or less agree with the tweet - it is both literally true and aesthetically a fairly sensible view. But it is rather limited and unimaginative. I suppose more of the context in which it was said might make it more clear whether the point was made against an equally defensible view. Yes, it is true that some composers probably _thought _they were "talking to God" without being schizophrenics. And many more musicians might have thought (or even still think) that they do what they do _for_ God. *But does anyone these days (even chanting monks) believe they are playing to God?*


Seriously? 
.......................


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2018)

I didn't even know about living religions at all until I was about 9 or 10 years old to tell you the truth. I thought churches were old community buildings and that religions were things like greek and egyptian mythology.

I don't think any composer's sole intended audience is any metaphysical, religious being, but I won't question that there are people these days inspired by the idea.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> Seriously?
> .......................


I _was _serious, yes. But I could be wrong. I can't claim to be in touch with what very religious people think and feel - except for on the more political side (fundamentalists etc). I'm sure monks pray _to _their god. But I didn't think that, when it comes to music and aiming at musical excellence, modern monks would feel that was _to _their god so much as _for _the glory of their god. But I could be very wrong in that: are there any musical monks (or ex-monks) on the forum? Also, I am guilty of only really referring to Christian monks living in the modern western world. I do certainly know some very religious people living within other cultural traditions who live their whole lives as a love affair with their god - and I respect that just so long as it doesn't lead (as it often does) to a reinforcement of feudal social arrangements.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Seen on Twitter recently:
> 
> "What's something that seems obvious within your profession but your profession misunderstands anyway?"
> 
> ...


If one says music is made by people, performed by people, and listened to BY PEOPLE, in the world, culturally & socially, then I say: congratulations, that's a very clever statement!

If one says music isn't (at least a big part) about a guy conversing with the heavens, then (in my eyes) you're denying musical history. If that statement is followed with "or some dumb ***t like that" he's probably still struggling with frustrations caused by a severe religious upbringing.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Ah, ok, it's a she and it's about a white guy conversing with the heavens. 

In that case she's frustrated about patriarchal society and of course she's obviously 100% right :lol:


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

mathisdermaler said:


> Yes, plenty of white musicians "stole" the "black sound" (there is so much ambiguity in all these terms that it's hard to even comprehend the argument at any detailed level) and had success. Black musicians like Chuck Berry did the same thing with the same influences and had success also. (I know Berry not being as successful as Elvis among whites is considered racist, but Elvis probably wasn't as successful as Berry was among blacks and if he was that's only because those blacks were living in a predominantly white society, so that point is totally moot).


My only point was that the early black blues 'repertoire' has been co-opted and overshadowed by white musicians whereas dead white classical composers are still perceived to be the most important and famous persons within the world of classical music. Whether either of these things is good or bad, I don't venture to say.


----------

