We've had favourites threads, what about the hates?

[Dorsetmike]

For me quite a few, (maybe it's just my age)

Modern composers who can only write dull, tuneless, repetitive work, barely suitable for background noise in an elevator, like Einaudi, Glass and a few others, for Gorecki delete repetitive maybe but add discordant & atonal, as soon as I hear a radio presenter mention the Symphony of sorrowful songs I hit the off button or change channel; Arvo Paart an be added to the list as well. (Note I have not mentioned music as I don't consider it such)

As a matter of interest has anybody else apart from Einaudi recorded any of his works, I don't recall having heard one announced before I switch off.

Other instant switch offs include Cecilia Bartolli and similar divas that overdo the vibrato, Pavarotti and co, the 3 tenors, again over the top, give me Jussi Bjorling anyday. (and for a female vocalist Cleo Laine tops my list, although outside the classical genre)

I have similar feelings about modern art too, in fact I think probably there is a connection between the artist who randomly spatters paint on the canvas and Gorecki spattering notes on a score. In both cases I suspect a con job by somebody in media with a warped sense of humour conning those who think they have to support the "in thing" into buying the record/print etc so as to be seen as "with it".

I don't find it confined to the classical arts, jazz has also suffered, architecture has gone crazy, you can probably all think of other examples.

Am I alone in these feelings or just a grumpy old fart?

 

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Mike,

Yes, I agree. Don't know if you've read it already but I recommend -

'When the Music Stops - Managers, Maestros and the Corporate Murder of Classical Music' by Norman Lebrecht.

An expose of the music industry.

(I'd like to make a thread on this remarkable book. Much of it is along the lines of your own post. So, no, what you are saying is agreed by many, many people).

Regards

Robert

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...when+the+music+stops&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=uk

 

[Art Rock]

For me quite a few, (maybe it's just my age)

Modern composers who can only write dull, tuneless, repetitive work, barely suitable for background noise in an elevator, like Einaudi, Glass and a few others, for Gorecki delete repetitive maybe but add discordant & atonal, as soon as I hear a radio presenter mention the Symphony of sorrowful songs I hit the off button or change channel; Arvo Paart an be added to the list as well. (Note I have not mentioned music as I don't consider it such)

As a matter of interest has anybody else apart from Einaudi recorded any of his works, I don't recall having heard one announced before I switch off.

Other instant switch offs include Cecilia Bartolli and similar divas that overdo the vibrato, Pavarotti and co, the 3 tenors, again over the top, give me Jussi Bjorling anyday. (and for a female vocalist Cleo Laine tops my list, although outside the classical genre)

I have similar feelings about modern art too, in fact I think probably there is a connection between the artist who randomly spatters paint on the canvas and Gorecki spattering notes on a score. In both cases I suspect a con job by somebody in media with a warped sense of humour conning those who think they have to support the "in thing" into buying the record/print etc so as to be seen as "with it".

I don't find it confined to the classical arts, jazz has also suffered, architecture has gone crazy, you can probably all think of other examples.

Am I alone in these feelings or just a grumpy old fart?

The latter.

Seriously, there is a lot of excellent modern classical music, including some of the composers you hate. The same holds for modern art. It's all a matter of taste.

 

[dll927]

There's an obituary in this week's TIME magazine about the death of painter Andrew Wyeth. Among other things, it makes the point that he was a "problem" in art because he insisted on painting reality. Among the avant-garde types, his popularity was an even worse "problem".

It seems the entire world of the arts got taken over somewhere along the line by those who want to push the boundaries or eliminate them entirely.

I too despise atonal NOISE, which term I use because I refuse to call it music. It has been said that the olde-time, if that's a proper term, composers are popular because people can still understand their music.

I've never been much of an opera fan, so I"ll leave that to those who are.

 

[Art Rock]

The problem with art nowadays is that it is mainly conceptual art. I have christened those practicing this con-artists.
http://artrock2006.blogspot.com/2009/01/conceptual-art-con-artists-at-work.html

 

[Art Rock]

Just curious for those who state that they do not like modern music and modern art - where do you draw the line? What is the latest you still find acceptable (avoiding anachronisms like Wyeth who jumps back several centuries in style).

 

[Dorsetmike]

The latter.

Seriously, there is a lot of excellent modern classical music, including some of the composers you hate. The same holds for modern art. It's all a matter of taste.

I did not say there was no good modern music, it's just that most of what gets pushed at us by the media is crap and as dll says people trying to push the boundaries; to my mind the boundaries are fairly well established between what constitutes music and what is noise so why try to push them beyond what the majority find acceptable.

 

[Art Rock]

Again your mileage may vary. Personally I like Part, and I find Gorecki's third one of the 10 best symphonies of all time (of course, you will not find that out if you hit the off button or change channel as soon as you hear a radio presenter mention the Symphony of sorrowful songs).

 

[dll927]

I'd be interested in knowing why Wyeth was an anachronism. I forget the name, but there was one jerk who spread a canvas on the floor, then proceeded to splatter paint on it. There were those who gobbled it up as art!! Problem is, even I can do that, and my artistic talent is close to non-existent.

 

[Art Rock]

And to avoid making you think that I am only listening to modern music, my favourite symphonies would also include the likes of Schubert 8, Saint Saens 3, Bruckner 9, and Mahler 4.

 

[Art Rock]

I'd be interested in knowing why Wyeth was an anachronism. I forget the name, but there was one jerk who spread a canvas on the floor, then proceeded to splatter paint on it. There were those who gobbled it up as art!! Problem is, even I can do that, and my artistic talent is close to non-existent.

Misconception, not uncommon though. Jackson Pollock (nicknamed Jack the Dripper). "Everyone" always fumes that he drips instead of using a brush or knife. It is the end result that counts. You may or may not like the end result (personal preference) but how he puts the paint on the canvas is neither here nor there.

Wyeth paints as if the last three centuries of art development had not happened. That's his choice, but that does make him an anachronism in my book by definition.

 

[Dorsetmike]

Just curious for those who state that they do not like modern music and modern art - where do you draw the line? What is the latest you still find acceptable (avoiding anachronisms like Wyeth who jumps back several centuries in style).

The line can not be drawn at any point in time as yet because there are still people working on both sides of the line, quite possibly there will still be well beyond our life times; I would say Stockhausen could possibly be considered the first to really try pushing the boundaries, but not all composers since then have followed. And why should Wyeth be considered an anachronism if his style was popular, even if it was not to the liking of those who like to imagine themselves to be the final arbiters of taste.

 

[Dorsetmike]

Again your mileage may vary. Personally I like Part, and I find Gorecki's third one of the 10 best symphonies of all time (of course, you will not find that out if you hit the off button or change channel as soon as you hear a radio presenter mention the Symphony of sorrowful songs).

I did suffer it a few times to see if I could find what made it so raved about, I failed to see anything at all to warrant subjecting myself to such a cacophony, hence my switching off reaction, I actually feel pain at parts of it.

 

[Art Rock]

I said it before and I'll say it again: it's all a matter of taste. And that is personal. What you love I may hate and vice versa, that's life.

 

[some guy]

The most obvious problem with "hates threads" is that you have many posts which betray only ignorance. You have a lot of blinkered opinions about music that posters do not know at all well, music that's been rejected out of hand, often before it's even been heard. And a few rebuttals that no one's going to pay any attention to, mostly because prejudices are irrational, i.e., not accessible by rational argument.

Of course, you get much the same on "favorites threads." At least there the impetus is love, which is positive, and which implies knowledge and an active and ongoing relationship. The hate threads imply prejudice and rejection, as we've already amply seen, even in this fairly short thread.

That would be my answer to the OPs subject line question, anyway.

 

[Robert Newman]

Music, like art of every kind, is perceived differently by what we can see are two different and irreconcilable schools of thinking - i.e. those who believe there IS great music and those who believe musical greatness is only a matter of subjective, personal opinion. (I personally ally myself with the first of these two). The notion, for example, that all pianists are as talented as all other pianists would be, to me, as ridiculous as to suggest the music of all composers is of equal artistic value.

Great music must be, of course, first consistent with itself. And second, of course, it must belong to its time and somehow be able to survive, even to transcend it.

Regards

 

[Art Rock]

I don't think you can maintain that there IS great music, independent of subjective personal opinion. Unless you accept for yourself that a piece is great music even though you don't particuarly like it - which I would find hard to do. Obviously I am in the second school.

 

[some guy]

Music, like art of every kind, is perceived differently by what we can see are two different and irreconcilable schools of thinking - i.e. those who believe there IS great music and those who believe musical greatness is only a matter of subjective, personal opinion.

(emphasis mine)

Only?

Before we go too much farther with this, perhaps we should ask, and maybe even try to answer, the question begged here: Are there indeed two different and irreconcilable schools of thinking about the arts? I think one could make out a good case for there being three ways of thinking about objects of perception: that the objects have qualities in and of themselves, that reality inheres in the opinions of the perceivers, not in the objects, and that reality inheres in the relationship between the perceiver and the object. I don't think these are really "schools" as such, nor do I think that they are mutually exclusive. The third is perhaps the most plainly inclusive.

In any case, it sounds very nice to say that the objects have qualities in and of themselves and that that's all that's important about them, but one has to have done a spot of perceiving before one can say anything at all. (A piece of music that's unheard basically doesn't exist, at least not for the purpose of being talked about.)

(I personally ally myself with the first of these two). The notion, for example, that all pianists are as talented as all other pianists would be, to me, as ridiculous as to suggest the music of all composers is of equal artistic value.

Not sure that anyone has been claiming that all pianists are equally talented, nor that all music is equally valuable. (I would claim even that not all music by any one composer is equally valuable.)

Great music must be, of course, first consistent with itself. And second, of course, it must belong to its time and somehow be able to survive, even to transcend it.

These proclamations may sound very weighty and all, but like all proclamations, they are really empty until supported by some facts, some reasoning, some definition. What, for instance, does "belong to its time" mean? In what way is the concept of survival germane to this discussion? (The words "of course" merely call our attention to the fact that there's no "of course" to it at all.)

Finally, I'd like to mention a point about language: that the word "great" is itself an expression of opinion. There may be facts that support that opinion--I would hope that there would be--but "great" is a word like "mess" in the sentence, my house is a mess. The facts of the matter are details about the dirty dishes in the sink, the clothes (some clean, some dirty) scattered about the floor, the dust and cobwebs, and so on and so forth. "Mess" is a conclusion based on all those facts, just as "great" is a conclusion based on..., well based on what? "Great," in short, is a value judgment and hence (gasp!) subjective.

 

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Art Rock,

You don't think there is great music independent of subjective personal opinion ?

Firstly, whether we like or don't like a piece of music is surely not the issue in determining whether it is truly great. We may like or dislike the taste of aspirin, or cod-liver oil, or the advice of those who correct us, though it may do us good. We may dislike the considered advice of experienced experts on any number of things. Reality is surely not determined by our likes or our own feelings. Again, a man may not feel good though he is fully recovered from a medical illness. So, once again, highly subjective opinions, prejudices and feelings are surely a poor guide to determining what is truly great.

I respect your view though I can't agree with it. There really are good tennis players, good pianists, etc. etc. In music surely it's the musical ear which determines what is truly musical and what is not. Those most competent in music tell us there really IS good music and bad.

There's lots of music which is hugely well liked. For a few weeks. But there is also music which stands the test of time and which musicians themselves agree is great music. Doesn't this fact indicate there really IS great music, whether we are able to define its greatness or not ?

Music, like mathematics, is not a matter of subjective opinion. It's a question of understanding (instinctively or by education) what music is and being able to appreciate how closely a piece is itself musical. For, if we accept that some people are musical while others are not we are also accepting that musical people know and write better music than those who know it not at all, or who know it only partly.

You ask what, music 'belonging to its time' means. I mean, simply, that great music in every age is first of all the product of the age in which it is written. And, secondly, that it transcends its age. You say you wish to see facts in support of this view. Certainly ! The entire body of classical music (and of much folk music) is surely proof of this.

You say that "great," in short, is a value judgment and is therefore subjective. No, not at all. Only in the mind of a person for whom there are no absolutes. For, the existence of absolutes is a precondition of all creative processes and of all sound judgement.

Regards

Robert

 

[Art Rock]

Surely if we are not able to define greatness in music, there cannot be an objective assessment on what music is great. You are just shifting the subjectivity to (just as much undefined) experts: "those most competent in music". I find myself in agreement with some guy: greatness is by definition subjective.