estebanana -> RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemporary, Creative Works of Music? Literature? Art? (Sep. 7 2015 0:37:31)
|
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?
|
|
|
|