Discussion:
The Future of Art Music
(too old to reply)
unknown
2005-08-05 12:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Not many replies on the clarinet list, and not reply on these groups, so
you decided to post your spam to more places, but you missed a some -
I'll add a few appropriate ones. People have been writing about the
crisis in classical music for a long time - I have a copy of an article
by Roger Sessions in the early 1930's, but he's not the first. As for
disagreeing with trends in music, check out what Artusi said about
Monteverdi. Music will outlast all the critics & alarmists.
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.
Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music
to be equated with art music.
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.
Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."
Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.
Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania
teh kookiest
2005-08-05 15:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Not many replies on the clarinet list, and not reply on these groups, so
you decided to post your spam to more places, but you missed a some -
I'll add a few appropriate ones. People have been writing about the
crisis in classical music for a long time - I have a copy of an article
by Roger Sessions in the early 1930's, but he's not the first. As for
disagreeing with trends in music, check out what Artusi said about
Monteverdi. Music will outlast all the critics & alarmists.
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.
Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music
to be equated with art music.
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.
Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."
Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.
Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania
By ignoring the emotional element, the composers alienated the audience
by not allowing the listener to develop a relationship with the music.

Ultimately, music is an expression of self and reflection of culture,
in addition to being a communicative medium.

Perhaps the age of industry and technology alienated man from himself,
and his art.

Nature, in the classical sense, was forgotten, or seen as unnecessary.

But we are a part of nature, and we must acknowledge that aspect of
ourselves, our emotionalism.

Ultimately, it is what makes great art.

Great article.

Thanks.
..
Matthew Fields
2005-08-05 16:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by teh kookiest
By ignoring the emotional element, the composers alienated the audience
by not allowing the listener to develop a relationship with the music.
Right, that explains why critics lambasted Berlioz's Sinfonie Fantastique
as "sterile algebra."
Post by teh kookiest
Ultimately, music is an expression of self and reflection of culture,
in addition to being a communicative medium.
Or maybe it's just an artform through which people appreciate the beauty
of sounds.
Post by teh kookiest
Perhaps the age of industry and technology alienated man from himself,
and his art.
The "Deliberate ugliness" in Monteverdi of which Artusi complained--
is that a product of "industry"?
Post by teh kookiest
Nature, in the classical sense, was forgotten, or seen as unnecessary.
Which is to say that we've gradually stripped the gauze of mythology
and projection off our views of nature and begun to see it more nearly
as it is, and along the way feelings have gotten hurt.
Post by teh kookiest
But we are a part of nature, and we must acknowledge that aspect of
ourselves, our emotionalism.
Yeah, so?
Post by teh kookiest
Ultimately, it is what makes great art.
Art is not made by going with "nature". Art is, by definition,
artificial.
Post by teh kookiest
Great article.
Banal piece of crap.
Post by teh kookiest
Thanks.
Yawn.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
teh kookiest
2005-08-06 20:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
By ignoring the emotional element, the composers alienated the audience
by not allowing the listener to develop a relationship with the music.
Right, that explains why critics lambasted Berlioz's Sinfonie Fantastique
as "sterile algebra."
Well, which critics?

And ultimately, it's up to the listener to decide what connection he
can make to the music, as in a structuralistic sense.

All symbols are arbitrary -- it is up to the individual to form a
whole.
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Ultimately, music is an expression of self and reflection of culture,
in addition to being a communicative medium.
Or maybe it's just an artform through which people appreciate the beauty
of sounds.
Right.

And appreciation of sound is an emotional response.

I don't understand your point.

Music is a language, both in it's written and aural form.

It is used as a communicative tool -- I don't quite understand your
arguement.
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Perhaps the age of industry and technology alienated man from himself,
and his art.
The "Deliberate ugliness" in Monteverdi of which Artusi complained--
is that a product of "industry"?
The 20th century, as compared to prior centuries, was marked by the
explosive industrial revolution. From the early machines of the
1900's(ex. The Education of Henry Adams) to the hi-tech of the 1990's,
man was alienated from nature, seeming to identify with the machine, as
opposed to the natural.

Surely you can see the comparison in the literature written, the
changes between Keats, Dickens, Eliot and Pynchon.

Again, we _are _a part of nature, and you seem to see that as something
expendable, or unimportant.

I think you're wrong, and don't really grasp what the article is
saying.

The selfishness, the narcissism of the 90's (and now) is, in part, due
to man thinking he is above nature, not part of a greater system.

Isn't the definition of narcissim?

(And no quoting from the DSM-4, I'm famliar with it, thanks).
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Nature, in the classical sense, was forgotten, or seen as unnecessary.
Which is to say that we've gradually stripped the gauze of mythology
and projection off our views of nature and begun to see it more nearly
as it is, and along the way feelings have gotten hurt.
And you see nature as something beastly and threatening?

And whose feelings have gotten hurt?

Nature can be threatening, but it is also beauty, in the Romantic or
Neoclassical or Realistic sense.

I guess I'm just not as cynical as you.
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
But we are a part of nature, and we must acknowledge that aspect of
ourselves, our emotionalism.
Yeah, so?
I don't know.

If you don't acknowledge your emotions, you're repressed.

So you're kinda missing something, eh?

Some people think they are unemotional, but in reality, they hold back
-- like the guy who suddenly goes beserk one day and breaks the
furniture or hits his wife.
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Ultimately, it is what makes great art.
Art is not made by going with "nature". Art is, by definition,
artificial.
Nonsense.

You're not a student of literature, of critical theory, are you?

Start with Alexander Pope's essay regarding the necessity to structure
nature, and therefore, the poem.

Read some of Eliot's critical theory, too.

Don't you think these concepts also apply to music and painting?

Of course they do.

Strange notions, you have.

Artifice may have a place, but only as a product of nature, a product
of culture.

All art exits as a product of emotion.

20th century art will be known as the denial of nature.
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Great article.
Banal piece of crap.
I disagree. It very accurately described why listners feel no
connection to the music they hear.

Modern music lacks feeling.

You seem cynical -- do you channel your emotions through the dryness of
philosophy?

That whole post-modernistic, industrial, sterile, cynical, art scene is
so worn out.

It's boring.
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Thanks.
Yawn.
That's rude.

But it's so hip.

If you're in 1999.

Heh.
Post by Matthew Fields
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
unknown
2005-08-06 23:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
By ignoring the emotional element, the composers alienated the audience
by not allowing the listener to develop a relationship with the music.
Right, that explains why critics lambasted Berlioz's Sinfonie Fantastique
as "sterile algebra."
Well, which critics?
And ultimately, it's up to the listener to decide what connection he
can make to the music, as in a structuralistic sense.
Their reactions will be influenced by the culture they are part of, and
by how comformist they are.
Post by teh kookiest
All symbols are arbitrary -- it is up to the individual to form a
whole.
They may be arbitrary, but it's not entirely up to the idividual - we
will understand them in light of our culture & experience.
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Ultimately, music is an expression of self and reflection of culture,
in addition to being a communicative medium.
Or maybe it's just an artform through which people appreciate the beauty
of sounds.
Right.
And appreciation of sound is an emotional response.
How so?
Post by teh kookiest
I don't understand your point.
Music is a language, both in it's written and aural form.
Please explain. I don't see how music in any form is a language, and
isn't the written form just a way of recording instructions for performance?
Post by teh kookiest
It is used as a communicative tool -- I don't quite understand your
arguement.
It can be used as a communicative tool, but sometimes it isn't anything
more than pretty sounds.
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Perhaps the age of industry and technology alienated man from himself,
and his art.
The "Deliberate ugliness" in Monteverdi of which Artusi complained--
is that a product of "industry"?
The 20th century, as compared to prior centuries, was marked by the
explosive industrial revolution. From the early machines of the
1900's(ex. The Education of Henry Adams) to the hi-tech of the 1990's,
man was alienated from nature, seeming to identify with the machine, as
opposed to the natural.
Music has been something artificial since long before the 20th century.
Actually, some contemporary music has started bringing the natural back
into music by using recordings of things such as bird-songs, or
imitation of many of the sounds of nature as part of the piece.
Post by teh kookiest
Surely you can see the comparison in the literature written, the
changes between Keats, Dickens, Eliot and Pynchon.
Again, we _are _a part of nature, and you seem to see that as something
expendable, or unimportant.
How do you get that from what he wrote?
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Art is not made by going with "nature". Art is, by definition,
artificial.
Nonsense.
You're not a student of literature, of critical theory, are you?
Start with Alexander Pope's essay regarding the necessity to structure
nature, and therefore, the poem.
How does that contradict what he said - is imposing form and structure
not artificial?
Post by teh kookiest
Read some of Eliot's critical theory, too.
Don't you think these concepts also apply to music and painting?
Of course they do.
Strange notions, you have.
Artifice may have a place, but only as a product of nature, a product
of culture.
Certainly it's a product of culture.
Post by teh kookiest
All art exits as a product of emotion.
I disagree with this. Some art is a product of emotion. It seems to
have gone in cycles - 19th century music is very emotional, so is
baroque, but classical & rennaisance are very different.
Post by teh kookiest
20th century art will be known as the denial of nature.
20th century art seems to be a case of going madly off in all
directions. It is different from previous times because we have so much
access to music of other cultures and other times, not just preserved in
writing, but recordings of performances.
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Great article.
Banal piece of crap.
I disagree. It very accurately described why listners feel no
connection to the music they hear.
Part of the problem is the emphasis many performing organizations place
on the music of dead white European composers, and listeners don't feel
that it has much connection to our world. Things that were new &
exciting have lost their shock value - think of how Beethoven must have
sounded to the listeners of his time - and have become old & familiar,
but many composers of amazing new music are having a hard time getting
performances & airplay for their work.
Post by teh kookiest
Modern music lacks feeling.
Not all of it. Part of the problem is that some of it requires time to
understand it, but might only get one performance :-(
Post by teh kookiest
You seem cynical -- do you channel your emotions through the dryness of
philosophy?
That whole post-modernistic, industrial, sterile, cynical, art scene is
so worn out.
Another "sterile" comment - at least you didn't call it algebra.
Peter T. Daniels
2005-08-07 00:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Music has been something artificial since long before the 20th century.
Actually, some contemporary music has started bringing the natural back
into music by using recordings of things such as bird-songs, or
imitation of many of the sounds of nature as part of the piece.
Over 50 years ago, Cage's 4'33" used _nothing but_ the sounds of nature
as the piece. (Real nature, not canned nature.)
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Nightingale
2005-08-07 00:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by unknown
Music has been something artificial since long before the 20th century.
Actually, some contemporary music has started bringing the natural back
into music by using recordings of things such as bird-songs, or
imitation of many of the sounds of nature as part of the piece.
Over 50 years ago, Cage's 4'33" used _nothing but_ the sounds of nature
as the piece. (Real nature, not canned nature.)
Wouldn't that depend on the performance space - it could just as easily
be the sounds of city traffic.
--
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le più gelate menti.
Peter T. Daniels
2005-08-07 13:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightingale
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by unknown
Music has been something artificial since long before the 20th century.
Actually, some contemporary music has started bringing the natural back
into music by using recordings of things such as bird-songs, or
imitation of many of the sounds of nature as part of the piece.
Over 50 years ago, Cage's 4'33" used _nothing but_ the sounds of nature
as the piece. (Real nature, not canned nature.)
Wouldn't that depend on the performance space - it could just as easily
be the sounds of city traffic.
Not _recordings_ of city traffic. Are the sounds of city traffic not
natural?
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Toby Winston
2005-08-07 01:02:33 UTC
Permalink
In some performances of Cage's work the audience may have been exposed
to some real "fart music" (sorry)...
Nightingale
2005-08-07 01:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toby Winston
In some performances of Cage's work the audience may have been exposed
to some real "fart music" (sorry)...
LOL!
--
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le più gelate menti.
RyanT
2005-08-07 01:07:41 UTC
Permalink
You know you're a composer when you get that sort of joke. Ack.
Dr. M. Kookenstein
2005-08-07 16:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
By ignoring the emotional element, the composers alienated the audience
by not allowing the listener to develop a relationship with the music.
Right, that explains why critics lambasted Berlioz's Sinfonie Fantastique
as "sterile algebra."
Well, which critics?
And ultimately, it's up to the listener to decide what connection he
can make to the music, as in a structuralistic sense.
Their reactions will be influenced by the culture they are part of, and
by how comformist they are.
Well, yes, but this neutral, neither good or bad.

Some see beauty, some do not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
All symbols are arbitrary -- it is up to the individual to form a
whole.
They may be arbitrary, but it's not entirely up to the idividual - we
will understand them in light of our culture & experience.
But it _is_ an individual perception, ultimately.

I see things in terms of my culture, but I may interpret that
differently from the person next to me.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Ultimately, music is an expression of self and reflection of culture,
in addition to being a communicative medium.
Or maybe it's just an artform through which people appreciate the beauty
of sounds.
Right.
And appreciation of sound is an emotional response.
How so?
Music evokes an amotional response.

Think of how you feel when your favorite song, or Chopin sonata is
heard.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
I don't understand your point.
Music is a language, both in it's written and aural form.
Please explain. I don't see how music in any form is a language, and
isn't the written form just a way of recording instructions for performance?
The written form of music commuicates the tones to be played.
Therefore, it functions as a language.

Language can be argueably, anything that facilitates communication
between people.

So if the musician provokes an emotional response through his/her
work, he has communicated to you a feeling, and you respond in kind, or
not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
It is used as a communicative tool -- I don't quite understand your
arguement.
It can be used as a communicative tool, but sometimes it isn't anything
more than pretty sounds.
Even pretty sounds evoke a response, even if it's disdain or boredom.

That's_emotional.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Perhaps the age of industry and technology alienated man from himself,
and his art.
The "Deliberate ugliness" in Monteverdi of which Artusi complained--
is that a product of "industry"?
The 20th century, as compared to prior centuries, was marked by the
explosive industrial revolution. From the early machines of the
1900's(ex. The Education of Henry Adams) to the hi-tech of the 1990's,
man was alienated from nature, seeming to identify with the machine, as
opposed to the natural.
Music has been something artificial since long before the 20th century.
Actually, some contemporary music has started bringing the natural back
into music by using recordings of things such as bird-songs, or
imitation of many of the sounds of nature as part of the piece.
Do you think music can function as an extension of the emotional
pschye?

I do, and therefore I don't see it as artificial.

I maybe missing your point, though.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Surely you can see the comparison in the literature written, the
changes between Keats, Dickens, Eliot and Pynchon.
Again, we _are _a part of nature, and you seem to see that as something
expendable, or unimportant.
How do you get that from what he wrote?
Whom?

Man's relationship to nature, man's relationship to himself is
therefore an extension of nature.

Thr Romanticists saw nature as something untamed, and they reflected
this in the emotional content of their poetry.

The neoclassicists conversely saw nature as something that needed to be
ordered, and this is directly reflected in the grammatical percision of
Pope's poetry, for example.

Compare the thinking, lifestyles of say, Keats and Swift, or Shelly and
Pope.

You can also think of it in terms of the English garden:
Romanticists:let it grow naturally, Neoclassicists: bring out the
landscaper.

Somewhere in the 20th century, the notion of the garden got lost.

This is metaphor, of course.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Art is not made by going with "nature". Art is, by definition,
artificial.
Nonsense.
You're not a student of literature, of critical theory, are you?
Start with Alexander Pope's essay regarding the necessity to structure
nature, and therefore, the poem.
How does that contradict what he said - is imposing form and structure
not artificial?
Where does art originate?

Where does inspiration originate?

Structure and form may be artifical, but the poet's inspiration is not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Read some of Eliot's critical theory, too.
Don't you think these concepts also apply to music and painting?
Of course they do.
Strange notions, you have.
Artifice may have a place, but only as a product of nature, a product
of culture.
Certainly it's a product of culture.
Post by teh kookiest
All art exits as a product of emotion.
I disagree with this. Some art is a product of emotion. It seems to
have gone in cycles - 19th century music is very emotional, so is
baroque, but classical & rennaisance are very different.
Ok.

But I see even digital art as a function of emotion, because _we_are
emotion.

Perhaps intellect gives structure and form to emotion.

Even disdain, the "purely" logical is emotional.

I don't know of anyone who acts purely with logic.

The _think_ they do, but they don't.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
20th century art will be known as the denial of nature.
20th century art seems to be a case of going madly off in all
directions. It is different from previous times because we have so much
access to music of other cultures and other times, not just preserved in
writing, but recordings of performances.
And some of it _is_ excellent.

The intertexuality of different musics, bringing together seeming
disparate sounds into a unified whole.

But that's a reflection of the late 20th century.

It seems, though, we were pelted with so much dry, intellectual high
art, too.

Still a reflection of it's culture, but expendable.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Great article.
Banal piece of crap.
I disagree. It very accurately described why listners feel no
connection to the music they hear.
Part of the problem is the emphasis many performing organizations place
on the music of dead white European composers, and listeners don't feel
that it has much connection to our world. Things that were new &
exciting have lost their shock value - think of how Beethoven must have
sounded to the listeners of his time - and have become old & familiar,
but many composers of amazing new music are having a hard time getting
performances & airplay for their work.
I don't remember his name, but there was a kid, a pianist, who is from
New York.

And when he plays, he puts so much feeling into his music, and seems to
be having so much fun, they you can't help but be entranced.

I don't remember his name, but when I saw him I thought, wow, this is
different.

Maybe it's a signal for the future.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Modern music lacks feeling.
Not all of it. Part of the problem is that some of it requires time to
understand it, but might only get one performance :-(
Agreed.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
You seem cynical -- do you channel your emotions through the dryness of
philosophy?
That whole post-modernistic, industrial, sterile, cynical, art scene is
so worn out.
Another "sterile" comment - at least you didn't call it algebra.
No. I know what it is to want to connect with art and music.

It's frustrating when the high intellectual artist is pretentious and
on the make, more concerned with money and recognition, rather than his
art.

So the artist isn't really an artist at all.

But I think that's starting to change.

Just from an emotional standpoint, the culture seems to be evolving
again.
Ö
2005-08-07 17:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
By ignoring the emotional element, the composers alienated the audience
by not allowing the listener to develop a relationship with the music.
Right, that explains why critics lambasted Berlioz's Sinfonie Fantastique
as "sterile algebra."
Well, which critics?
And ultimately, it's up to the listener to decide what connection he
can make to the music, as in a structuralistic sense.
Their reactions will be influenced by the culture they are part of, and
by how comformist they are.
Well, yes, but this neutral, neither good or bad.
Some see beauty, some do not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
All symbols are arbitrary -- it is up to the individual to form a
whole.
They may be arbitrary, but it's not entirely up to the idividual - we
will understand them in light of our culture & experience.
But it _is_ an individual perception, ultimately.
I see things in terms of my culture, but I may interpret that
differently from the person next to me.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Ultimately, music is an expression of self and reflection of culture,
in addition to being a communicative medium.
Or maybe it's just an artform through which people appreciate the beauty
of sounds.
Right.
And appreciation of sound is an emotional response.
How so?
Music evokes an amotional response.
Think of how you feel when your favorite song, or Chopin sonata is
heard.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
I don't understand your point.
Music is a language, both in it's written and aural form.
Please explain. I don't see how music in any form is a language, and
isn't the written form just a way of recording instructions for performance?
The written form of music commuicates the tones to be played.
Therefore, it functions as a language.
Language can be argueably, anything that facilitates communication
between people.
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.

Sharing with others is a secondary spin-off benefit.
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
So if the musician provokes an emotional response through his/her
work, he has communicated to you a feeling, and you respond in kind, or
not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
It is used as a communicative tool -- I don't quite understand your
arguement.
It can be used as a communicative tool, but sometimes it isn't anything
more than pretty sounds.
Even pretty sounds evoke a response, even if it's disdain or boredom.
That's_emotional.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Perhaps the age of industry and technology alienated man from himself,
and his art.
The "Deliberate ugliness" in Monteverdi of which Artusi complained--
is that a product of "industry"?
The 20th century, as compared to prior centuries, was marked by the
explosive industrial revolution. From the early machines of the
1900's(ex. The Education of Henry Adams) to the hi-tech of the 1990's,
man was alienated from nature, seeming to identify with the machine, as
opposed to the natural.
Music has been something artificial since long before the 20th century.
Actually, some contemporary music has started bringing the natural back
into music by using recordings of things such as bird-songs, or
imitation of many of the sounds of nature as part of the piece.
Do you think music can function as an extension of the emotional
pschye?
I do, and therefore I don't see it as artificial.
I maybe missing your point, though.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Surely you can see the comparison in the literature written, the
changes between Keats, Dickens, Eliot and Pynchon.
Again, we _are _a part of nature, and you seem to see that as something
expendable, or unimportant.
How do you get that from what he wrote?
Whom?
Man's relationship to nature, man's relationship to himself is
therefore an extension of nature.
Thr Romanticists saw nature as something untamed, and they reflected
this in the emotional content of their poetry.
The neoclassicists conversely saw nature as something that needed to be
ordered, and this is directly reflected in the grammatical percision of
Pope's poetry, for example.
Compare the thinking, lifestyles of say, Keats and Swift, or Shelly and
Pope.
Romanticists:let it grow naturally, Neoclassicists: bring out the
landscaper.
Somewhere in the 20th century, the notion of the garden got lost.
This is metaphor, of course.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Art is not made by going with "nature". Art is, by definition,
artificial.
Nonsense.
You're not a student of literature, of critical theory, are you?
Start with Alexander Pope's essay regarding the necessity to structure
nature, and therefore, the poem.
How does that contradict what he said - is imposing form and structure
not artificial?
Where does art originate?
Where does inspiration originate?
Structure and form may be artifical, but the poet's inspiration is not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Read some of Eliot's critical theory, too.
Don't you think these concepts also apply to music and painting?
Of course they do.
Strange notions, you have.
Artifice may have a place, but only as a product of nature, a product
of culture.
Certainly it's a product of culture.
Post by teh kookiest
All art exits as a product of emotion.
I disagree with this. Some art is a product of emotion. It seems to
have gone in cycles - 19th century music is very emotional, so is
baroque, but classical & rennaisance are very different.
Ok.
But I see even digital art as a function of emotion, because _we_are
emotion.
Perhaps intellect gives structure and form to emotion.
Even disdain, the "purely" logical is emotional.
I don't know of anyone who acts purely with logic.
The _think_ they do, but they don't.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
20th century art will be known as the denial of nature.
20th century art seems to be a case of going madly off in all
directions. It is different from previous times because we have so much
access to music of other cultures and other times, not just preserved in
writing, but recordings of performances.
And some of it _is_ excellent.
The intertexuality of different musics, bringing together seeming
disparate sounds into a unified whole.
But that's a reflection of the late 20th century.
It seems, though, we were pelted with so much dry, intellectual high
art, too.
Still a reflection of it's culture, but expendable.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Great article.
Banal piece of crap.
I disagree. It very accurately described why listners feel no
connection to the music they hear.
Part of the problem is the emphasis many performing organizations place
on the music of dead white European composers, and listeners don't feel
that it has much connection to our world. Things that were new &
exciting have lost their shock value - think of how Beethoven must have
sounded to the listeners of his time - and have become old & familiar,
but many composers of amazing new music are having a hard time getting
performances & airplay for their work.
I don't remember his name, but there was a kid, a pianist, who is from
New York.
And when he plays, he puts so much feeling into his music, and seems to
be having so much fun, they you can't help but be entranced.
I don't remember his name, but when I saw him I thought, wow, this is
different.
Maybe it's a signal for the future.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Modern music lacks feeling.
Not all of it. Part of the problem is that some of it requires time to
understand it, but might only get one performance :-(
Agreed.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
You seem cynical -- do you channel your emotions through the dryness of
philosophy?
That whole post-modernistic, industrial, sterile, cynical, art scene is
so worn out.
Another "sterile" comment - at least you didn't call it algebra.
No. I know what it is to want to connect with art and music.
It's frustrating when the high intellectual artist is pretentious and
on the make, more concerned with money and recognition, rather than his
art.
So the artist isn't really an artist at all.
But I think that's starting to change.
Just from an emotional standpoint, the culture seems to be evolving
again.
Dr. M. Kookenstein
2005-08-07 21:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ö
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
By ignoring the emotional element, the composers alienated the audience
by not allowing the listener to develop a relationship with the music.
Right, that explains why critics lambasted Berlioz's Sinfonie Fantastique
as "sterile algebra."
Well, which critics?
And ultimately, it's up to the listener to decide what connection he
can make to the music, as in a structuralistic sense.
Their reactions will be influenced by the culture they are part of, and
by how comformist they are.
Well, yes, but this neutral, neither good or bad.
Some see beauty, some do not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
All symbols are arbitrary -- it is up to the individual to form a
whole.
They may be arbitrary, but it's not entirely up to the idividual - we
will understand them in light of our culture & experience.
But it _is_ an individual perception, ultimately.
I see things in terms of my culture, but I may interpret that
differently from the person next to me.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Ultimately, music is an expression of self and reflection of culture,
in addition to being a communicative medium.
Or maybe it's just an artform through which people appreciate the beauty
of sounds.
Right.
And appreciation of sound is an emotional response.
How so?
Music evokes an amotional response.
Think of how you feel when your favorite song, or Chopin sonata is
heard.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
I don't understand your point.
Music is a language, both in it's written and aural form.
Please explain. I don't see how music in any form is a language, and
isn't the written form just a way of recording instructions for performance?
The written form of music commuicates the tones to be played.
Therefore, it functions as a language.
Language can be argueably, anything that facilitates communication
between people.
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
<Even people with a substantial grasp of language cannot communicate
with themselves.>

But I understand what you mean -- it's about giving structure to
thought, first and foremost.




It is used as a communicative tool -- I don't quite understand your
Post by Ö
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
arguement.
It can be used as a communicative tool, but sometimes it isn't anything
more than pretty sounds.
Even pretty sounds evoke a response, even if it's disdain or boredom.
That's_emotional.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Perhaps the age of industry and technology alienated man from himself,
and his art.
The "Deliberate ugliness" in Monteverdi of which Artusi complained--
is that a product of "industry"?
The 20th century, as compared to prior centuries, was marked by the
explosive industrial revolution. From the early machines of the
1900's(ex. The Education of Henry Adams) to the hi-tech of the 1990's,
man was alienated from nature, seeming to identify with the machine, as
opposed to the natural.
Music has been something artificial since long before the 20th century.
Actually, some contemporary music has started bringing the natural back
into music by using recordings of things such as bird-songs, or
imitation of many of the sounds of nature as part of the piece.
Do you think music can function as an extension of the emotional
pschye?
I do, and therefore I don't see it as artificial.
I maybe missing your point, though.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Surely you can see the comparison in the literature written, the
changes between Keats, Dickens, Eliot and Pynchon.
Again, we _are _a part of nature, and you seem to see that as something
expendable, or unimportant.
How do you get that from what he wrote?
Whom?
Man's relationship to nature, man's relationship to himself is
therefore an extension of nature.
Thr Romanticists saw nature as something untamed, and they reflected
this in the emotional content of their poetry.
The neoclassicists conversely saw nature as something that needed to be
ordered, and this is directly reflected in the grammatical percision of
Pope's poetry, for example.
Compare the thinking, lifestyles of say, Keats and Swift, or Shelly and
Pope.
Romanticists:let it grow naturally, Neoclassicists: bring out the
landscaper.
Somewhere in the 20th century, the notion of the garden got lost.
This is metaphor, of course.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Art is not made by going with "nature". Art is, by definition,
artificial.
Nonsense.
You're not a student of literature, of critical theory, are you?
Start with Alexander Pope's essay regarding the necessity to structure
nature, and therefore, the poem.
How does that contradict what he said - is imposing form and structure
not artificial?
Where does art originate?
Where does inspiration originate?
Structure and form may be artifical, but the poet's inspiration is not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Read some of Eliot's critical theory, too.
Don't you think these concepts also apply to music and painting?
Of course they do.
Strange notions, you have.
Artifice may have a place, but only as a product of nature, a product
of culture.
Certainly it's a product of culture.
Post by teh kookiest
All art exits as a product of emotion.
I disagree with this. Some art is a product of emotion. It seems to
have gone in cycles - 19th century music is very emotional, so is
baroque, but classical & rennaisance are very different.
Ok.
But I see even digital art as a function of emotion, because _we_are
emotion.
Perhaps intellect gives structure and form to emotion.
Even disdain, the "purely" logical is emotional.
I don't know of anyone who acts purely with logic.
The _think_ they do, but they don't.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
20th century art will be known as the denial of nature.
20th century art seems to be a case of going madly off in all
directions. It is different from previous times because we have so much
access to music of other cultures and other times, not just preserved in
writing, but recordings of performances.
And some of it _is_ excellent.
The intertexuality of different musics, bringing together seeming
disparate sounds into a unified whole.
But that's a reflection of the late 20th century.
It seems, though, we were pelted with so much dry, intellectual high
art, too.
Still a reflection of it's culture, but expendable.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Great article.
Banal piece of crap.
I disagree. It very accurately described why listners feel no
connection to the music they hear.
Part of the problem is the emphasis many performing organizations place
on the music of dead white European composers, and listeners don't feel
that it has much connection to our world. Things that were new &
exciting have lost their shock value - think of how Beethoven must have
sounded to the listeners of his time - and have become old & familiar,
but many composers of amazing new music are having a hard time getting
performances & airplay for their work.
I don't remember his name, but there was a kid, a pianist, who is from
New York.
And when he plays, he puts so much feeling into his music, and seems to
be having so much fun, they you can't help but be entranced.
I don't remember his name, but when I saw him I thought, wow, this is
different.
Maybe it's a signal for the future.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Modern music lacks feeling.
Not all of it. Part of the problem is that some of it requires time to
understand it, but might only get one performance :-(
Agreed.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
You seem cynical -- do you channel your emotions through the dryness of
philosophy?
That whole post-modernistic, industrial, sterile, cynical, art scene is
so worn out.
Another "sterile" comment - at least you didn't call it algebra.
No. I know what it is to want to connect with art and music.
It's frustrating when the high intellectual artist is pretentious and
on the make, more concerned with money and recognition, rather than his
art.
So the artist isn't really an artist at all.
But I think that's starting to change.
Just from an emotional standpoint, the culture seems to be evolving
again.
Ö
2005-08-07 22:09:15 UTC
Permalink
[ text set aside ]
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Post by Ö
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Language can be argueably, anything that facilitates communication
between people.
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
<Even people with a substantial grasp of language cannot communicate
with themselves.>
Look at what you have just said !
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
But I understand what you mean -- it's about giving structure to
thought, first and foremost.
Language is roughly equivalent to ' thought '

Language is used to permit thought to recognize and navigate through
condensed thought with deliberateness ... with definiteness.

Awareness, appreciation has become OBJECTIFIED; ... an item that
independent and persistent.
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
It is used as a communicative tool -- I don't quite understand your
Post by Ö
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Post by teh kookiest
arguement.
Thought recognizing, moving through, tokenizing thought ...

Language is the essence of abstraction.

[ text set aside ]
Dr. M. Kookenstein
2005-08-08 16:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ö
[ text set aside ]
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Post by Ö
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Language can be argueably, anything that facilitates communication
between people.
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
<Even people with a substantial grasp of language cannot communicate
with themselves.>
Look at what you have just said !
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
But I understand what you mean -- it's about giving structure to
thought, first and foremost.
Language is roughly equivalent to ' thought '
Language is used to permit thought to recognize and navigate through
condensed thought with deliberateness ... with definiteness.
Awareness, appreciation has become OBJECTIFIED; ... an item that
independent and persistent.
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
It is used as a communicative tool -- I don't quite understand your
Post by Ö
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Post by teh kookiest
arguement.
Thought recognizing, moving through, tokenizing thought ...
Language is the essence of abstraction.
[ text set aside ]
Right. I agree with you.

And I was making a joke about a lack of self awareness in some of our
best
educated people. Sorry.

Anyway, where, and how, does thought originate?

It was my understanding that language gave structure to the abstract,
to the origin_ of thought, so to speak.

Is emotion a function of thought, or is thought a function of emotion?

Language can certainly give structure to emotion, but so can music.

Do you understand that?

Some people give structure to the abstract through language, some
people give structure to the abstract through music.

I understand what you are saying, I guess I'm just trying to explore
different modes of language, or communication, even if it is within the
self.

Do you see?
Ö
2005-08-09 05:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Do you see?
... difficult topic which deserves being digested.

Shall attempt to respond to you and " Wouldn't want to be like you ",
tomorrow.

RL
Holly
2005-08-07 21:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ö
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
By ignoring the emotional element, the composers alienated the audience
by not allowing the listener to develop a relationship with the music.
Right, that explains why critics lambasted Berlioz's Sinfonie Fantastique
as "sterile algebra."
Well, which critics?
And ultimately, it's up to the listener to decide what connection he
can make to the music, as in a structuralistic sense.
Their reactions will be influenced by the culture they are part of, and
by how comformist they are.
Well, yes, but this neutral, neither good or bad.
Some see beauty, some do not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
All symbols are arbitrary -- it is up to the individual to form a
whole.
They may be arbitrary, but it's not entirely up to the idividual - we
will understand them in light of our culture & experience.
But it _is_ an individual perception, ultimately.
I see things in terms of my culture, but I may interpret that
differently from the person next to me.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Ultimately, music is an expression of self and reflection of culture,
in addition to being a communicative medium.
Or maybe it's just an artform through which people appreciate the beauty
of sounds.
Right.
And appreciation of sound is an emotional response.
How so?
Music evokes an amotional response.
Think of how you feel when your favorite song, or Chopin sonata is
heard.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
I don't understand your point.
Music is a language, both in it's written and aural form.
Please explain. I don't see how music in any form is a language, and
isn't the written form just a way of recording instructions for performance?
The written form of music commuicates the tones to be played.
Therefore, it functions as a language.
Language can be argueably, anything that facilitates communication
between people.
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
This statement is sheer nonsense. Put in the most cude terms language
is a strategy to get what you want. It exists in context of a subject
and an object. If you are trying to equate language with emotional
impulse you have taken language back to its preverbal beginnings of
grunts and hoots and howls and snorts, which still was produced to have
an affect on others.

A discussion of language is not the same discussion as one about music
as a means to express oneself verses its purpose to communicate with
others.
Post by Ö
Sharing with others is a secondary spin-off benefit.
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
So if the musician provokes an emotional response through his/her
work, he has communicated to you a feeling, and you respond in kind, or
not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
It is used as a communicative tool -- I don't quite understand your
arguement.
It can be used as a communicative tool, but sometimes it isn't anything
more than pretty sounds.
Even pretty sounds evoke a response, even if it's disdain or boredom.
That's_emotional.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Perhaps the age of industry and technology alienated man from himself,
and his art.
The "Deliberate ugliness" in Monteverdi of which Artusi complained--
is that a product of "industry"?
The 20th century, as compared to prior centuries, was marked by the
explosive industrial revolution. From the early machines of the
1900's(ex. The Education of Henry Adams) to the hi-tech of the 1990's,
man was alienated from nature, seeming to identify with the machine, as
opposed to the natural.
Music has been something artificial since long before the 20th century.
Actually, some contemporary music has started bringing the natural back
into music by using recordings of things such as bird-songs, or
imitation of many of the sounds of nature as part of the piece.
Do you think music can function as an extension of the emotional
pschye?
I do, and therefore I don't see it as artificial.
I maybe missing your point, though.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Surely you can see the comparison in the literature written, the
changes between Keats, Dickens, Eliot and Pynchon.
Again, we _are _a part of nature, and you seem to see that as something
expendable, or unimportant.
How do you get that from what he wrote?
Whom?
Man's relationship to nature, man's relationship to himself is
therefore an extension of nature.
Thr Romanticists saw nature as something untamed, and they reflected
this in the emotional content of their poetry.
The neoclassicists conversely saw nature as something that needed to be
ordered, and this is directly reflected in the grammatical percision of
Pope's poetry, for example.
Compare the thinking, lifestyles of say, Keats and Swift, or Shelly and
Pope.
Romanticists:let it grow naturally, Neoclassicists: bring out the
landscaper.
Somewhere in the 20th century, the notion of the garden got lost.
This is metaphor, of course.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Art is not made by going with "nature". Art is, by definition,
artificial.
Nonsense.
You're not a student of literature, of critical theory, are you?
Start with Alexander Pope's essay regarding the necessity to structure
nature, and therefore, the poem.
How does that contradict what he said - is imposing form and structure
not artificial?
Where does art originate?
Where does inspiration originate?
Structure and form may be artifical, but the poet's inspiration is not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Read some of Eliot's critical theory, too.
Don't you think these concepts also apply to music and painting?
Of course they do.
Strange notions, you have.
Artifice may have a place, but only as a product of nature, a product
of culture.
Certainly it's a product of culture.
Post by teh kookiest
All art exits as a product of emotion.
I disagree with this. Some art is a product of emotion. It seems to
have gone in cycles - 19th century music is very emotional, so is
baroque, but classical & rennaisance are very different.
Ok.
But I see even digital art as a function of emotion, because _we_are
emotion.
Perhaps intellect gives structure and form to emotion.
Even disdain, the "purely" logical is emotional.
I don't know of anyone who acts purely with logic.
The _think_ they do, but they don't.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
20th century art will be known as the denial of nature.
20th century art seems to be a case of going madly off in all
directions. It is different from previous times because we have so much
access to music of other cultures and other times, not just preserved in
writing, but recordings of performances.
And some of it _is_ excellent.
The intertexuality of different musics, bringing together seeming
disparate sounds into a unified whole.
But that's a reflection of the late 20th century.
It seems, though, we were pelted with so much dry, intellectual high
art, too.
Still a reflection of it's culture, but expendable.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Great article.
Banal piece of crap.
I disagree. It very accurately described why listners feel no
connection to the music they hear.
Part of the problem is the emphasis many performing organizations place
on the music of dead white European composers, and listeners don't feel
that it has much connection to our world. Things that were new &
exciting have lost their shock value - think of how Beethoven must have
sounded to the listeners of his time - and have become old & familiar,
but many composers of amazing new music are having a hard time getting
performances & airplay for their work.
I don't remember his name, but there was a kid, a pianist, who is from
New York.
And when he plays, he puts so much feeling into his music, and seems to
be having so much fun, they you can't help but be entranced.
I don't remember his name, but when I saw him I thought, wow, this is
different.
Maybe it's a signal for the future.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Modern music lacks feeling.
Not all of it. Part of the problem is that some of it requires time to
understand it, but might only get one performance :-(
Agreed.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
You seem cynical -- do you channel your emotions through the dryness of
philosophy?
That whole post-modernistic, industrial, sterile, cynical, art scene is
so worn out.
Another "sterile" comment - at least you didn't call it algebra.
No. I know what it is to want to connect with art and music.
It's frustrating when the high intellectual artist is pretentious and
on the make, more concerned with money and recognition, rather than his
art.
So the artist isn't really an artist at all.
But I think that's starting to change.
Just from an emotional standpoint, the culture seems to be evolving
again.
Ö
2005-08-07 22:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Holly
Post by Ö
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
By ignoring the emotional element, the composers alienated the audience
by not allowing the listener to develop a relationship with the music.
Right, that explains why critics lambasted Berlioz's Sinfonie Fantastique
as "sterile algebra."
Well, which critics?
And ultimately, it's up to the listener to decide what connection he
can make to the music, as in a structuralistic sense.
Their reactions will be influenced by the culture they are part of, and
by how comformist they are.
Well, yes, but this neutral, neither good or bad.
Some see beauty, some do not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
All symbols are arbitrary -- it is up to the individual to form a
whole.
They may be arbitrary, but it's not entirely up to the idividual - we
will understand them in light of our culture & experience.
But it _is_ an individual perception, ultimately.
I see things in terms of my culture, but I may interpret that
differently from the person next to me.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Ultimately, music is an expression of self and reflection of culture,
in addition to being a communicative medium.
Or maybe it's just an artform through which people appreciate the beauty
of sounds.
Right.
And appreciation of sound is an emotional response.
How so?
Music evokes an amotional response.
Think of how you feel when your favorite song, or Chopin sonata is
heard.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
I don't understand your point.
Music is a language, both in it's written and aural form.
Please explain. I don't see how music in any form is a language, and
isn't the written form just a way of recording instructions for performance?
The written form of music commuicates the tones to be played.
Therefore, it functions as a language.
Language can be argueably, anything that facilitates communication
between people.
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
[ setting aside the preamble ]
Post by Holly
This statement is sheer nonsense. Put in the most cude terms language
is a strategy to get what you want. It exists in context of a subject
and an object.
Yes. Eloquently put.

Language is the facility which creates and makes use of 'object'.

Thought w/o having ' language ' already condense it into usable tools
of OBJECT is mostly subjective. ... ethereal, intuitive, unrealized,
unfocussed.

Language helps a person make better thoughtful use of their tokenized,
markable, demarkable and recognizable ... realizations.

Language helps 'thought' to <better> get what it wants out of
'thought'.
Post by Holly
... If you are trying to equate language with emotional
impulse you have taken language back to its preverbal beginnings of
grunts and hoots and howls and snorts, which still was produced to have
an affect on others.
A discussion of language is not the same discussion as one about music
as a means to express oneself verses its purpose to communicate with
others.
Post by Ö
Sharing with others is a secondary spin-off benefit.
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
So if the musician provokes an emotional response through his/her
work, he has communicated to you a feeling, and you respond in kind, or
not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
It is used as a communicative tool -- I don't quite understand your
arguement.
It can be used as a communicative tool, but sometimes it isn't anything
more than pretty sounds.
Even pretty sounds evoke a response, even if it's disdain or boredom.
That's_emotional.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Perhaps the age of industry and technology alienated man from himself,
and his art.
The "Deliberate ugliness" in Monteverdi of which Artusi complained--
is that a product of "industry"?
The 20th century, as compared to prior centuries, was marked by the
explosive industrial revolution. From the early machines of the
1900's(ex. The Education of Henry Adams) to the hi-tech of the 1990's,
man was alienated from nature, seeming to identify with the machine, as
opposed to the natural.
Music has been something artificial since long before the 20th century.
Actually, some contemporary music has started bringing the natural back
into music by using recordings of things such as bird-songs, or
imitation of many of the sounds of nature as part of the piece.
Do you think music can function as an extension of the emotional
pschye?
I do, and therefore I don't see it as artificial.
I maybe missing your point, though.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Surely you can see the comparison in the literature written, the
changes between Keats, Dickens, Eliot and Pynchon.
Again, we _are _a part of nature, and you seem to see that as something
expendable, or unimportant.
How do you get that from what he wrote?
Whom?
Man's relationship to nature, man's relationship to himself is
therefore an extension of nature.
Thr Romanticists saw nature as something untamed, and they reflected
this in the emotional content of their poetry.
The neoclassicists conversely saw nature as something that needed to be
ordered, and this is directly reflected in the grammatical percision of
Pope's poetry, for example.
Compare the thinking, lifestyles of say, Keats and Swift, or Shelly and
Pope.
Romanticists:let it grow naturally, Neoclassicists: bring out the
landscaper.
Somewhere in the 20th century, the notion of the garden got lost.
This is metaphor, of course.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Art is not made by going with "nature". Art is, by definition,
artificial.
Nonsense.
You're not a student of literature, of critical theory, are you?
Start with Alexander Pope's essay regarding the necessity to structure
nature, and therefore, the poem.
How does that contradict what he said - is imposing form and structure
not artificial?
Where does art originate?
Where does inspiration originate?
Structure and form may be artifical, but the poet's inspiration is not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Read some of Eliot's critical theory, too.
Don't you think these concepts also apply to music and painting?
Of course they do.
Strange notions, you have.
Artifice may have a place, but only as a product of nature, a product
of culture.
Certainly it's a product of culture.
Post by teh kookiest
All art exits as a product of emotion.
I disagree with this. Some art is a product of emotion. It seems to
have gone in cycles - 19th century music is very emotional, so is
baroque, but classical & rennaisance are very different.
Ok.
But I see even digital art as a function of emotion, because _we_are
emotion.
Perhaps intellect gives structure and form to emotion.
Even disdain, the "purely" logical is emotional.
I don't know of anyone who acts purely with logic.
The _think_ they do, but they don't.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
20th century art will be known as the denial of nature.
20th century art seems to be a case of going madly off in all
directions. It is different from previous times because we have so much
access to music of other cultures and other times, not just preserved in
writing, but recordings of performances.
And some of it _is_ excellent.
The intertexuality of different musics, bringing together seeming
disparate sounds into a unified whole.
But that's a reflection of the late 20th century.
It seems, though, we were pelted with so much dry, intellectual high
art, too.
Still a reflection of it's culture, but expendable.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Great article.
Banal piece of crap.
I disagree. It very accurately described why listners feel no
connection to the music they hear.
Part of the problem is the emphasis many performing organizations place
on the music of dead white European composers, and listeners don't feel
that it has much connection to our world. Things that were new &
exciting have lost their shock value - think of how Beethoven must have
sounded to the listeners of his time - and have become old & familiar,
but many composers of amazing new music are having a hard time getting
performances & airplay for their work.
I don't remember his name, but there was a kid, a pianist, who is from
New York.
And when he plays, he puts so much feeling into his music, and seems to
be having so much fun, they you can't help but be entranced.
I don't remember his name, but when I saw him I thought, wow, this is
different.
Maybe it's a signal for the future.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Modern music lacks feeling.
Not all of it. Part of the problem is that some of it requires time to
understand it, but might only get one performance :-(
Agreed.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
You seem cynical -- do you channel your emotions through the dryness of
philosophy?
That whole post-modernistic, industrial, sterile, cynical, art scene is
so worn out.
Another "sterile" comment - at least you didn't call it algebra.
No. I know what it is to want to connect with art and music.
It's frustrating when the high intellectual artist is pretentious and
on the make, more concerned with money and recognition, rather than his
art.
So the artist isn't really an artist at all.
But I think that's starting to change.
Just from an emotional standpoint, the culture seems to be evolving
again.
Wouldn't want to be like you
2005-08-08 19:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ö
Post by Holly
Post by Ö
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
By ignoring the emotional element, the composers alienated the audience
by not allowing the listener to develop a relationship with the music.
Right, that explains why critics lambasted Berlioz's Sinfonie Fantastique
as "sterile algebra."
Well, which critics?
And ultimately, it's up to the listener to decide what connection he
can make to the music, as in a structuralistic sense.
Their reactions will be influenced by the culture they are part of, and
by how comformist they are.
Well, yes, but this neutral, neither good or bad.
Some see beauty, some do not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
All symbols are arbitrary -- it is up to the individual to form a
whole.
They may be arbitrary, but it's not entirely up to the idividual - we
will understand them in light of our culture & experience.
But it _is_ an individual perception, ultimately.
I see things in terms of my culture, but I may interpret that
differently from the person next to me.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Ultimately, music is an expression of self and reflection of culture,
in addition to being a communicative medium.
Or maybe it's just an artform through which people appreciate the beauty
of sounds.
Right.
And appreciation of sound is an emotional response.
How so?
Music evokes an amotional response.
Think of how you feel when your favorite song, or Chopin sonata is
heard.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
I don't understand your point.
Music is a language, both in it's written and aural form.
Please explain. I don't see how music in any form is a language, and
isn't the written form just a way of recording instructions for performance?
The written form of music commuicates the tones to be played.
Therefore, it functions as a language.
Language can be argueably, anything that facilitates communication
between people.
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
[ setting aside the preamble ]
Post by Holly
This statement is sheer nonsense. Put in the most cude terms language
is a strategy to get what you want. It exists in context of a subject
and an object.
Yes. Eloquently put.
Language is the facility which creates and makes use of 'object'.
Thought w/o having ' language ' already condense it into usable tools
of OBJECT is mostly subjective. ... ethereal, intuitive, unrealized,
unfocussed.
Language helps a person make better thoughtful use of their tokenized,
markable, demarkable and recognizable ... realizations.
Language helps 'thought' to <better> get what it wants out of
'thought'.
Aren't you all saying the same thing?

I might be wrong.
Post by Ö
Post by Holly
... If you are trying to equate language with emotional
impulse you have taken language back to its preverbal beginnings of
grunts and hoots and howls and snorts, which still was produced to have
an affect on others.
What is emotional impulse?

If I sense your mood, without words, for instance, have you
communicated, and therefore, does emotion function as language?
Post by Ö
Post by Holly
A discussion of language is not the same discussion as one about music
as a means to express oneself verses its purpose to communicate with
others.
We're speaking of language.

A part of the purpose of language is the ability to communicate with
ones self, don't you think?

Self awareness is determined through language, partly, and self
awareness can be thought of as the object.

Music can serve as a linguistic structure to define this object.
Post by Ö
Post by Holly
Post by Ö
Sharing with others is a secondary spin-off benefit.
Post by Dr. M. Kookenstein
So if the musician provokes an emotional response through his/her
work, he has communicated to you a feeling, and you respond in kind, or
not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
It is used as a communicative tool -- I don't quite understand your
arguement.
It can be used as a communicative tool, but sometimes it isn't anything
more than pretty sounds.
Even pretty sounds evoke a response, even if it's disdain or boredom.
That's_emotional.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Perhaps the age of industry and technology alienated man from himself,
and his art.
The "Deliberate ugliness" in Monteverdi of which Artusi complained--
is that a product of "industry"?
The 20th century, as compared to prior centuries, was marked by the
explosive industrial revolution. From the early machines of the
1900's(ex. The Education of Henry Adams) to the hi-tech of the 1990's,
man was alienated from nature, seeming to identify with the machine, as
opposed to the natural.
Music has been something artificial since long before the 20th century.
Actually, some contemporary music has started bringing the natural back
into music by using recordings of things such as bird-songs, or
imitation of many of the sounds of nature as part of the piece.
Do you think music can function as an extension of the emotional
pschye?
I do, and therefore I don't see it as artificial.
I maybe missing your point, though.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Surely you can see the comparison in the literature written, the
changes between Keats, Dickens, Eliot and Pynchon.
Again, we _are _a part of nature, and you seem to see that as something
expendable, or unimportant.
How do you get that from what he wrote?
Whom?
Man's relationship to nature, man's relationship to himself is
therefore an extension of nature.
Thr Romanticists saw nature as something untamed, and they reflected
this in the emotional content of their poetry.
The neoclassicists conversely saw nature as something that needed to be
ordered, and this is directly reflected in the grammatical percision of
Pope's poetry, for example.
Compare the thinking, lifestyles of say, Keats and Swift, or Shelly and
Pope.
Romanticists:let it grow naturally, Neoclassicists: bring out the
landscaper.
Somewhere in the 20th century, the notion of the garden got lost.
This is metaphor, of course.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Art is not made by going with "nature". Art is, by definition,
artificial.
Nonsense.
You're not a student of literature, of critical theory, are you?
Start with Alexander Pope's essay regarding the necessity to structure
nature, and therefore, the poem.
How does that contradict what he said - is imposing form and structure
not artificial?
Where does art originate?
Where does inspiration originate?
Structure and form may be artifical, but the poet's inspiration is not.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Read some of Eliot's critical theory, too.
Don't you think these concepts also apply to music and painting?
Of course they do.
Strange notions, you have.
Artifice may have a place, but only as a product of nature, a product
of culture.
Certainly it's a product of culture.
Post by teh kookiest
All art exits as a product of emotion.
I disagree with this. Some art is a product of emotion. It seems to
have gone in cycles - 19th century music is very emotional, so is
baroque, but classical & rennaisance are very different.
Ok.
But I see even digital art as a function of emotion, because _we_are
emotion.
Perhaps intellect gives structure and form to emotion.
Even disdain, the "purely" logical is emotional.
I don't know of anyone who acts purely with logic.
The _think_ they do, but they don't.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
20th century art will be known as the denial of nature.
20th century art seems to be a case of going madly off in all
directions. It is different from previous times because we have so much
access to music of other cultures and other times, not just preserved in
writing, but recordings of performances.
And some of it _is_ excellent.
The intertexuality of different musics, bringing together seeming
disparate sounds into a unified whole.
But that's a reflection of the late 20th century.
It seems, though, we were pelted with so much dry, intellectual high
art, too.
Still a reflection of it's culture, but expendable.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by teh kookiest
Great article.
Banal piece of crap.
I disagree. It very accurately described why listners feel no
connection to the music they hear.
Part of the problem is the emphasis many performing organizations place
on the music of dead white European composers, and listeners don't feel
that it has much connection to our world. Things that were new &
exciting have lost their shock value - think of how Beethoven must have
sounded to the listeners of his time - and have become old & familiar,
but many composers of amazing new music are having a hard time getting
performances & airplay for their work.
I don't remember his name, but there was a kid, a pianist, who is from
New York.
And when he plays, he puts so much feeling into his music, and seems to
be having so much fun, they you can't help but be entranced.
I don't remember his name, but when I saw him I thought, wow, this is
different.
Maybe it's a signal for the future.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
Modern music lacks feeling.
Not all of it. Part of the problem is that some of it requires time to
understand it, but might only get one performance :-(
Agreed.
Post by unknown
Post by teh kookiest
You seem cynical -- do you channel your emotions through the dryness of
philosophy?
That whole post-modernistic, industrial, sterile, cynical, art scene is
so worn out.
Another "sterile" comment - at least you didn't call it algebra.
No. I know what it is to want to connect with art and music.
It's frustrating when the high intellectual artist is pretentious and
on the make, more concerned with money and recognition, rather than his
art.
So the artist isn't really an artist at all.
But I think that's starting to change.
Just from an emotional standpoint, the culture seems to be evolving
again.
Ö
2005-08-09 05:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Round No. 2
Post by Holly
Post by Ö
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
This statement is sheer nonsense. Put in the most cude terms language
is a strategy to get what you want. It exists in context of a subject
and an object. If you are trying to equate language with emotional
impulse you have taken language back to its preverbal beginnings of
grunts and hoots and howls and snorts, which still was produced to have
an affect on others.
A discussion of language is not the same discussion as one about music
as a means to express oneself verses its purpose to communicate with
others.
The use of language to communicate with others is by-and-large AN
ILLUSION and vastly over-rated.

Do I need to elaborate ?

RL
Matthew Fields
2005-08-09 10:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ö
Round No. 2
Post by Holly
Post by Ö
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
This statement is sheer nonsense. Put in the most cude terms language
is a strategy to get what you want. It exists in context of a subject
and an object. If you are trying to equate language with emotional
impulse you have taken language back to its preverbal beginnings of
grunts and hoots and howls and snorts, which still was produced to have
an affect on others.
A discussion of language is not the same discussion as one about music
as a means to express oneself verses its purpose to communicate with
others.
The use of language to communicate with others is by-and-large AN
ILLUSION and vastly over-rated.
Do I need to elaborate ?
By saying that, you're undercutting your own argument. After all,
your argument doesn't really exist, it's by-and-large an illusion of an
argument.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Ö
2005-08-09 12:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Ö
Round No. 2
Post by Holly
Post by Ö
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
This statement is sheer nonsense. Put in the most cude terms language
is a strategy to get what you want. It exists in context of a subject
and an object. If you are trying to equate language with emotional
impulse you have taken language back to its preverbal beginnings of
grunts and hoots and howls and snorts, which still was produced to have
an affect on others.
A discussion of language is not the same discussion as one about music
as a means to express oneself verses its purpose to communicate with
others.
The use of language to communicate with others is by-and-large AN
ILLUSION and vastly over-rated.
Do I need to elaborate ?
By saying that, you're undercutting your own argument. After all,
your argument doesn't really exist, it's by-and-large an illusion of an
argument.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Careful. Things become tricky at this juncture when one makes a
transition between local and global considerations. It the
small-and-residual portion which couples the by-and-large illusion to
the greater whole. The focus of convergence changes.

RL
Matthew Fields
2005-08-09 13:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ö
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Ö
Round No. 2
Post by Holly
Post by Ö
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
This statement is sheer nonsense. Put in the most cude terms language
is a strategy to get what you want. It exists in context of a subject
and an object. If you are trying to equate language with emotional
impulse you have taken language back to its preverbal beginnings of
grunts and hoots and howls and snorts, which still was produced to have
an affect on others.
A discussion of language is not the same discussion as one about music
as a means to express oneself verses its purpose to communicate with
others.
The use of language to communicate with others is by-and-large AN
ILLUSION and vastly over-rated.
Do I need to elaborate ?
By saying that, you're undercutting your own argument. After all,
your argument doesn't really exist, it's by-and-large an illusion of an
argument.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Careful. Things become tricky at this juncture when one makes a
transition between local and global considerations. It the
small-and-residual portion which couples the by-and-large illusion to
the greater whole. The focus of convergence changes.
I'm not falling for that. You just wrote a bunch of nonsense and
are only trying to give the illusion of arguing.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Ö
2005-08-09 14:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Ö
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Ö
Round No. 2
Post by Holly
Post by Ö
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
This statement is sheer nonsense. Put in the most cude terms language
is a strategy to get what you want. It exists in context of a subject
and an object. If you are trying to equate language with emotional
impulse you have taken language back to its preverbal beginnings of
grunts and hoots and howls and snorts, which still was produced to have
an affect on others.
A discussion of language is not the same discussion as one about music
as a means to express oneself verses its purpose to communicate with
others.
The use of language to communicate with others is by-and-large AN
ILLUSION and vastly over-rated.
Do I need to elaborate ?
By saying that, you're undercutting your own argument. After all,
your argument doesn't really exist, it's by-and-large an illusion of an
argument.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Careful. Things become tricky at this juncture when one makes a
transition between local and global considerations. It the
small-and-residual portion which couples the by-and-large illusion to
the greater whole. The focus of convergence changes.
Gee whizz !
Look at Matthew's funny ...
Post by Matthew Fields
I'm not falling for that. You just wrote a bunch of nonsense and
are only trying to give the illusion of arguing.
Sort-of-like ...

" I am talkng nonsense and so are you "

In other words, ' abstract hot air '

I will have you know, I am NOT talking silly here, sir!

RL
Ö
2005-08-09 15:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Ö
Round No. 2
Post by Holly
Post by Ö
No. Language is predominately about being able to communicate with
one's self! It provides 'abstract' substance for thought.
This statement is sheer nonsense. Put in the most cude terms language
is a strategy to get what you want. It exists in context of a subject
and an object. If you are trying to equate language with emotional
impulse you have taken language back to its preverbal beginnings of
grunts and hoots and howls and snorts, which still was produced to have
an affect on others.
A discussion of language is not the same discussion as one about music
as a means to express oneself verses its purpose to communicate with
others.
Repeating myself ...
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Ö
The use of language to communicate with others is by-and-large AN
ILLUSION and vastly over-rated.
Do I need to elaborate ?
Yes.

A bright one says ...
Post by Matthew Fields
By saying that, you're undercutting your own argument. After all,
your argument doesn't really exist, it's by-and-large an illusion of an
argument.
I make the distinction of an ILLUSION being different to a DELLUSION.
For me, an illusion has a reliable constancy and regularity to it's
corruptive influence.

As with the botched optics of the Hubble Space telescope and Deep
Impact's Hi-res optics, the error can be ' deconvoluted (?) ' with the
appropriate transformation(s).

For myself, an ILLUSION is like a virtual or mirrored image. It is
transformed and/or filtered in a regular, precise, exhaustive manner.

The problem with mirrored images; with ILLUSIONS is that they are
difficult to detect because of they preserve the correlation and
coherency of information in a manner ...

A DELLUSION reveals itself as <such> because it breaks the alignment
of information in a global sense.

Enough for now.

RL
Johnny
2005-08-05 19:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Not only that, but look at what the Council of Trent had to say about
the status of the world! :) I imagine art music has sort of been in a
perpetual crisis.
Matthew Fields
2005-08-05 20:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Not only that, but look at what the Council of Trent had to say about
the status of the world! :) I imagine art music has sort of been in a
perpetual crisis.
Yes, music started going downhill with the invention of melismas!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
PJR
2005-08-05 21:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Johnny
Not only that, but look at what the Council of Trent had to say about
the status of the world! :) I imagine art music has sort of been in a
perpetual crisis.
Yes, music started going downhill with the invention of melismas!
I blame Pythagoras. Intervals, schmintervals!

PJR :-)
--
alt.usenet.kooks award-winners and FAQ:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/

[To reply by email, remove "NOSPAM".]
Michael Baldwin Bruce
2005-08-06 00:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by PJR
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Johnny
Not only that, but look at what the Council of Trent had to say about
the status of the world! :) I imagine art music has sort of been in a
perpetual crisis.
Yes, music started going downhill with the invention of melismas!
I blame Pythagoras. Intervals, schmintervals!
If we can get Dickless Davie to become a Le Petomane impersonator
(shouldn't be hard for him), we can discuss fart music, Bruce.
Post by PJR
PJR :-)
--
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/
[To reply by email, remove "NOSPAM".]
unknown
2005-08-06 00:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Baldwin Bruce
Post by PJR
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Johnny
Not only that, but look at what the Council of Trent had to say about
the status of the world! :) I imagine art music has sort of been in a
perpetual crisis.
Yes, music started going downhill with the invention of melismas!
I blame Pythagoras. Intervals, schmintervals!
If we can get Dickless Davie to become a Le Petomane impersonator
(shouldn't be hard for him), we can discuss fart music, Bruce.
He already plays the stupidest instrument in the world - isn't bass
clarinet close enough to fart music for you?
Matthew Fields
2005-08-06 01:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Baldwin Bruce
Post by PJR
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Johnny
Not only that, but look at what the Council of Trent had to say about
the status of the world! :) I imagine art music has sort of been in a
perpetual crisis.
Yes, music started going downhill with the invention of melismas!
I blame Pythagoras. Intervals, schmintervals!
If we can get Dickless Davie to become a Le Petomane impersonator
(shouldn't be hard for him), we can discuss fart music, Bruce.
He already plays the stupidest instrument in the world - isn't bass
clarinet close enough to fart music for you?
You misspelled "bagpipes". HTH, HAND.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
unknown
2005-08-06 23:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Baldwin Bruce
Post by PJR
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Johnny
Not only that, but look at what the Council of Trent had to say about
the status of the world! :) I imagine art music has sort of been in a
perpetual crisis.
Yes, music started going downhill with the invention of melismas!
I blame Pythagoras. Intervals, schmintervals!
If we can get Dickless Davie to become a Le Petomane impersonator
(shouldn't be hard for him), we can discuss fart music, Bruce.
He already plays the stupidest instrument in the world - isn't bass
clarinet close enough to fart music for you?
You misspelled "bagpipes". HTH, HAND.
What have you got against bagpipes??
Michael Baldwin Bruce
2005-08-11 13:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Baldwin Bruce
Post by PJR
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Johnny
Not only that, but look at what the Council of Trent had to say about
the status of the world! :) I imagine art music has sort of been in a
perpetual crisis.
Yes, music started going downhill with the invention of melismas!
I blame Pythagoras. Intervals, schmintervals!
If we can get Dickless Davie to become a Le Petomane impersonator
(shouldn't be hard for him), we can discuss fart music, Bruce.
He already plays the stupidest instrument in the world - isn't bass
clarinet close enough to fart music for you?
You misspelled "bagpipes". HTH, HAND.
What have you got against bagpipes??
The old Lang sign.
Michael Baldwin Bruce
2005-08-11 13:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Baldwin Bruce
Post by PJR
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Johnny
Not only that, but look at what the Council of Trent had to say about
the status of the world! :) I imagine art music has sort of been in a
perpetual crisis.
Yes, music started going downhill with the invention of melismas!
I blame Pythagoras. Intervals, schmintervals!
If we can get Dickless Davie to become a Le Petomane impersonator
(shouldn't be hard for him), we can discuss fart music, Bruce.
Fart music reminds me of Ant Music by Adam and the Ants, Bruce.
Post by unknown
He already plays the stupidest instrument in the world - isn't bass
clarinet close enough to fart music for you?
Le Petomane could blow a trumpet, I believe, Bruce.
Ö
2005-08-07 05:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Not many replies on the clarinet list, and not reply on these groups, so
you decided to post your spam to more places, but you missed a some -
I'll add a few appropriate ones. People have been writing about the
crisis in classical music for a long time - I have a copy of an article
by Roger Sessions in the early 1930's, but he's not the first. As for
disagreeing with trends in music, check out what Artusi said about
Monteverdi. Music will outlast all the critics & alarmists.
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.
Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music
to be equated with art music.
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.
Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."
Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.
Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania
What is your problem mate ?

Listen to ...

5. Nûbâ Gharîbat Al-Husayn: Btâyhî ~~~~> http://tinyurl.com/76j3f

Or ...

5. Tres Morillas ~~~~~> http://tinyurl.com/cer6n

Beats a rock concert any day.

Now turn it into ' Art ' music.

RL
gggg gggg
2021-10-09 19:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Not many replies on the clarinet list, and not reply on these groups, so
you decided to post your spam to more places, but you missed a some -
I'll add a few appropriate ones. People have been writing about the
crisis in classical music for a long time - I have a copy of an article
by Roger Sessions in the early 1930's, but he's not the first. As for
disagreeing with trends in music, check out what Artusi said about
Monteverdi. Music will outlast all the critics & alarmists.
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.
Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music
to be equated with art music.
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.
Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."
Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.
Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania
Is this why we love art/classical music?:

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.classical/c/9tNkujETSLk

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...