# What does it mean for music to reflect its time and place?



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

This is a very open-ended question. Some version of it comes up a lot, in discussions of all kinds of music.

For example, in _The Classical Style_, which I'm slowly reading, Rosen criticizes much of Haydn's church music for adopting an anachronistic Baroque style. He also criticizes Romantic composers (in passing, since they're not the subject of the book) for sometimes shoehorning their pieces into academic sonata-allegro forms.

Another obvious example, which I don't want to dwell on unduly, is found in 20th century modernism: the often explicitly stated belief of the Second Viennese School and, later, Darmstadt composers that their techniques represented a necessary, and perhaps the only, expression of the musical present.

And, in reaction to that, Steve Reich: "People were taking their academic musical cues from Boulez, Stockhausen and Berio, who had taken their cues from Berg, Schoenberg and Webern. All of those European composers are great composers, and all of them were responding to the real situation that they were living in at the time. Those who aped them here in America in the fifties and sixties, living with jazz, with rock and roll, with cheap hamburgers and tailfins, were pretending to live in a time and a place that they, in fact, were not."

Most people seem to have an intuitive sense that music needs to be related to its time and place - but how, exactly? Are the above criticisms valid?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I think your last paragraph "most people seem to think..." goes too far. That being said, it is an interesting question.

Reich is referring to society/cultural outside of music, i.e., the US didn't go through what Europe did, and music should reflect that. Or maybe it's just a complaint about American artists "aping" Europeans rather than producing their own art.

I'm not sure if Rosen is referring to society/culture, which sounds like it's more about changing some aspects of music, but not others ("shoehorning").

John Adams has a quote about Boulez:



> A "radical serialist" in the 1950s, his aesthetic throughout the intervening 50 years has remained firmly rooted in the mindset of that decade. Despite having lived through an era of earth-shattering revolutions in the world of vernacular culture, including the flowering of jazz and rock, he remained either aloof, cool or just plain tone deaf to all of the richness and vitality that the "vulgate" has to offer. Perhaps he had too much good taste.


But Boulez has said some nasty things about Adams, so this may just be payback.

Maybe I shouldn't post it, because this thread will become like so many others. But there is an issue there, outside of the merits of the particular composers.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

The outpouring of Nationalist music in the late 19th Century reflected the desire of people to shake off the dictatorships that controlled them. 
Mahler's music certainly reflects the artistic cauldron of late 19th century Vienna.
The classiscists lived at a time when reason was felt to be the most paramount facilicty.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I don't think music, or art in general, can *help* reflecting its time and place, even if it's ostensibly harking back to the past. You can easily tell the difference between pre-Raphaelite art and design and that of the middle ages. And if you watch a 1930s Hollywood film about the eighteenth century, for example, you can see that the hairdos aren't quite right, but look a bit thirties-ish.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Reflecting time makes sense to me, as composers from any given period have a broad similarity that appears to place them in that period. Even when one doesn't know a piece, one can likely guess its time... within 50 or so years.

Reflecting place does not make sense to me in the present day and age. Our world is a global one and our influences, our "real situation," is not geographically defined, but defined by the communities we belong to culturally, linguistically, emotionally, virtually etc. While I am a North American, "living with jazz... [and] cheap hamburgers" does not describe my world or my experience of it, while Boulez, Webern, Stockhausen and Berio do and have done so for most of my life.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Composers' music always inherently reflects time and place, even it is a reaction that is at odds with the values of the time and place (as it _so often_ is). Creativity does not exist in a vacuum, it is as affected by what is outside the progenitor as what is inside.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Salvador Dali suggested: "Don't worry about being 'modern'. Unfortunately it is the one thing that, whatever you do, you cannot avoid ..."

I suspect this is quite true. Looking at painting... my own area of some expertise... I find that the paintings of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood:



















Or the artists of the French Academy:



















... all appear no less "of their time and place" than the more "experimental" and more "modern" work of the Impressionists:



Yes, some of these artists are more innovative and their work was more influential on the work of their immediate heirs. And certainly some were better than others... but does this have anything whatsoever to do with being "modern" or "of their time and place"?

_Steve Reich: "People were taking their academic musical cues from Boulez, Stockhausen and Berio, who had taken their cues from Berg, Schoenberg and Webern. All of those European composers are great composers, and all of them were responding to the real situation that they were living in at the time. Those who aped them here in America in the fifties and sixties, living with jazz, with rock and roll, with cheap hamburgers and tailfins, were pretending to live in a time and a place that they, in fact, were not."_

Most people seem to have an intuitive sense that music needs to be related to its time and place - but how, exactly? Are the above criticisms valid?

I think Reich's criticism is valid in so far as it questions of challenges the notion that one group of composers building on one given tradition represent the music that best speaks to a given time and place while those of a differing view... building on different traditions and sources are inherently out of the loop.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Good music is eternal.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Salvador Dali suggested: "Don't worry about being 'modern'. Unfortunately it is the one thing that, whatever you do, you cannot avoid ..."
> 
> I suspect this is quite true. Looking at painting... my own area of some expertise... I find that the paintings of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood:
> 
> ...












_Gorgeous post. _

Great art is eternal.

Kitsch is 'here today, gone later today.'


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Maybe some of those Americans were actually reacting against the massive load of **** that is all that pop culture cheapness. Or maybe they didn't give a melon about non-musical affaires and wrote what they wanted to write and then people with a lot of free time decided that that was of its time and must be interpreted likewise.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Maybe some of those Americans were actually reacting against the massive load of **** that is all that pop culture cheapness. Or maybe they didn't give a melon about non-musical affaires and wrote what they wanted to write and then people with a lot of free time decided that that was of its time and must be interpreted likewise.


I would be willing to bet that when John Adams said or wrote that he was referring to rock and Jazz that is more sophisticated than the average pop song these days.

However, it's still kind of a silly thing to say imo. Boulez's music, while it did change over time, is an outgrowth of the musical environment that he grew up in. He doesn't necessarily need to address the trend of incorporating Jazz and Rock in his music because Adams' generation is taking care of that anyway. That's like saying Beethoven should have started writing Bel Canto opera in the last years of his life just because that was what became the new musical trend when he was older.

In any case, Boulez has actually acknowledged the alleged vitality and richness in popular forms of music multiple times. He was friends with Frank Zappa and respected him as a composer and had also made comments about how popular forms of music are taking advantage of electronic sounds in a way that most classical composers are not (or were not, at the time of that comment) So it has nothing to do with snobbery. I think it's just not his style or what he's interested in. Just like Mahler acknowledged Schoenberg's ventures into non-CP tonality without necessarily wanting to compose any himself (I have a feeling he would have tried it eventually though, had he lived longer).


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

To me, a large part of it is in the preconceived notions of those who are observing the hypothetical reflection. A large part of music is a thing unto itself, and does have to say anything about the time it was made in, but merely exists. There are many on the forum who would disagree with me, but I hold steady in this opinion.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> I don't think music, or art in general, can *help* reflecting its time and place, even if it's ostensibly harking back to the past. You can easily tell the difference between pre-Raphaelite art and design and that of the middle ages. And if you watch a 1930s Hollywood film about the eighteenth century, for example, you can see that the hairdos aren't quite right, but look a bit thirties-ish.


Music is different. It is abstract and betrays much less of the reality from which it was borne. It is true that a harpsichord was certainly a popular instrument in the 18th century, and that caused composers to write for it with a ear conscious of what novelty might please the public, in many cases.

But a composer, with hard work and the proper motivation, can continue to write for this instrument even in our age, in a style very much reminiscent of that which was written in those times, without even recycling much material, since musical possibilities are so great in number. The trick is whether many people will take such work seriously or not. This is a reflection on them, and not on the composer who writes this way. In short, music is a reflection on the way a composer has an affinity and wishes to write. He/she is a reflection of his/her times, and yet, he/she has a choice in what forms he wishes to use.

There is nothing wrong either, with those American composers that Steve Reich criticizes. He is merely making a statement about how he feels music should be, which encapsulates the direction he took. It is less authentic to him, but perhaps it was very authentic to them. At the same time, power to him for not allowing himself to feel imposed upon by Boulez.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

violadude said:


> In any case, Boulez has actually acknowledged the alleged vitality and richness in popular forms of music multiple times. He was friends with Frank Zappa and respected him as a composer and had also made comments about how popular forms of music are taking advantage of electronic sounds in a way that most classical composers are not (or were not, at the time of that comment) So it has nothing to do with snobbery.


I would not take the fact that he conducted the music of Zappa as a proof that he liked pop music. After all what he appreciated in Zappa was the fact that he was a rock musician writing classical compositions. Sort of like "look, even a monkey can write!" more than a real appreciation of popular music.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

What does it mean for music to reflect its time and place? 

It means that some folks hope to clothe mediocrity with 'reflections'.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Its been quite a few years since I saw _Sirens_. The notorious artist in the film was real. Norman Lindsay was notorious for the erotic nature of his paintings. While the subject matter of his paintings may have unsettled the conservatives of his native Australia, once again it was the Puritanical Americans who most outraged:

In 1940, sixteen crates of paintings, drawings and etchings mostly of sumptuous and controversial nudes were taken to the U.S. to "protect" them from the war. Unfortunately, they were discovered when the train they were on caught fire and were impounded and subsequently burned as pornography by American postal officials (who went postal?). Lindsay's reaction: "Don't worry, I'll do more."


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> StlukesguildOhio said:
> 
> 
> > Its been quite a few years since I saw _Sirens_. The notorious artist in the film was real. Norman Lindsay was notorious for the erotic nature of his paintings. While the subject matter of his paintings may have unsettled the conservatives of his native Australia, once again it was the Puritanical Americans who most outraged:
> ...












Of course the "scandalous" painting shown at the _beginning_ of the movie _Sirens_ is Norman Lindsay's _Crucified Venus_.

I know how she feels. _;D_


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Richannes Wrahms- Maybe some of those Americans were actually reacting against the massive load of **** that is all that pop culture cheapness. Or maybe they didn't give a melon about non-musical affaires and wrote what they wanted to write and then people with a lot of free time decided that that was of its time and must be interpreted likewise.

Ukko- What does it mean for music to reflect its time and place? It means that some folks hope to clothe mediocrity with 'reflections'.

A good part of the reason that what is generally deemed "classical music" struggled to maintain... let alone build an audience... is due to a perception of snobbishness. I have not always agreed with Sid/Andre's arguments in favor of needing to approach music with an awareness of a historical context... but I do agree here.

The biggest shift in the arts in the 20th century was undoubtedly due to the development of mechanical reproduction and mass production. With the development of photography, film, photo-lithography, sound recording, radio, and television the real money moved from the wealthy "elite" to the "masses". This was particularly true in the realm of music.

No one needs to point out that "Contemporary Classical" music accounts for but a minute percentage of the money spent every day on music. Certainly, we can argue that popularity has nothing whatsoever to do with artistic merit... but this is true either way: for or against. The fact that something is popular with a large audience is no guarantee of artistic merit (Justin Bieber). But neither is the fact that something is popular with only a small audience who deem themselves as arbiters of good taste.

We can look at some of the esoteric works churned out and championed by elite academic aspects of the so-called "Art World":














































continued..............


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

How are these works inherently superior in terms of aesthetics and less "cheap" than many of the more popular/populist works of art?:














































Picasso, the central figure of 20th century art, recognized that the boundaries between "High" and "Low" art were being forever blurred. He was as fluent in building upon the narratives and traditions of Western Art History as he was is drawing from the world around him. He famously suggested that (to the effect) "Art that builds solely upon the traditions of 'high' art quickly stagnates and becomes academic. At the same time... low art often slips into crassness and vulgarity." The artist would further argue that "True art is best created in the manner in which the Aristocrats produced their heirs: through a merger of the "high-born" and the "low".

Unfortunately there are more than a few who still embrace the sort of snobbishness that Bill Watterson would astutely satirize in his classic comic strip, _Calvin & Hobbes_:

"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I have not always agreed with Sid/Andre's arguments in favor of needing to approach music with an awareness of a historical context... but I do agree here...


Apologies to you stlukes that I deleted my answer to this thread. It must have been just after you read it. It was about my position on the importance of context and history surrounding music, but I wish no longer to discuss this here.

However, I gave an example in that in relation to how Steve Reich's work was strongly influenced by James Brown. Check out Brown's _The Thing in G_ and compare it to Reich's _Four Organs_ which came some years later:











American composers like Reich knew the classical music of Europe, but they also absorbed influences from home, and this included not only classical but all music. Brown is also branching out here, into jazz. Notice how in his spoken intro he says his group aren't jazz cats, they're just giving it a try. He's better known as a singer, but here he features as an organist.

Its no different to composers before them, music always had connections and was never sealed off, its always had this aspect of mixing and spreading. Brown was doing the same, but going the other way.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Having thought about it a little I'd say I disagree with Reich in that I think those American serialists _were_ reflecting one aspect of their time and place - a particular Cold War worldview and a strong belief in science and progress. America, vast and pluralistic, can't be summed up by its most visible popular culture.

That said, there's something a bit sad about a "high art" practice that's more or less cut off from popular culture.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> Most people seem to have an intuitive sense that music needs to be related to its time and place - but how, exactly? Are the above criticisms valid?
> 
> For example, in _The Classical Style_, which I'm slowly reading, Rosen criticizes much of Haydn's church music for adopting an anachronistic Baroque style. He also criticizes Romantic composers (in passing, since they're not the subject of the book) for sometimes shoehorning their pieces into academic sonata-allegro forms.


Doesn't Rosen say something like the sonata was as dead in 1830(?) as the fugue was in 1750(?). (A shortcoming of the book is that only names and works are indexed.) Anyway, I think he is correct that Romantic composers tended to have a more rigid conception of sonata form than their Classical forebears, a predictable outcome of codifying the form (ca. 1830) in thematic-schematic terms and thus adding another constraint to the already well-understood tonal-harmonic ones. James Webster, who writes on both composers, wished that Brahms had learned more about varying his recapitulations from Haydn. And Beethoven's blowing out of the traditional forms in his late works really didn't catch on, did it?



isorhythm said:


> Another obvious example, which I don't want to dwell on unduly, is found in 20th century modernism: the often explicitly stated belief of the Second Viennese School and, later, Darmstadt composers that their techniques represented a necessary, and perhaps the only, expression of the musical present.


The evolutionary view of music history and the history of theory seems to have been an article of faith in some circles in the early and mid-20thc., hence Schoenberg's oft-quoted "discovery that would ensure the supremacy …" and the subsequent announcement of his metaphorical death. The circle included the writers of music history texts who, ever seeking a coherent narrative for a confusing present, found it a convenient schema. But this is all so obvious it isn't worth dwelling on. Many have connected this view of unidirectional progress with the onslaught of science and technology in that era, so it really does seem to be of its time.



isorhythm said:


> And, in reaction to that, Steve Reich: "People were taking their academic musical cues from Boulez, Stockhausen and Berio, who had taken their cues from Berg, Schoenberg and Webern. All of those European composers are great composers, and all of them were responding to the real situation that they were living in at the time. Those who aped them here in America in the fifties and sixties, living with jazz, with rock and roll, with cheap hamburgers and tailfins, were pretending to live in a time and a place that they, in fact, were not."


I believe that a lot of the energy and human resources that might have entered and influenced the world of classical art music in the 1960s and 1970s were diverted into other channels. Frank Zappa, in an interview I recently discovered on youtube, claims that in his youth he composed art music and tried to get it performed but, reaching an impasse there, concluded he would have to provide his own performance opportunities. Bands like The Mothers, Oregon, and Henry Cow, were essentially private new-music ensembles for people like Zappa, Ralph Towner, Glen Moore, and Tim Hodgkinson, who otherwise might have continued their musical education and careers on a more traditional composers' track. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with Reich's observation or yours about the disjunction between art music and popular culture.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I disagree with Reich in that I think those American serialists were reflecting one aspect of their time and place - a particular Cold War worldview and a strong belief in science and progress. America, vast and pluralistic, can't be summed up by its most visible popular culture.

Of course I agree that no culture can be summed up by a single aesthetic view. The problem that I seem with the composers such as Boulez or art theorists/critics such as Greenberg, etc... is that they argued in favor of a single aesthetic view (their own) as representative of the only "true" art of the time and place.

That said, there's something a bit sad about a "high art" practice that's more or less cut off from popular culture.

Agreed. There's something lifeless about academic art... art solely about art... art that ignores the larger audience. Not that pandering wholly to the masses or chasing the almighty dollar is the ideal either. Surely there must be some middle-ground?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Ukko said:


> What does it mean for music to reflect its time and place?
> 
> It means that some folks hope to clothe mediocrity with 'reflections'.


This thread is over! :lol:


----------



## Hmmbug (Jun 16, 2014)

I'm reminded of the Polish pianist Krystian Zimerman, who is an extraordinary musician (few could top his Beethoven, I think), but also a fiery political figure who has become notorious for giving monologues about his politics on stage, especially inside and in response to the United States and its actions. At one concert, held at Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, he offered his opinion on Bach's Second Partita, in C Minor. He said that Bach had definitely chosen for the piece to be in minor rather than major, saying it might have been because of a political leader he disapproved of. He then ended his performance with a (not originally scored) Picardy Third, perhaps a nod at the new leadership of President Obama over President Bush. It's a great story.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> This is a very open-ended question. Some version of it comes up a lot, in discussions of all kinds of music.
> 
> For example, in _The Classical Style_, which I'm slowly reading, Rosen criticizes much of Haydn's church music for adopting an anachronistic Baroque style. He also criticizes Romantic composers (in passing, since they're not the subject of the book) for sometimes shoehorning their pieces into academic sonata-allegro forms.
> 
> ...


Modern music idiom for example is to be different, to challenge, to break new grounds. This is quite a contemporary movement in all art matters.

Classical wanted to break away from the complexities of the Baroque and favored an apparent lighter style but a more enlightened style nevertheless.

So yes it all reflects the time, the prevailing school of thought in many fields.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

isorhythm said:


> Having thought about it a little I'd say I disagree with Reich in that I think those American serialists _were_ reflecting one aspect of their time and place - a particular Cold War worldview and a strong belief in science and progress. America, vast and pluralistic, can't be summed up by its most visible popular culture.
> 
> That said, there's something a bit sad about a "high art" practice that's more or less cut off from popular culture.


There where similar things going on in Europe, jazz having made its impacts from the early 20th century, particularly in France.

In terms of post-1945 serialism, there is Rolf Liebermann's Concerto for Jazz Band & Orchestra from the 1950's, which involved one of the finest swing bands in Europe, that of Kurt Edelhagen. Its said to anticipate the third stream movement in the USA, but the Naxos disc I have has a few of his other works that are different, and all but one (a dark atonal vocal work) are similarly accessible pieces.

Boulez didn't like Liebermann's music, but they maintained a workable professional relationship. Liebermann became a director of opera houses where Boulez conducted (eg. he recruited Boulez for the premiere of Berg's Lulu). So again, connections.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> [...]
> We can look at some of the esoteric works *churned out* and championed by elite academic aspects of the so-called "Art World":
> 
> 
> ...


Why do you use the term "churned out"? I associate the term with mass production (factories _churn out_ the same product in their thousands and millions) and these esoteric works - as you call them - strike _me_ as being rather _unique_. As objects of contemplation, having physically seen and touched *Carl Andre's* _Equivalent VIII_ (the famous "pile of bricks") and *Damien Hirst's* _The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living_ (the famous tiger shark in a tank of formaldehyde), I can attest that they had a far greater impact in my mind and eyes than when I first saw "in the flesh" the _Mona Lisa_.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> *How are these works inherently superior in terms of aesthetics and less "cheap" than many of the more popular/populist works of art?:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know. _How_ are these works inherently superior?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> I don't know. _How_ are these works inherently superior?


In general, they probably smell better?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> Why do you use the term "churned out"? I associate the term with mass production (factories _churn out_ the same product in their thousands and millions) and these esoteric works - as you call them - strike _me_ as being rather _unique_. As objects of contemplation, having physically seen and touched *Carl Andre's* _Equivalent VIII_ (the famous "pile of bricks") and *Damien Hirst's* _The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living_ (the famous tiger shark in a tank of formaldehyde),* I can attest that they had a far greater impact in my mind and eyes than when I first saw "in the flesh" the Mona Lisa.*


Yes, that is the criterion, isn't it?

IMPACT!!!

I'm sure _The Texas Chain-Saw Massacre_ would also have a greater impact in one's mind and eyes than the _Mona Lisa._


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Yes, that is the criterion, isn't it?
> 
> IMPACT!!!
> 
> I'm sure _The Texas Chain-Saw Massacre_ would also have a greater impact in one's mind and eyes than the _Mona Lisa._


Well, Woodduck, impact is certainly *one* criterion, but that's not the *full* story, agreed, if that is what you're driving at.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2015)

And Hirst's "Shark" and Andre's "VII" had a positive and affirming quality, unlike the horror film you refer to.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2015)

By the way, are you *shrieking* at me, Woodduck?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I'm gonna go ahead and say great works of art make a bigger IMPACT than Texas Chainsaw Massacre


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2015)

isorhythm said:


> I'm gonna go ahead and say great works of art make a bigger IMPACT than Texas Chainsaw Massacre
> 
> View attachment 70670


Well, quite. [What is one supposed to say to that?]


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> I'm gonna go ahead and say great works of art make a bigger IMPACT than Texas Chainsaw Massacre
> 
> View attachment 70670


Correct, as do all great art that make its impact on its own time and beyond.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

As a guarded response to the topic of conceptual art, it demonstrates that in the case of visual art, anyone can be an artist.

Music hasn't entirely gone down the same path, the technical skills required of composers are still taught in universities today as it always was. Music started as a trade, but as time went on as many things did to become a profession. Prior to that, some composers where also self taught. It can be argued that today's graduates of music are more skilled than in the past.

There are two extremes, on the one hand the ossified academicism that many composers rebelled against, on the other there is the outright anarchism and jettisoning of tradition (as is the case of conceptual art). I am for neither extreme, I think that at the basis of all creative arts is a knowledge and understanding of tradition and what went before. Art will always build upon itself, unlike scientific innovations anything that is new need not supplant that which already exists. It is more a case of continuous change and less that of outright progress. Its less linear and more circular.

Classical music has hundreds of years of history behind it. When discussing the music itself, I think it makes sense to include not only technique and repertoire, but also aesthetics, biography and historical context. In this way, not only differences but also links can be made between various types and eras of music.

Even though the more wide ranging approaches can be useful for some listeners, I think that the formalist/technocratic/repertoire domination will continue on the forum. This is in some ways understandable, for that is the nature of music, the most abstract and least tangible of all the artforms.

To digress somewhat, it is also a reflection of how history is devalued in Western societies today. Constant newness is convenient and more attractive, even for governments or corporations who take the now more acceptable _innovation through tradition_ type of line. History isn't a commodity though, and if it is used for yet another agenda, it just amounts to spin. That might be worse than the outright negation of history!

*This post is meant largely as a response to issues raised on this thread, and also includes observations relevant to what's gone on in similar topics. Its *not* meant to incite acrimonious debate.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Why do you use the term "churned out"? I associate the term with mass production (factories churn out the same product in their thousands and millions) and these esoteric works - as you call them - strike me as being rather unique.

It seems to me you answered your own question. These "esoteric" objects were indeed mass-produced. Andre's Equivalent VIII was simply a stack of commercially purchased ceramic bricks. When the work didn't sell, he returned the bricks to the store for his money back. Years later, when the Tate offered a sizable chunk of cash for the work, Andre had to purchase a new pile of bricks.

Manzoni's can of artist's sh**, and all of Koons' and Hirsts' works are manufactured by by others. The result is that they are closer to the works of fashion designers or corporate mass-produced products than they are to the idea of Art as most think of it. Koon's work may be the best (as he consistently employs the best craftspeople) but are they anything more than "eye candy"? I can't imagine seriously finding Koons work more engaging than a beautiful car design:










I agree with Wooduck. Koons may have

IMPACT!

simply because the works are large, bright, and shiny... just like the big, bright red word above. Warhol or street graffiti would scream in a room of Rembrandts and Vermeers... but is it better? Led Zeppelin and AC/DC have more impact than Bach or Mozart... are they better?

As objects of contemplation, having physically seen and touched Carl Andre's Equivalent VIII (the famous "pile of bricks") and Damien Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (the famous tiger shark in a tank of formaldehyde), I can attest that they had a far greater impact in my mind and eyes than when I first saw "in the flesh" the Mona Lisa.

That probably says more about you than it does about the works in question. Andre's pile of bricks are no more interesting to me than the pile of 2x4s now sitting on the floor in my studio in preparation for constructing a couple of new walls, and Hirst's giant sardine can just reminds me of the sort of displays one might come across in any natural history museum... albeit on steroids and accompanied by volumes of pretentious critical commentary intended to market such work to the super-wealthy and convince them that by purchasing such art they are proving their superiority.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2015)

I don't see how music can do anything _but _reflect the time in which it is created. Unless the composer sets out to exactly mimic the past, he is a product of his time, and this will impact at least subconsciously on his output.

What makes the question difficult is that we've already analysed and catalogued the past, like archaeologists dating fossils ("Mozart and Beethoven belong to the Jurassic Period of the Mesozoic era; Boulez and Cage to the Cenozoic Era.") Whilst we can identify trends over the past 30 years, it's much more difficult, gazing at our own navels, to see what our Period will look like from the perspective of history, and so decide whether current music reflects current preoccupations.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Why do you use the term "churned out"? I associate the term with mass production (factories churn out the same product in their thousands and millions) and these esoteric works - as you call them - strike me as being rather unique.
> 
> It seems to me you answered your own question. *These "esoteric" objects were indeed mass-produced*. Andre's Equivalent VIII was simply a stack of commercially purchased ceramic bricks. When the work didn't sell, he returned the bricks to the store for his money back. Years later, when the Tate offered a sizable chunk of cash for the work, Andre had to purchase a new pile of bricks.


 That's quite a funny story about trying to get his money back! Still, recreating the work *once again* for the Tate to purchase hardly warrants the phrasal verb "churn out". The bricks themselves (the materials), of course, churned out.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Manzoni's can of artist's sh**, and all of Koons' and Hirsts' works *are manufactured by others*. The result is that they are closer to the works of fashion designers or corporate mass-produced products than they are to *the idea of Art as most think of it*.


 In the Renaissance, didn't the masters get their apprentices to help them with important commissions, for example painting in background and minor figures? After the 4'33" Cage thread I have absolutely no intention of starting a discussion with you about how most people think about "Art"!



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Koon's work may be the best (as he consistently employs the best craftspeople) but are they anything more than "*eye candy*"?


 I suppose much of it is, but then I'm not terribly interested in Koons. I feel the 'eye candy' label though could be applied to art from earlier centuries as well, don't you?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I agree with Wooduck. Koons may have
> IMPACT!
> simply because the works are large, bright, and shiny... just like the big, bright red word above. Warhol or street graffiti would scream in a room of Rembrandts and Vermeers... but is it better?


 I wouldn't want to make any meaningful comparison between Rembrandt and Warhol.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> *Led Zeppelin and AC/DC have more impact than Bach or Mozart*... are they better?


Not for me they don't. Bach and Mozart have far greater impact. As to who is better, I wouldn't want to make any meaningful comparison between Led Zep and Bach.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> As objects of contemplation, having physically seen and touched Carl Andre's Equivalent VIII (the famous "pile of bricks") and Damien Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (the famous tiger shark in a tank of formaldehyde), I can attest that they had a far greater impact in my mind and eyes than when I first saw "in the flesh" the Mona Lisa.
> 
> *That probably says more about you than it does about the works in question*. Andre's pile of bricks are no more interesting to me than the pile of 2x4s now sitting on the floor in my studio in preparation for constructing a couple of new walls, and Hirst's giant sardine can just reminds me of the sort of displays one might come across in any natural history museum... albeit on steroids and *accompanied by volumes of pretentious critical commentary intended to market such work to the super-wealthy and convince them that by purchasing such art they are proving their superiority.*


 To the first point (bolded above): yes, it probably does. I also think a pile of bricks thrown into my shed (or maybe even stacked neatly in one corner to save space) is not terribly interesting. On the other hand, paying a modest sum to get into an exhibition to see a lot of such contemporary work in impressive spaces and settings and to come across baffling art installations such as Andre's _Equivalent VIII_ or Hirst's _The Physical Impossibility_ … and to contemplate and think about them *is* an activity *I* find highly interesting and engaging.
Concerning the second point, that speaks volumes about you and your position vis-à-vis market values, money and notions of superiority than it does about any aesthetic qualities, wouldn't you say? Are any of these artists on public record as having said they are expressly out to convince wealthy patrons that purchasing their work will bestow superiority on them?


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2015)

And I hope to be seeing lots of contemporary stuff when I go to Venice this July:
http://www.labiennale.org/en/calendar/art.html?back=true


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

As an aside, there's a hilarious comparison of Koons and Hirst at the start of Houellebecq's "The Map and the Territory."

*p.s.*



TalkingHead said:


> And I hope to be seeing lots of contemporary stuff when I go to Venice this July:
> http://www.labiennale.org/en/calendar/art.html?back=true


Lucky b*****d--have fun in Venice!


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> As an aside, there's a hilarious comparison of Koons and Hirst at the start of Houellebecq's "The Map and the Territory." [...]


Ooh, I suppose it would be too much to ask if you could type out that extract here, Blanc?


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> [...] *p.s.*
> Lucky b*****d--have fun in Venice!


Got to be honest with you Blanc, Venice in July is hot, full to the brim with tourists plus the usual inflated summer prices. Not to mention the damned mosquitos! _La Biennale_ is the only reason I'm going. I'd much prefer to go in the autumn but my work commitments won't allow it.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Got to be honest with you Blanc, Venice in July is hot, full to the brim with tourists plus the usual inflated summer prices. _La Biennale_ is the only reason I'm going. I'd much prefer to go in the autumn but my work commitments won't allow it.


I hope you'll get the chance to get outside the city to visit the beach!

I looked for the passage I was thinking of online, but I'm afraid Google Books is being stingy. I'll see what I can do.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> [...] I looked for the passage I was thinking of online, but I'm afraid Google Books is being stingy. I'll see what I can do.


Please don't make any special effort for me, Blanc. I used to have a photocopier with scanner that would scan text and transcribe it into Word format. If you haven't got one of those and it's too long a passage please don't waste your time typing it out!! Maybe I should just order the book instead. Or borrow it from the library. Do you particularly recommend it?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Please don't make any special effort for me, Blanc. I used to have a photocopier with scanner that would scan text and transcribe it into Word format. If you haven't got one of those and it's too long a passage please don't waste your time typing it out!! Maybe I should just order the book instead. Or borrow it from the library. Do you particularly recommend it?


Unfortunately I don't have the book with me--read it and tossed it. It's not nearly on the same level as Soumission (which I've kept), but I enjoyed it. I'd say it's a borrower, not a keeper--but definitely worth a read.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

_SLG (quoted)- *That probably says more about you than it does about the works in question.* Andre's pile of bricks are no more interesting to me than the pile of 2x4s now sitting on the floor in my studio in preparation for constructing a couple of new walls, and Hirst's giant sardine can just reminds me of the sort of displays one might come across in any natural history museum... albeit on steroids and *accompanied by volumes of pretentious critical commentary intended to market such work to the super-wealthy and convince them that by purchasing such art they are proving their superiority.*_

To the first point (bolded above): yes, it probably does. I also think a pile of bricks thrown into my shed (or maybe even stacked neatly in one corner to save space) is not terribly interesting. On the other hand, paying a modest sum to get into an exhibition to see a lot of such contemporary work in impressive spaces and settings and to come across baffling art installations such as Andre's Equivalent VIII or Hirst's The Physical Impossibility … and to contemplate and think about them is an activity I find highly interesting and engaging.

I guess I have seen far too much of such stuff... and in most cases find that such work lacking any real visual splendour or aesthetic "beauty" just strikes me as more of the SOS... and little more than trite mental Onanism.

Concerning the second point, that speaks volumes about you and your position vis-à-vis market values, money and notions of superiority than it does about any aesthetic qualities, wouldn't you say?

Well one must admit that all critical commentary speaks more about the critic than the art work. Oscar Wilde put it well:

_"The artist is the creator of beautiful things. 
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. 
The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.
The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. 
...
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors."_

I look to art for visual splendour and beauty. For better or worse many Modernist theorists (and the artists who followed in their wake) rejected the same. They sought to place rigorous (a favorite Modernist term) intellect above sensuality, visual sensations, and feelings. This was especially true of the Conceptualists. I once engaged in a long dispute with a fairly well-known (within art circles) German conceptual artist whose work on exhibition at the time consisted of reams of Xerox paper cut into various configurations. He argued that he chose Xerox paper as the media of his environment (academia) just as Michelangelo chose the Carrara accessible to him. I finally ended by stating that it was my belief that visual art should be visually engaging... even visually exceptional... spectacular... beautiful. He declared that he was coming from a whole new paradigm.

Are any of these artists on public record as having said they are expressly out to convince wealthy patrons that purchasing their work will bestow superiority on them?

Art has always been purchased with the notion that it would suggest a superior social and intellectual status as well as a superior sense of taste. It was easy for the Renaissance patrons to convey a superior intelligence and taste. Only the wealthy merchants and bankers, aristocrats, and high-ranking clergy were afforded an advanced education... and only they were the primary audience for art. With the 20th century, the patrons are faced with a far different reality. A good portion of the populace in most wealthy Western nations have advanced educations... including courses on Art Appreciation. Picasso, Matisse, Van Gogh, Bonnard, Modigliani, Soutine, Dali... even the Abstract Expressionists (to a lesser extent) and certainly Pop Art and Super/Hyper-Realism are embraced by a sizable audience. As one of the Super-Wealthy how can one prove one's more advanced or superior sense of taste when all these peons like Matisse, Warhol, and Lucian Freud? Answer: One collects Tracy Emin, Damien Hisrt, Jeff Koons, and other such twaddle. Lots of installations with used condoms, AIDs infected blood, excrement, endless pages of documentation, grainy video-tape loops of inane actions repeated again and again, etc... all accompanied by volumes of critical commentary (because the work fails to speak on its own)...

You find such interesting and engaging? You can have it. I've seen far too much of it over the years until it is no less cliche than endless still-life paintings in a pseudo-old master style of apples and lemons.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I guess I have seen far too much of such stuff... and in most cases find that such work lacking any real visual splendour or aesthetic "beauty" just strikes me as more of the SOS... and little more than trite mental Onanism.


First off, the more we debate, the more difficult it gets I find to cross-reference our exchanges, even though your idea to colour-highlight quotes helps to a certain extent. I'll try to keep up and I hope interested parties will do so as well...
OK, you've seen a lot of this stuff and have become jaded. Have the good grace to let us make up our own minds. I have to say that when I saw Hirst's "Tiger shark" work I found it splendid and it had a strong aesthetic impact on me. Next point: forgive my ignorance, but what does 'SOS' mean?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> [TH quoted] Concerning the second point, that speaks volumes about you and your position vis-à-vis market values, money and notions of superiority than it does about any aesthetic qualities, wouldn't you say?
> Well one must admit that all critical commentary speaks more about the critic than the art work. Oscar Wilde put it well:
> _"The artist is the creator of beautiful things.
> To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.
> ...


Thank you so much for quoting Oscar. Very nice. I take it that you quote Wilde uncritically, am I right?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I look to art for visual splendour and beauty [...]


Me too. Are you saying my views concerning 'visual splendour' and 'beauty' are not aligned with yours? If so, what conclusions can we draw?

Are any of these artists on public record as having said they are expressly out to convince wealthy patrons that purchasing their work will bestow superiority on them?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Art has always been purchased with the notion that it would suggest a superior social and intellectual status as well as a superior sense of taste.


Is that what motivates or drives your output? Is that why you come across as being cynical about Koons, for example?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> [...] As one of the Super-Wealthy how can one prove one's more advanced or superior sense of taste when all these peons like Matisse, Warhol, and Lucian Freud?


I'm sorry,the grammar leaves me baffled here. Please explain.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> [...] *You find such* *interesting and engaging *[sic]*?* You can have it. I've seen far too much of it over the years until it is no less cliche [_sic_] than endless still-life paintings in a pseudo-old master style of apples and lemons.


I can't answer the question because once again I can't make head or tail of the syntax in the sentences following the question mark. Please try again more clearly. Thanks.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> As one of the Super-Wealthy how can one prove one's more advanced or superior sense of taste when all these peons like Matisse, Warhol, and Lucian Freud? Answer: One collects Tracy Emin, Damien Hisrt, Jeff Koons, and other such twaddle. Lots of installations with used condoms, AIDs infected blood, excrement, endless pages of documentation, grainy video-tape loops of inane actions repeated again and again, etc... all accompanied by volumes of critical commentary (because the work fails to speak on its own)...
> 
> You find such interesting and engaging? You can have it. I've seen far too much of it over the years until it is no less cliche than endless still-life paintings in a pseudo-old master style of apples and lemons.


I need more than two hands to applaud this. Perhaps I could use one of those grainy video tape perpetual loops showing hands clapping. Maybe if I look under "Artists - Conceptual" in the Yellow Pages? Ah, yes...

"Hello. One extra-large grainy video tape perpetual loop showing hands clapping, please. How soon can you have it ready? OK, super. I'd like it half-baked and very cheesy. What? That's the only way they come? Great. I'll be there in four minutes and thirty-three seconds."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

What I will add to all this (although conceptual art isn't the thread topic) by musing on a scene in Orwell's novel 1984. There is a scene where Winston is being tortured by O'Brien, who holds up four fingers to him, asking him to answer how many fingers he sees. When Winston answers four, O'Brien gives him an electrical shock. In time, O'Brien teaches - if that is the right word - Winston how to convincingly give the answer of five fingers although there are in reality four fingers.

Conceptual art is similar in terms of how theory doesn't go at all together with what is there in reality. Its also there in terms of how language is used in certain ways to negate and obscure any sense of reality, not only actual comprehension of tangible objects, but more importantly even the smallest hint of critical thinking. It has its own form of thought control, rules and a good amount of dogma. Remember Freedom=Slavery? So basically, given the right words, one can legitimise anything as art. On the other hand, one can do the opposite and argue that other things aren't art. I see at all as very much a power game, and it can be related to other things, including discussions of music on this forum and elsewhere.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> I don't see how music can do anything _but _reflect the time in which it is created. Unless the composer sets out to exactly mimic the past, he is a product of his time, and this will impact at least subconsciously on his output.


That's how I see it too. There is building upon the past, as well as rejecting it. There's the issue of how to distinguish the past from the present. There is the process of composers challenging established ways and in turn themselves becoming established. There is the way composers react to developments going on outside music. Change is the only constant in music, but all composers do things differently.

A couple of weeks back I took part in a discussion of the ever controversial John Cage, and this demonstrated to me once again the ways in which history can be frustrating because it doesn't provide easy answers. Basically, reality is more complicated than any more sealed off image we make of a composer (like the old formalist line of "just listen to the music."). There are things about Cage nobody discusses here, and this is similar to many composers. In some ways, its best not to disturb the waters presented by formalism, which is that the artist is apart from society. The reality is more complicated than that, but challenging these things has no rewards on a forum like this.

There is a quote by Isaac Stern that goes something like "reading about music is about as effective as trying to make love by writing letters." Perhaps he had a point, but at the same time I think that if we restrict our discussions to just the music then we'd be all the poorer. Classical music isn't just the music, its the composers themselves, their lives and histories, its things outside music that impacts on it (recording technology for one!), its the way its interpreted and by whom, its the different points of views on influences, legacy, significance of their music and many other things.

In its driest and most extreme, I see formalism as like a desert with no oasis in sight. So I argue for the broad ranging view, but I realise it isn't popular on this forum. If that is simply an issue as to how most people approach music, that's fine. However, if it is part of a concerted attempt to exclude history, then its another thing entirely. I accept the downgrading of history here now, but with hindsight I wish I'd grasped that a long time ago.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

TalkingHead- First off, the more we debate, the more difficult it gets I find to cross-reference our exchanges, even though your idea to colour-highlight quotes helps to a certain extent. I'll try to keep up and I hope interested parties will do so as well...

OK. I usually try to identify the speakers initially in the longer more convoluted quotes... but I was a bit rushed and on my way out to my studio. Perhaps I should have stayed home as 91-degrees and high humidity did not make for conducive working conditions.

OK, you've seen a lot of this stuff and have become jaded. Have the good grace to let us make up our own minds.

Obviously you and anyone else is free to make up their own minds.

I have to say that when I saw Hirst's "Tiger shark" work I found it splendid and it had a strong aesthetic impact on me. Next point: forgive my ignorance, but what does 'SOS' mean?

Same Old Sh**

Thank you so much for quoting Oscar. Very nice. I take it that you quote Wilde uncritically, am I right?

I largely agree with Wilde's aesthetics. Along with Baudelaire, Verlaine, Mallarme, Walter Pater, Theophile Gautier, etc... he was one of the founders of the concept of _Art pour l'Art_. This is commonly misconstrued as meaning "Art for Art" or Art about Art". Rather it is the basis of Formalism... the theory or concept behind much of Modernism... which argued that a work of art be criticized or judged purely on formal or aesthetic elements. This was contrary to the notions championed by earlier critics from all walks of life that would critique/judge art on non-Art elements such as the religious, ethical, or political views expressed. A good many contemporary critics and artists would have us swing back in the other direction... suggesting that a work of art is "good" or "important" because it champions the "correct" political views concerning racism, sexism, politics, etc... In the instances of Andre or Emin or Hirst I find that I am not engaged by the works on a purely visual level and I fail to be convinced let alone seduced by the supposed profound narrative attached to such work.

Me too. Are you saying my views concerning 'visual splendour' and 'beauty' are not aligned with yours? If so, what conclusions can we draw?

Obviously we disagree about the visual splendour inherent in some works of art.

Quote Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio- _Art has always been purchased with the notion that it would suggest a superior social and intellectual status as well as a superior sense of taste._

Is that what motivates or drives your output? Is that why you come across as being cynical about Koons, for example?

OK. Lets say that I don't believe that the desire to employ art as a means of aspiring to a certain social status is the sole reason patrons and collectors purchase art any more than I believe the sole reason they collect is for investment purposes. I do question art that is created solely with the intention of pandering to a super-wealthy clientele. You can't suggest that Koons or Hirst have any intention of reaching a wider audience when their new works sell for millions of dollars... are created in such a manner that they could only be sold for a small... or not so small... fortune.

As a painter I work first and foremost for myself... but certainly I have an audience in mind... an audience I imagine shares certain values and standards. My work isn't cheap. I couldn't afford it myself :lol: ... but neither is it so exclusive as to have little more value than as a luxury bauble for the seriously wealthy.

Of course a good deal of this has more to do with the evolution of the art market... which Robert Hughues famously noted was the single largest unregulated economy in the world... after the illegal drug trade.

Quote Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio- _As one of the Super-Wealthy how can one prove one's more advanced or superior sense of taste when all these peons like Matisse, Warhol, and Lucian Freud?_

I'm sorry,the grammar leaves me baffled here. Please explain.

If I were one of the super-wealthy seeking to establish the perception of my superior taste how would I deal with the fact that a large portion of the art audience already appreciates much of what we deem as Modernism: Matisse through Rothko to Warhol and Lucian Freud? How do I prove my credentials as "hipper" or more "avant garde" than thou? I seek out work that is of questionable merit... work that has outraged any number of critics. After all, there has long been this notion that the greatest innovations in art were always met initially with critical scorn and incomprehension (although this was in no way always true).

Quote Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio- _You find such interesting and engaging [sic]? You can have it. I've seen far too much of it over the years until it is no less cliche [sic] than endless still-life paintings in a pseudo-old master style of apples and lemons._

I can't answer the question because once again I can't make head or tail of the syntax in the sentences following the question mark. Please try again more clearly. Thanks.

Perhaps a course in reading comprehension?  Seriously, if you struggle with the above, Modernist and Post-Modernist art criticism and art theory must leave you absolutely lost.

*"Engaging"* is spelled correctly and means something that engages the individual. I was asking: "So you find such work (as we were discussing) as something that engages you?"

*"You can have it."* In other words, please feel free to enjoy it. I want nothing to do with it, in part because I've seen far too much of such art over the years so that I am not impressed.

I then went on to suggest that such works seem no less cliche (or cliché... both spellings are correct) than the endless kitschy still-life paintings of apples and lemons that you might happen upon at any smaller art gallery. In other words, other artistic genre... including the traditional "realist" paintings... can be seen as producing just as much of the SOS.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sid/Andre, please stop censoring yourself. I makes it frustrating when you intend to comment upon something you said when 5 minutes later you erase it.

SidJames- I see formalism as like a desert with no oasis in sight. So I argue for the broad ranging view, but I realise it isn't popular on this forum. If that is simply an issue as to how most people approach music, that's fine. However, if it is part of a concerted attempt to exclude history, then its another thing entirely. I accept the downgrading of history here now, but with hindsight I wish I'd grasped that a long time ago.

Sid/Andre... I would suggest that _Art pour l'Art_ or Formalism need not be seen as excluding history or biography. You can embrace the idea that we judge a work of art upon aesthetic or artistic values and not suggest that history of biography have no place in understanding the work.

For example, I can enjoy Bach's cantatas or Persian illuminated manuscripts without embracing the religious dogma/narratives they intend to convey. When I read Plato's Republic many years ago, I found myself heatedly disagreeing with much of what he had to say. Still I recognize the artistic and philosophical merits of the work. I don't dismiss a work of art because I disagree with the artist.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2015)

Sid James said:


> I think that if we restrict our discussions to just the music then we'd be all the poorer. Classical music isn't just the music, its the composers themselves, their lives and histories, its things outside music that impacts on it (recording technology for one!), its the way its interpreted and by whom, its the different points of views on influences, legacy, significance of their music and many other things.


It's one thing to recognise that an artist (and his work) is inevitably a product of his context; it's quite another to base analysis, criticism, understanding, even enjoyment, on the work+the context. Yet it takes considerable strength to consider a work without being distracted by the external.

For example, I think I like Shostakovich because I like the music - what I actually hear, as opposed to what I also know about him and the context of his composing. Yet I think I'd be lying to deny that there is an element of my enjoyment derived from my reading of the debate about the extent to which he was an obedient product of, or subtle critic of the Soviet regime.

I know I've said before that my favourite period for the arts runs from around 1880 to about 1930. This cannot be simply a liking for the products: it's also a liking for the evolving spirit(s) of the age (obviously, there was more than one). Perhaps I should also acknowledge that try as I might to be objective, there is some art I reject on the grounds that I don't like the people who create it or espouse it. Or, perhaps more accurately, I can't always get past my _perception _of what it is and what I think is said about it.

So, let's set something up for discussion: what do people make of Colin Matthews' _Turning Point_ and specifically, in what way is it 'music of its time'? (The piece actually starts at around 1:12 - you might wish to ignore the introduction if you just want to hear the music and not the composer!)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Sid/Andre, please stop censoring yourself. I makes it frustrating when you intend to comment upon something you said when 5 minutes later you erase it.


My apologies, however having been here for a long time, you can probably imagine why I am reluctant to go down the path of discussing conceptual art here.



> ... I would suggest that _Art pour l'Art_ or Formalism need not be seen as excluding history or biography. You can embrace the idea that we judge a work of art upon aesthetic or artistic values and not suggest that history of biography have no place in understanding the work.


What you're arguing is more balanced than the driest of formalist approaches, and again we have witnessed discussions that go down the road of separating the art from its context as if by a surgeon with a scalpel. The recent John Cage discussion which I touched upon above kind of ended up going that way. A counter thread was even created, polling people on how many works they had heard by him. I don't find it discomfiting to delve into areas beyond the music itself, however I have had enough experience here to tell that it is an area that is very much a sensitive point. It brings up many questions that can't be neatly summarised or solved in one post or even one thread. Again, I am interested in discussions of this sort, but not if it leads to acrimony and point scoring.



> For example, I can enjoy Bach's cantatas or Persian illuminated manuscripts without embracing the religious dogma/narratives they intend to convey. When I read Plato's Republic many years ago, I found myself heatedly disagreeing with much of what he had to say. Still I recognize the artistic and philosophical merits of the work. I don't dismiss a work of art because I disagree with the artist.


I accept your point. As I referred to, perhaps I can understand the formalist trend at TC, for music is less concrete and more ephemeral when compared to visual arts or literature.


----------



## Jsteinmann1974 (Jun 13, 2015)

It's about capturing the zeitgeist, the mood of, essentially, the body politic in one condensed and pure expression. All great art does this. I for one, largely consider the artist to be somewhat external to his art. Recently I discovered a classical/jazz group called Skyline. They have an album, Something Sum Capital on Youtube that I personally feel rather captures this current mood. Uncertain (hence why it is all improv)... I think that as humans we have a certain desire to always not look too far ahead but, in the light of climate change, that is what we must do... a very interesting listen indeed. Debussy is another composer whom I feel succinctly captured a most concrete mood, even if we in the 21st century cannot quite grasp it, it seems familiar to us as a historical phase through which a former self passed through...

Foucault, as a philosopher, is a great example of the mood of his time, although I think that he is only just being explored to his utmost... good things sometimes take time


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> So, let's set something up for discussion: what do people make of Colin Matthews' _Turning Point_ and specifically, in what way is it 'music of its time'? (The piece actually starts at around 1:12 - you might wish to ignore the introduction if you just want to hear the music and not the composer!)


A fairly superficial first listen suggests to me it's "music of its time" in the sense that it reminds me of other pieces of orchestral music written in the last 20 years. Actually I'd have guessed that it was written in the 90s, but it's more recent than that. So my judgement of whether it's "of its time" is wholly dependent on the context of _other music_ rather than there being anything inherently in this particular piece of music that says "2013" (or "the 1990s"!); which I suppose would have to be the case with any other music, too.
As to what I _make_ of it, the superficial listen didn't really grab me but I imagine that, like other similar works, it might be worth my while to get to know it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The greatest music is both of its time, and timeless. When you listen to Gershwin or Thelonious Monk, you know it was written in the 20s or 40s, yet it still sounds modern and relevant. At least for me, it doesn't have that moldy fig quality that makes me want to turn it off. Which is the way I feel about most baroque music.

But different listeners want different things from music. Some listeners want their music to sound like 1730, and others would prefer a more modern approach.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Some listeners want their music to sound like 1730, and others would prefer a more modern approach.


Presumably, music only sounds "of its time" if you're listening to it at the time it was composed (and performed). A first encounter with music from another period with which you are unfamiliar would perhaps sound somehow different?


----------



## GhenghisKhan (Dec 25, 2014)

Means nothing .


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> It's one thing to recognise that an artist (and his work) is inevitably a product of his context; it's quite another to base analysis, criticism, understanding, even enjoyment, on the work+the context. Yet it takes considerable strength to consider a work without being distracted by the external.


I think that any approach that individual listeners take that suits their needs is fine. I think that if we take formalism to an extreme, we just have the music itself. Therefore, anything at all is extraneous and potentially less relevant and distracting. Even the opinions of those taking the formalist hard line are as such.

I accept formalism as a valid way of understanding music, but I don't accept it as the only way. I don't like dogma and reject any attempts to convert me to another peron's way of thinking. Even the cliched "just open your ears" line is biased in terms of elevating the speaker, it pressuposes that the recipient of such advice - whether asked for or not - isn't opening theirs and being inflexible.

Ultimately nothing stops a person from reading about music. Even if a person is just as much interested in history as they are in music, so what? It isn't a crime. I think its more of a problem if people judge others for just doing things in a way which they find adds to their enjoyment of music.

So-called objectivity or uniformity doesn't exist anyway. Unless you accept fantasy or distopia (try Alice in Wonderland or 1984).

I also see formalism as a nice way to bypass issues that, as I said above, aren't comfortable in music or art. Easier to hide behind your technocracy and repertoire lists. But that's just my opinion, and its quite jaded at that, and will score me no browny points here!



> For example, I think I like Shostakovich because I like the music - what I actually hear, as opposed to what I also know about him and the context of his composing. Yet I think I'd be lying to deny that there is an element of my enjoyment derived from my reading of the debate about the extent to which he was an obedient product of, or subtle critic of the Soviet regime.


Yes he's a very good example of how the music, the composer and the context overlap and intermingle. Again though, his music is great as it is, and you need not ask me but the experts on 20th century music (in any case, I had to work against my own biases to do with his music). Consensus is that he was one of the most significant composers of the 20th century, definitely of his generation and he left a strong legacy for other Russian composers coming after him.



> I know I've said before that my favourite period for the arts runs from around 1880 to about 1930. This cannot be simply a liking for the products: it's also a liking for the evolving spirit(s) of the age (obviously, there was more than one). Perhaps I should also acknowledge that try as I might to be objective, there is some art I reject on the grounds that I don't like the people who create it or espouse it. Or, perhaps more accurately, I can't always get past my _perception _of what it is and what I think is said about it.


I wouldn't like to meet quite a few of the great composers, and unfortunately same goes with listeners of classical. I have read biographies of kings and dictators and a few of them where cultivated in terms of classical music, but of course it meant nothing in terms of how they treated people. At the most superficial level, art is merely a kind of brain candy. On the other hand, it can and does bring people together and can show the best attributes of humanity.

Again the big picture is mixed, human history has been full of violence. My hope is that art and music can help to make us see the connections in the human experience. Its not to argue for some homogenised universalism - that has shown to be a mistake in the past, again leading to values being imposed - its more to understand other ways of seeing, other histories and traditions, other narratives and so on. Perhaps then we can build bridges rather than walls.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

starthrower said:


> The greatest music is both of its time, and timeless. When you listen to Gershwin or Thelonious Monk, you know it was written in the 20s or 40s, yet it still sounds modern and relevant. At least for me, it doesn't have that moldy fig quality that makes me want to turn it off. Which is the way I feel about most baroque music.
> 
> But different listeners want different things from music. Some listeners want their music to sound like 1730, and others would prefer a more modern approach.


I agree with what you say about timelesness, but so did these two:

"All old music was modern once, and much more of the music of yesterday already sounds more old-fashioned than works which were written three centuries ago." - Peter Warlock.

"All that is not eternal is eternally out of date." - C.S. Lewis.

You would probably know of how in the early 20th century the revival of Baroque ran parallel with composers absorbing jazz into their music. I think its no accident that in Paris you had the presence of people like Wanda Landowska at the same time as jazz was entering the music of the likes of Ravel, Stravinsky and Les Six. Most of jazz we have on record, so we can hear the brilliant improvisations of the great jazz musicians as if they where new. However I think that if we where able to hear recordings of Bach and Handel playing keyboards or say Vivaldi on the violin, we would be no less amazed.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> TalkingHead- First off, the more we debate, the more difficult it gets I find to cross-reference our exchanges, even though your idea to colour-highlight quotes helps to a certain extent. I'll try to keep up and I hope interested parties will do so as well...
> 
> OK. I usually try to identify the speakers initially in the longer more convoluted quotes... but I was a bit rushed and on my way out to my studio. Perhaps I should have stayed home as 91-degrees and high humidity did not make for conducive working conditions.
> 
> ...


I wish to thank you for taking the time to reply in detail to the points I made. I hope to get back to you after my visit to the Venice _Biennale_ 2015 after my summer break. I shall be leaving my chequebook at home, be assured.


----------



## Arie (Jun 19, 2015)

Hi isorhythm,
I'm not so educated when it comes to music, but I think I have a little idea what it means for music to reflect time and place.
It's been often said that Shostakovich's symphonies exactly reflect the situation in Russia under Stalin's oppressing regime. In that way, I think, music can reflect time and place.


----------

