Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemporary, Creative Works of Music? Literature? Art?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
 RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to runner)
|
|
|
quote:
I think, Bill, that you are not very good at detecting word play. Try Miralax. It may help with the constipation, but perhaps the anhedonia is incurable. And the grasping at straws is most undignified in both you and Stephen, and so obvious.
What is undignified, Runner, is to be called out on a false analogy and then claim one knew the historical background all along, quickly cloaking one's obvious error with such terms as "word-play," and "tongue-in-cheek," and trying to salvage the situation by claiming it was an "all too subtle attempt at humor."
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 31 2015 1:57:07
 |
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
I am going to shift the topic, "The Day the (Classical) Music Died," from its own thread to be continued in this one, as I think it fits in with the ideas that have been discussed herein, including whether or not decent Classical/serious music is even being composed and played today. Runner suggested that Classical music died for him in the 15 years between 1942 and 1957. I think we have to accept that for Runner it died as he describes it. One cannot argue with a personal viewpoint expressing a personal preference. And I would agree that aleatoric music and other such "experimental" music usually leaves me cold. But aleatoric and "esperimental" music is not the sum total of music being created today.
There is some very good music being created today that would be classified as Classical/serious music. Stephen suggested some in his reply. I think some of us (myself included) are tethered to the old "Warhorses" (as Miguel likes to call them), to the point where it appears that that's all we care for. As much as I like the "Warhorses," I am certainly open to listening to some of the newer music being created. I don't think we have to re-label Classical/serious music of today in order to gain an audience for it. Younger people will like it or dislike it based on the music, not on what it's called.
Likewise, it was suggested in the other thread that as flamenco "evolves" it should be called by a brand new name. Flamenco has been "evolving" for the last hundred years, and it has remained "flamenco" because that's what it is. I personally prefer Nino Ricardo and Sabicas (and today, Paco Pena) to the later PDL (with his accompanying bass and harmonica), but I went to PDL's performances nevertheless, because it was still flamenco. And as long as the music adheres to certain rules governing palos and compas (for example) it will remain flamenco, regardless how it evolves. There is no need to call it anything else, unless it simply ceases to possess those elementary attributes that define it as flamenco.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 31 2015 5:50:15
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
I have moved the last exchange betweem Miguel and myself in order to begin a new thread because the topic interests me. Do the timeless classics in music suppress and prevent new, contemporary, creative works in music? Does this occur In literature? In art? And if only in music, why is it that only music is so affected by the classics, but not literature and art? I have quoted Miguel first, followed by my response. Would welcome views and responses on this topic.
Quote: Bill, there is more to it than that, though. I am no snob, but I do not want to hear the warhorses either. Maybe one or two. Classical music, like any art, needs new compositions of merit to be heard and established, or else it's nothing more than a living museum, musty and sadly nostalgic. That is why, yes, many object to the compulsive programming of Mozart. As someone said, "It may have been better had Mozart not lived"--because, despite how beautiful his music is, its very renown serves to suppress new creative works. There probably won't even be anymore concerts after this generation. Unquote.
Miguel, I would push back on the idea that the classics (Mozart et. al.) represent a "living museum" and that they are "musty and sadly nostalgic." What I consider "sadly nostalgic" are pop and rock music that remind people of their high school days, or their prom date, for example. That is both musty, sad, and a little bit maudlin, as if their high school days were the high point of their life.
Mozart and the greats of classical music, as well as composers for the guitar such as Isaac Albeniz and Francisco Tarrega, remain appreciated and played today for the same reason great art and great literature remain appreciated. There are works of music, art, and literature that have withstood the test of time--yes, they are timeless. They speak to us in a way that goes beyond our temporal existence. And I see no reason why such classics cannot be played along with contemporary compositions, just as there is no reason why one cannot appreciate reading the works of Tolstoy and Hemingway while equally enjoying the contemporary works of, say, Joyce Carol Oates and Thomas Pynchon.
Regarding the view that Mozart's (admittedly beautiful) music's "very renown serves to suppress new creative works," it is not its "renown" that is at work here. Rather, it is its high caliber and beauty that is in play. Yet, I fail to see why that should prevent and suppress new creative works. In fact, does it really prevent and suppress new, creative works? Are there not new compositions and works being produced today? Just as there is contemporary literature that is being published that is read along side the classics? And contemporary art work that is being produced and appreciated along side the classic works of art? Is music so much different from literature and art that creativity is stifled by the classics?
Bill
I did not answer this question, but now I'll give my thought to this. I know you all have been holding your breath, not.
I think to use the word 'suppression' is a bit of hyperbole. Classics in art, literature, music inspire new works more than squelch the ambitions of new comers. Young artists across genre look to classics and are engaged by classics, usually as first contact with an art form. It's this first contact, or primary formative experience, that gives rise to a passion and intelligence that leads to a life of art making. Classics generate much more art than they discourage.
The difficulty is in forming your artistic personalty, persona and body of work that is fueled by a love and profound understanding of your classical chosen master, while at the same time navigating your training as an artist without becoming derivative of the masters style and personality.
Posturing as an artist you admire is a pit fall, but not incurable with some hard work in the studio. Hard work and honest criticism usually disabuses a young artist of the egocentric trip of adopting a persona of an artist they admire. A natural part of learning about who you are as a artist. First if you are a painter you might try de Koonings boots on, then you stomp around a bit. Then if a dancer, maybe you adopt a public persona of a famous Japanese Butoh dancer and shave your forehead- which gives the parents a worry some little jolt, but might get you a free coffee from your hip barista. ( Not that I know this personally;I speculate from observation of student Butoh dancers)
A young artist may adopt a number of cute, or annoying personality ticks that endear them to teachers and friends, but it's an aside to the real matter, which is artistic individuation. Adopting an artistic persona is an outward manifestation of becoming, or of learning, your own interior as a artist. The hard part is knowing yourself well enough to make choices that will unseat your stable resting spot in the lap of a classical master. If a young artist is serious enough they will take on more than the exterior persona of classical masters, they will wear the shoes of Beethoven inside them, they will wear the shoes of Paco de Lucia inside them.
A serious young artist will internalize the work of a master to the breaking point of their own personality. At that point the danger begins, because one can brilliantly individuate from that intensive internalization and capture that knowledge, turning it into a branch style separate from the masters style. Or the bad thing can happen and the student for a number of reasons stays locked into a derivative style, or retains un-reinvented mannerisms from that masters style. A good teacher can bust a student out of these mannerisms and a good teacher can even push an older more 'set in their ways' practitioner out of these lock-ups, provided both are willing to drop ego play.
The paralysis happens when a student or artist has enough self awareness to realize they are being derivative of a great master and working not from a place of interior honesty, but of exterior mannerisms in the art or music. This is tough because a split of allegiance happens between the artist and his or her favorite influence. The self awareness and honest evaluation is what is needed to go past the heavy and beloved influence of a master, but it is also what scares the artist; the prospect of leaving the masters zone of work is frightening because the student, or even older artist is not sure what will replace it. What will replace the derivative visual or musical posture is the artists own work.
The artist has to be prepared to fall if that body of work is horrible. Willingness to fall, or stumble a bit is not such a bad thing. It's an expression of bravery and faith that there is original and vital work on the other side of taking on a classical master. It's a difficult gate to get through and is compounded in difficulty by just how heavy a master one choses to first emulate. The save is that the really great masters we admire pushed through the same boundaries. They did it by acknowledging a love of the master artist they choose, but at the same time decided to love their own work as much. They gave themselves worthiness as artists on the merit that they put in the time to study a master maker or composer and found a way to hold onto the master, yet pass further into the future.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 3 2015 2:22:51
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to Brendan)
|
|
|
Brendan, thanks for posting the review of Leonard Meyer's, "Music, the Arts, and Ideas: Patterns and Predictions in Twentieth Century Culture," by Gilbert Chase, of the InterAmerican Institute for Musical Research. I found Chase's review of Meyer's work more interesting than Meyer's thesis itself. It seems to me that Meyer, like so many academics, is so wrapped up in his own thesis that he is blinded to any alternative vision of history, music, and the arts. As Chase points out, to accept Meyer's thesis, one must accept his underlying, basic premise: that the Idea of Progress is dead. This leads Meyer to his definition of "stasis," which I would describe as Motion without Movement.
The death of the Idea of Progress has been proclaimed several times, and each time, as Mark Twain declared when his own obituary appeared while still alive, it has been premature. During the century leading up to 1914 and the First World War, the Idea of Progress had taken hold in Europe, only to be declared dead after the carnage of the Great War. During the American Century" after the Second World War (really only 50 years) the Idea of Progress again took hold, particularly after the fall of Communism. The Political Scientist Francis Fukuyama, however, trumpeted "The End of History," as everyone would accept the liberal free market and democracy. Progress, according to Fukuyama, would have reached a Hegelian Ideal, and "stasis" would reign. A bit early to reach that conclusion. As in politics, so in music and the arts.
Chase quotes Meyer:
"A timeless world, or one in which the distinction among past, present, and future becomes obscured, is static. Quite properly, it is a world without goals, without progress. However actively it may fluctuate, it does not move toward anything. And this is perhaps the ultimate paradox: that the philosophy of the avant-garde precludes the possibility of there being an avant-garde. For if the world is static and directionless-a perpetual present-how can the forces of art move toward an objective? The very concept of an avant-garde implies goal-directed motion-the conquest of some new territory"
Chase then, quite properly, puts Meyer to bed:
"A brilliant paradox (every writer's dream)l One is tempted to applaud. There is the logical mind at work, establishing a premise and drawing from it the unexpected yet inevitable conclusion. But would not another premise, leading to different consequences, be just as valid? Must the notion of an avant-garde be tied to a teleological view of history? There are, I suspect, other alternatives."
Chase nails it. In order to accept Meyer's thesis, one must accept his premise. But one is not obligated to accept Meyer's premise. There is nothing to prevent one from establishing another, equally valid, premise leading to very different consequences than Meyer suggests.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 6 2015 23:24:11
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
Chase quotes Meyer:
"A timeless world, or one in which the distinction among past, present, and future becomes obscured, is static. Quite properly, it is a world without goals, without progress. However actively it may fluctuate, it does not move toward anything. And this is perhaps the ultimate paradox: that the philosophy of the avant-garde precludes the possibility of there being an avant-garde. For if the world is static and directionless-a perpetual present-how can the forces of art move toward an objective? The very concept of an avant-garde implies goal-directed motion-the conquest of some new territory"
Chase then, quite properly, puts Meyer to bed:
"A brilliant paradox (every writer's dream)l One is tempted to applaud. There is the logical mind at work, establishing a premise and drawing from it the unexpected yet inevitable conclusion. But would not another premise, leading to different consequences, be just as valid? Must the notion of an avant-garde be tied to a teleological view of history? There are, I suspect, other alternatives."
Chase nails it. In order to accept Meyer's thesis, one must accept his premise. But one is not obligated to accept Meyer's premise. There is nothing to prevent one from establishing another, equally valid, premise leading to very different consequences than Meyer suggests.
Bill
This is pretty much my observation and the point I've been supporting all along. Meyer creates an idea argument based on his own criteria, which is fine, except his vision/criteria is unreal.
In order to accept the "Stasis is the state" concept you have to reject any other historical reading.
First if memory serves me, around chapter 6, Meyer lays out a few other ways to look at progress in art and music and then categorically rejects them himself. He is setting the stage for an insular argument, this is again is ok, but not reflective of where the discourse is today, or in 1966.
One categorical rejection he made was that of an old, old model for looking at art progression. That is one idea that can be charted back deep in Dynastic Chinese Art history and is still a salient way of evaluation work and art /music movements.
Meyer rejects the idea that art movements gain traction when a school of artists or artisans begin working on a central style, then the style matures through several generations and reaches an apex, then it degrades and becomes decadent and is not practiced any longer in favor of a newer form. The classic example in Chinese art is Sung Dynasty land scape painting. It was an expansive form and lasted several generations of development, a few hundred years, until it tired out and became mannerist and too self referential ( this is what is meant by decadent)
Meyer wants to reject any pattern-mapping of history except that of his own making and the pattern - map he unfolds on the table does not fit the actual terrain. He points at landmarks and says, oh this is not important; this mountain of facts is very high, but we will ignore it.
Meyer, in this particular book, has immense blind spots. He creates his argument in a bubble. This is interesting and could be fun reading, but in the final analysis does not grant him the authority to be considered either current or a super duper good way to view music history. He's just not that relevant after he makes the categorical rejections of other ways to read history. He's not the only game in town.
_______________________________
Again and not discounting Brendan's tenacity for searching out answers, you have to look at context. The review was written in 1968:
Review Author(s): Gilbert Chase Review by:
Gilbert Chase Source: Notes,Second Series,
Vol. 25, No. 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 225-227
Published by: Music Library AssociationStable
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/893983Accessed: 06-09-2015 10:30 UTC
I read the review very carefully, the reviewer Gilbert Chase pretty much buries Meyer, but adds that last few sentences of positive endorsement as an academic courtesy. He pretty much has to say read the book, after all he did:
But I have not answered the most important question: Is it worth read- ing? The answer is a resounding "Yesl" The fact that Professor Meyer is not only a master of systematic thought but also of vigorous polemic is a guarantee that prac- tically no one with a serious interest in contemporary music and aesthetics will remain indifferent to this remarkable achievement.
In the meat of the review here is Chases's right hook to the jaw:
Meyer hastens to assure us that "stasis," as he uses the term, "is not an absence of novelty and change- a total quiescence-bult rather the absence of ordered sequential change"
Then Chase hangs Meyer up by giving evidence that Meyer is trapped in his own logic and that has obscured his judgment- The idea that ordered sequential change ever really existed is up for grabs, but Gilbert actually goes the other direction! Like Bobby Fisher slaying Boris Spasky; Chase brings in another writer who can argue toe to toe with Meyer that the avant garde is alive and well. This is debatable, but what it does is show how inflexible Meyer's vision is. Chase is effective at saying Meyer is fine, but you also have to read other books.
The last stroke is delivered though the voice of Milton Babbit. Chase points out that Meyer has one big axe to grind against Serialism. ( why I called Meyer an 'aesthetic nihilist' in the first place. ) Clearly Meyer hates Babbit's music with all his heart and mind claiming it to be to deterministic, scientific and to be of no cultural merit. This is nothing more than a deep personal bias, a true adjudicator of relative aesthetic values would look at this issue with much more dispassion than Meyer, who is basically in his high brow academic position and language throwing the equivalent of a child's sh*it* fit on Babbit and his music. Meyer is academically hysterical in this hatred for Serialism. This is I suspect what makes him so popular among others who discard certain art movements they also disrespect. If you are a Serialism hater, Meyer is your high priest. But here is why, as Chase points out that is dangerous, again in Milton Babbit's words:
Milton Babbitt's statement that if new, advanced music is not supported, "music will cease to evolve, and, in that very important sense, will cease to live," is alleged to have been made "in a mo- ment of mental aberration." And then he adds: "It is not entirely clear how long stasis must continue before a certificate of death is issued from Princeton or Darm- stadt."
Here Babbit is saying to Meyer and his bias: "Back off!" Babbit is protecting the right to pursue a difficult narrow avenue of art or music and that Meyer can't use his work to declare art is dead. I admire Babbit's sarcasm here.
To sum up the review, Gilbert Chase is warning the potential reader that Meyer has a deep bias against Serialism and this may be why he has formulated such an enclosed view of history around his argument, he wants to control the judgment on Serialism his own way rather than examine it as pure music and a course of artistic inquiry that should be supported. Meyer fears Serialism, I think, but what Babbit brings home is, where to you begin to draw the line? Where do you say what is valid and beneficial to the progress of music and where do you stop a movement in the middle of it's development?
To me Meyer seems to have a passive aggressive score to settle with Serialism and he goes out of his way to construct an argument that would exclude Serialism and any other movement that he or his reader deems invalid to cultural or pure art music progress. This is my sense of his attitude and I can't trust Meyer, (although his rigorous arguments are mental gymnastics to follow and could get you in shape).
See, I think any music has the right to exist as a line of artistic inquiry, even music I dislike. I dislike Regaeton music, I may even go so far as to say I hate it as much as Runner, Meyer and Ruphus together hate Serialism, but I think Regaeton should exist and be allowed to contribute in what ever unforeseeable way it can to the greater cause of music. Meyer is saying something else in a very Ivory Tower way, he's saying some lines of inquiry are not valid according to him. He is making up his own rules and he does not accept an imperfect musical world.
Last word, Gilbert saw through Meyers anti-Serialism bias in 1968, why are we still talking about it?
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 7 2015 0:37:31
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to runner)
|
|
|
Runner,
For some time now I have been on a U.S. State Department assignment at the American Embassy in the Pacific Island nation of Palau, where I will remain until I return to Washington, DC in early November. Palau does not have much of a library with literary resources, and I am sure there is not a copy of Meyer's book in the entire island-nation. I have, however, read excerpts of Meyer's work on the internet as a result of this discussion, Gilbert Chase's review, and your summary of Meyer's thesis, stated in an earlier post and quoted below.
Quote: Meyer notes that the history of the arts is marked by long periods of very little change-- periods of stasis. The art history of Ancient Egypt, much of Chinese history, Persia, many other examples, show that stasis typifies much the greater part of cultural history. This pattern was broken in the West with the advent of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the rise of science, the simultaneous weakening and multiplicity of religious doctrine, new philosophies, etc., such that for several centuries now, we think of successive movements in the arts-- let's say baroque, classicism, romanticism, modernism for example--as the normal paradigm; the New replacing the Old every 15 or 20 years. So stasis was replaced by change, growth, movement, "progress".
Meyer postulated, though, a return to stasis, but stasis of a completely different kind from the glacially slow reworking of a few themes that typified past cultures over centuries and even millennia. The new stasis is instead the cumulative result of a vast multiplicity of trends, movements, artists, styles, materials in constant creation and dissolution, but on a small scale and a short timeframe. The cultural signal-to-noise ratio drops to the point where no dominant artistic impulse can expand and mature enough to generate a viable tradition or school of large or lasting proportion. Here I quote:
".....change and variety are not incompatible with stasis. For stasis, as I intend the term, is not an absence of novelty and change-- a total quiescence--but rather the absence of ordered sequential change. Like molecules rushing about haphazardly in a Brownian movement, a culture bustling with activity and change may nevertheless be static. Indeed, insofar as an active, conscious search for new techniques, new forms and materials, and new modes of sensibility.....precludes the gradual accumulation of changes capable of producing a trend or a series of connected mutations, it tends to create a steady-state....." Unquote.
While it's always best to read a book in its entirety, I don't think it necessary in this case in order to reach an understanding of Meyer's thesis. I think I have a pretty good idea of Meyer's thesis from reading the aforementioned excerpts on the internet, your summary, and Gilbert chase's review. Your summary of Meyer tracks with Chase's in his review. My question to you is: How would my understanding of Meyer's thesis, and the premise upon which it is based, be changed by, as you put it, "swimming out into deeper waters," i.e., reading the book? What is it about Meyer's thesis and premise that was not captured by Chase in his review and you in your summary? And if Chase's review and your summary captured Meyer's thesis and premise, what makes his premise any more valid than alternative premises that could lead to very different consequences, as Chase suggested?
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 7 2015 1:04:47
|
|
runner
Posts: 357
Joined: Dec. 5 2008
From: New Jersey USA
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Bill, let's face the facts: if you have not read a book, your views and opinions about the book must necessarily be derivative--drawn from the views of others as expressed in reviews, discussions, etc. These reviews may or may not accurately reflect the book's premises; the reviewer may or may not properly understand the book. It's all second-hand. Chase does a good job of very briefly summarizing parts of Meyer's several theses, but of necessity, as a reviewer eager to be seen to have a keen mind and seen to have read and understood the book himself, and because he has himself perhaps a different view of some particular point, seizes upon some areas of disagreement and highlights them in his otherwise most favorable review. I happen to consider Chase's criticisms trivial, especially in light of his quite emphatic paean to the place of Meyer's book in the mental library of anybody interested, as he says, in contemporary music and aesthetics. Chase says: Read the Book!
Stephen, Serialism is dead. It is as dead as Milton Babbitt's mind. Babbitt continuously sulked about the fact that nobody liked total serialism, nobody would come to the tiny concerts of serial music, nobody ever gave any serious money to support it, and nobody ever would spend a dime to sit down and listen to total serialism. He moaned that people only wanted to hear his early tonal works, and never the serial stuff. So he urged that the small coterie of like-minded composers of such unloved music compose only for each other. Meyer says, though, charitably, that in the world of stasis, there will be a place for total serialism, for aleatoric music, for every kind of music, art, whatever-- it will all be a part of the constantly changing mosaic. You have read the book; it strikes me that you must admit-concede-affirm-agree that because this book has taken up so much time and space here on the Foro, people interested in the arguments here ought to read the book for themselves and find out what all the fuss is about. For others to go on endlessly about a book, yet not be willing to crack it open, is a mystery that surpasseth human understanding.
_____________________________
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 7 2015 3:30:11
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to runner)
|
|
|
Runner, you must have missed the part where I wrote that I had read excerpts of Meyer's book on the internet, and that I think that having read those excerpts, Chase's review, and your summary (which I quoted), I have a pretty good idea of Meyer's thesis and the underlying premise upon which it is based. But what is truly amazing is that you consider Chase's criticisms trivial. Chase's criticism (and Stephen's, and mine) completely upends the premise upon which Meyer's thesis is based! Meyer's thesis, based on his premise that proclaims (yet again!) the death of the Idea of Progress, is that we are condemned to stasis which, as I understand his use of the term, means (my words) Motion without Movement. That's fine, but as Stephen and I (and Chase) pointed out, Meyer must, of necessity, remain within his own self-ccontained universe in order to make it work. He cannot envision alternative premises that lead to different consequences than those he flogs (i.e., his own) without weakening his position. This, by the way, is nothing new in academia. It is a frequent occurrence.
Meyer seems to have adopted a Hegelian point of view. Although Hegel applied his idea of the dialectic to the end of history, i.e., a time when history has reached the "ideal" end (however that is defined) and can progress no further, and we reach a condition of "stasis" (that word again!), it could as easily be applied to music and the arts in the guise Meyer suggests. And as we have seen with proclamations of the "End of History," it would be equally an act of folly to do so. Even as Meyer forges ahead and does so!
You, however, have neatly evaded my questions put to you in my post above. I repeat them here. "What is it about Meyer's thesis and premise that was not captured by Chase in his review and you in your summary? And if Chase's review and your summary captured Meyer's thesis and premise, what makes his premise any more valid than alternative premises that could lead to very different consequences and conclusions, as Chase suggested?" Having read excerpts of Meyer's work on the internet out of necessity (in Palau), and finding Chase's review and your summary reasonable summations of excerpts of Meyer's work I have read, I await your response.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 7 2015 6:30:25
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
Chase ...:
"... There are, I suspect, other alternatives."
Just learned that in English it is legit to use the term "alternative" in plural, something incorrect in German, though vastly engaged this way by Germans who don´t know that "alternative" in its original meaning is supposed to be just one other choice and thus singular.
-
Seeing the musically roaring years from the sixties to early eighties, it would be paradox to call those most creative years ever a stasis.
However, with the crushing of the musical scene through rap "music" (, which had its start in 1978 through a couple of incapable guys who yet wanted to be creative by talking over sliced cassette tracks) commercially spreading since the eighties (and towing in its monotonous sibling techno "music") there indeed took place what I would clearly view as a stasis.
What followed were horrible decades of monotony, with only few musical introductions in the popular music. And it is just of yet that youth and commerce appear to be turning towards makings that are of musical characteristics.
Mainly heavy metal, followed by world music and meanwhile even by productions of just rock / blues rock.
Currently for instance by an Irish group of adolescents who revive what I´d call good ol´rock.
However, as I said, the musical field has been grazed so much, that you can hardly expect actual inventions (that be musical in the same time).
And in the field of classical music I am not aware of contemporary productions that would be coming close to the developing systematics and harmonies of old warhorses.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 7 2015 9:31:53
|
|
runner
Posts: 357
Joined: Dec. 5 2008
From: New Jersey USA
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
I've decided to halt here and re-evaluate the situation--to see whether it warrants my continued involvement. We have a 3-way discussion endlessly (it seems) going on amongst A) someone who has read the book, and found much rich and persuasive argument within it such that he has recommended it to others; B) someone who also has read the book, but who, as his past record shows, chooses to discuss works of this sort as would a Fundamentalist--that is to say in terms of bombast, hyperbole, and denunciation. And, lastly, C) someone who has allegedly read smatterings of the book, and, we know, one review, but who feels fully qualified in his own mind therefore to discuss it ad nauseum.
This unhappy situation has deteriorated to the base level that so many message board "conversations" descend to, and it is time for me to move on. I read books, not reviews of books, and I have already spent too much time sparring over what are, essentially, reviews of a book. I doubt very much from Bill's remarks that he has the intellectual curiosity to read further in Meyer; if he did so read, he might find much to engage him. On Bill's recommendation, I read Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses with great appreciation, and found within its pages discussing the phenomenon of the Mass Man much corroboration of Meyer's thesis of ongoing stasis--who knows what else may be found there?
The nature of speculative books on non-experimental topics is that the author looks around him or her, and based upon the author's existing knowledge and abilities--and hunches often--propounds a thesis to unify and explain what is seen, drawing upon a mass of facts, studies, observations, etc. Such books do not hang by a single thread of argument that can be severed by a reviewer in a brief paragraph or two--the arguments are built up, as in Meyer's case, layer upon layer. Since Bill has not read Meyer-- he has read a bit of Meyer only-- he has seized with two hands upon a minor point in Chase's review as the linchpin of Meyer's argument that, when pulled out, will cause the entire edifice to crumble into dust. Not gonna happen, Bill. I hereby abandon this topic, assured that you are no wiser about the book now than when we began this conversation. By the way, when will you again discuss your own question as to whether the Classics are blocking the path of newer works?
_____________________________
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 7 2015 13:59:37
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to runner)
|
|
|
Runner, that you have written three paragraphs editorializing without once--not once!--either demonstrating that I am wrong in my assessment of Meyer's thesis (and, more importantly, the premise upon which it is based) or answering the questions I posed in two separate comments above, is testimony to the self-inflicted wound you must feel by your failure to offer a convincing argument persuading your Foro interlocutors that Meyer's work is holy writ. By my count, this is the third time in just this one thread that you have picked up your marbles and gone home (metaphorically speaking) in a snit. The first was a plea for Stephen to "ignore" your posts. The second was when you were called out on your inappropriate analogy linking Mao's "Hundred Flowers" speech to the increased diversity as a result of the internet, and the third is this most recent one.
You state that I seized upon a "minor point" in Chase's review of Meyer's work. A minor point? It is the foundation upon which Meyer builds his thesis! And as I wrote in my comment above, Chase puts Meyer to bed. To accept Meyer's thesis, and the premise upon which it depends, one must exclude all other possible premises. As Chase, Stephen, and I have recognized (but apparently you have not), in order to accept Meyer as holy writ, one must enter into his self-enclosed universe and, with him, buy into the proclamation that the Idea of Progress is dead and the End of History has arrived. It is one more "Big Idea" that has failed to materialize.
Finally, only the shallowest of readings would conclude that Ortega y Gasset's "The Revolt of the Masses" corroborates Meyer's thesis of ongoing stasis. Ortega y Gasset was commenting on the phenomenon of "Mass Man" and the lowering of cultural standards in general to the lowest common denominator. This phenomenon pointed out by Ortega y Gasset , while true in a general sense, has nothing to do with Meyer's thesis regarding "stasis." Ortega y Gasset was not proclaiming the End of Progress or the End of History. He left room for Progress and New Directions in culture, including music and the arts. That "Mass Man" would not appreciate it would not prevent those who would from indulging in such cultural progress. But then, that has always been the case. I suggest, Runner, that you re-read Ortega y Gasset unencumbered by the lens through which you view Meyer. It is folly to read suthors with the goal of finding support for one's favorite "Big Idea."
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 8 2015 0:00:50
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to runner)
|
|
|
quote:
Stephen, Serialism is dead. It is as dead as Milton Babbitt's mind. Babbitt continuously sulked about the fact that nobody liked total serialism, nobody would come to the tiny concerts of serial music, nobody ever gave any serious money to support it, and nobody ever would spend a dime to sit down and listen to total serialism. He moaned that people only wanted to hear his early tonal works, and never the serial stuff. So he urged that the small coterie of like-minded composers of such unloved music compose only for each other. Meyer says, though, charitably, that in the world of stasis, there will be a place for total serialism, for aleatoric music, for every kind of music, art, whatever-- it will all be a part of the constantly changing mosaic. You have read the book; it strikes me that you must admit-concede-affirm-agree that because this book has taken up so much time and space here on the Foro, people interested in the arguments here ought to read the book for themselves and find out what all the fuss is about. For others to go on endlessly about a book, yet not be willing to crack it open, is a mystery that surpasseth human understanding.
Serialism is part of music history, it's not dead. Many classical composers today think about serialism as a line if inquiry, they may or may not take parts of it in their own work, but it's not dead. Serialism played itself out, and it does not matter what Babbitt said or did not say. The fact is that Meyer has no right to make these absolute declarations about when history stops and starts. Or in fact he does have a right, but we all have a right to contest it.
What I'm trying to say all along is that Meyer may be smart, but he misses one big idea, that is not everyone is on same page in seeing which parts of history are important. He as much as admits this, but he's still clinging to it. His idea about 'stasis' is predicated on a specific way of looking at the past; His vision is predicated on seeing the markers of big musical events or schools of thought as the ultimate expression and the most important expression. If you don't see these historical markers the same way he does, the concept of 'stasis' as he uses it is not totally accurate.
Meyers idea are simply that, ideas. Nothing more. You seem to think that his work is some kind of rosetta stone of history, it one of many, dozens probably from Meyers era. You keep saying this book is important, but have you ever read the writings of Yvonne Rainer, Ad Reinhardt, Clement Greenberg, Donald Judd, Michael Hiezer, Robert Smithson, Allan Kaprow....to name a few?
There is a lot of writing that happened at the same time Meyer was writing, and we have not touched on any of it. Why is that? I've read a great deal of it, have you? I challenge you to take up any three of the dozen or so books I have recommended to you and we can go from there. Can you take your own advice and read a few more books?
( joke ahead warning)
babbitt babbitt babbitt the rabbit
babbitt babbitt babbitt the rabbit
the rabbit
babbitt babbitt babbitt
babbitt babbitt babbitt
babbitt babbitt babbitt the rabbit
There, serialism composition.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 8 2015 1:52:23
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.1091309 secs.
|
Printable Version
