Music - Art or Museum

Well I sympathize with you wanting to tear it all apart. That is what's been done to art and music over the last century. I've had many art history courses so I'm most familiar with that. Now I'm learning about music history for the last 20 years. They really do coincide and play off each other.

Time will tell if an artist or movement will last. The 1800s had a formality that had been established by several centuries of control (think royal tastes and the church), then the common man started to rise. Paintings went from recording the wealthy and morality plays of the gods to the ordinary scenes of peasants. The French school is a perfect example. Napoleon crowning himself by David, to say the ultimate iconoclast, Van Gogh painting the Potato Eaters. By the time of his death he was carving thick globs of paint in pure colors. NOBODY had ever painted so brutally before. Asian art was making an influence, flat forms of woodblock prints influenced the French and British.

Next up was that African art was sold on the streets all over Europe. German expressionism and Picasso were using these brutal forms to portray the feeling of being lost and mask like. Picasso had actually started his painting of the women (M. d'Avignon) with african masks 10 years before he revealed the painting because he knew he'd shatter the art world with it. He only showed it to his closest friends, they were shocked!!!!

Then WW 1 & 2 happened, almost complete destruction of European society. Composers were throwing away convention and coming up with new scales and sounds, listen to Varese, Boulez, Messiane. Abstract painting did the same, they held on to the figure and landscape tearing it apart, until Kandinsky, Pollack and NY school Abstract Expressionism took over. Who could paint a pretty scene or lovely flowers after those horrible experiences? Look at Francis Bacon''s figures after the war and what he did to them, they're nightmares, and LOVE them.

R&R is just the common man reasserting itself. It has gone no where near the technicality of "classical" in transition to the 21 century. But now the serial and atonal music is being seen as a divergence and tonal music is being written again. Similar to Cubism in 20th C, a huge influence, but it isn't the end all of art. Figurative art is back big time.

Two books to read, Robert Hughs' Shock of the New for art history, and Alex Ross' The Rest is Noise for music.

Well that's what I've gathered from 20 years of becoming an artist. I always tell people that observing is one thing, but digging in and trying to do it yourself gives you a whole different level of understanding. I can't imagine trying to learn an instrument or read music, I'll stick to painting, drawing and etching.

Destruction ain't pretty or easy to live with. You'll age and go thru changes and come back to pretty when you need a rest.

Maybe I should save this as the beginning of my doctoral thesis....

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
So what are your thoughts on where music is going? Classical seems sacrosanct from criticism on here in some quarters - but is it still art? Are all orchestra's not merely covers bands, no different to Bjorn Again, Think Floyd...trotting out other peoples music with variations. Is another take by Clapton on the songs of Robert Johnson art, or just keeping something alive in a synthetic way?

What I am about to say is meant as a serious comment.

Turning it around, For some time I have found myself wondering whether tribute bands - or at least some of them - might be the beginning of the 'classicalisation' of some modern pop/rock music, so that it lives into the future in a live performance form.

Perhaps not every case! Not perhaps the ones that just dress up in wigs and glad rags and try to do a passable(ish) impersonation, a step up from karaoke.

However, take for example something like the Australian Pink Floyd Show, which on their current UK tour are doing stadium shows. That's hardly a '70s glam night at the pub!

And when they play, they are not doing an impersonation, but being themselves, enjoyers of PF's music, playing PF's music (with Floyd-style light and computer projection shows, with a humorous Aussie twist!) And, in my opinion, especially at a larger venue, very good they are too.

In principle, how is this different from orchestras a generation after, say, Mozart playing Mozart's music? Mozart had his successors, the tradition was carried on and developed, but the continuous playing of his music to this day (and presumably tomorrow) celebrates his lasting contribution to music, and place in music.

James

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that going to see Anne Sophie Mutter belt out some old tunes on the violin is not a recipe for a lovely and rewarding evening or the Australian Pink Floyd show would not be great fun. I just don't think either is art, and if it is, it's so far from the cutting edge, it's smeared all over the handle.

I love listening to all genre's and I love old music, but I was questioning here if it was actually art.

well it really is a heady subject, I'll leave it up to the philosophers. One thing I have learned is "it's all been done before in varying degrees".

The transformation of all human activity is in some degree art. Defining ART is the tricky part. Why do we separate it?

Apologies I didn't want a high brow thread...just a discussion to balance the uninformed snobbery witnessed on other threads.

Not sure about the Sartre quote - I'm not asking is it music, I'm asking is it art (is it pushing the limits and breaking new ground). Very different question.

Can't it just be music?

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

So what are your thoughts on where music is going? Classical seems sacrosanct from criticism on here in some quarters - but is it still art? Are all orchestra's not merely covers bands, no different to Bjorn Again, Think Floyd...trotting out other peoples music with variations. Is another take by Clapton on the songs of Robert Johnson art, or just keeping something alive in a synthetic way?

I'm talking about music to inspire as art - not to listen to all the time, I still want some 'safe' stuff, even if I don't think it's 'art'. Surely art, needs to tear the place apart, forget the rules, forget about 'in tune', forget about 'grammar' forget about 'morals, forget about standard progressions'?

I want my music to destroy the structures it's supposed to be built on.

Your argument that those musical examples which you have listed do not constitute art hinges on your attribution of a particular intrinisc essence to art. In your opinion the defining characteristic of art is constituted by iconoclasm and irreverent progress.

Yet, neither do most definitions in use of the term 'art', nor most explicit definitions of the term, stipulate your essentialist attributes as being intrinsically necessary. Art can also be defined to constitute works of beauty and other special significance, ranging from the purely emotive to the intellectual. Thus, your question is not really about music, but rather about your attempt to argue that only those products of human creative which fulfil your particular essentialist attribution ought to be deemed as art. Accordingly, your definition of art, which is reminiscent of certain strands of poststructuralism, excludes all music which does not transcend the structural 'restraints' of tradition and status quo.

I deem the term art as not being conducive to your essentialist definition. Indeed, your definition would exclude a great many products of human creativity which, in accordance with explicit definitions and definitions in use, are firmyl established as works of art. The question of what constitutes 'art' has been debated for some time, indeed since antiquity. Duchamps' 'ready made' urinal was a more recent poignant contribution to this debate, which appears to echo your postulated essence.

I couldn't give a monkey's how other folk define art Juergen. The root of my question is what music is currently seeking to be overtly creative - this for me is what art is all about.

If certain genre's are unable to demonstrate this, it doesn't mean I see them as worthless, far far from it...I listen to a lot of old stuff, much of it rehashed. But, I'm interested in where creativity lies.

I think it's easy to pull the discussion away from this in the name of 'wider art' but imo, it's a not an intelligent thing to do, and rewards 'artists'/genres which play it safe at the expense of the truly creative and bold. Can't be a good thing.

I think it depends on your expections - what you expect from music. At times, I expect an awful lot and seek out artists that have been mentioned elsewhere, other times my expectations are lower and I will put on records I just enjoy (a current favorite is Crussel's clarinet quartets - nothing earth shattering or creative, but it sounds nice). It''s like life, some have higher expectations than others - a natural thing.

Does this mean that art is only what you define it to be?

Is art art only ever when it is 'new'?

At what point, therefore, does the piece that was new once, and therefore art, cease to be art - what is a piece of art's 'sell by date' at which it no longer qualifies as art?

Why is an Ancient Greek pot, for example - in a museum for its safety and so that people can access it - no longer art?

Why is a performance of Marriage of Figaro, or Swan Lake, or Dark Side of the Moon no longer art?

At what point did they cease to be so?

James

I did a poor job of wording the original post maybe JWM. I'm not trying to define what art is...the question is about art being a creative process and creation by definition requires new fresh 'stuff'.

So in answer to your examples if somebody makes a pot and tries to put something of themselves into it, to make it unique...then there is some degree of creation going on there. So even if it was made 1000's of years ago, it's still the product of being creative. Now, if somebody tries to copy these pots in the present day, but tweaks them ever so slightly, there's still some creativity there, but surely it's very limited.

The question is, are some genre's of music now lacking in creativity? I think they are, but if folk narrow themselves to one of these genre's, you can see why they go to extreme lengths to find and exagerate the small areas of creativity that do exist - or be dismissive of genre's they don't understand. It's human nature I guess to defend what you like - often against the evidence.

I posted the thread (and I've said I love classical music) because there appears to be an uniformed, vocal group on here that promote these genres, and dismiss others. I just think it's interesting to discuss the other perspectives...

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
The root of my question is what music is currently seeking to be overtly creative - this for me is what art is all about.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
I'm not trying to define what art is...the question is about art being a creative process and creation by definition requires new fresh 'stuff'.

Well, it may not be your intention to define art, but your posts continuously define art nevertheless.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
Classical seems sacrosanct from criticism on here in some quarters - but is it still art? Are all orchestra's not merely covers bands, no different to Bjorn Again, Think Floyd...trotting out other peoples music with variations.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

I posted the thread (and I've said I love classical music) because there appears to be an uniformed, vocal group on here that promote these genres, and dismiss others. I just think it's interesting to discuss the other perspectives...

Even in view of your restrictive definition of art, a performance of a piece of classical music would have to be considered art, for there takes place an inherently creative process when a conductor and an orchestra set out to re-interpret a classical work. This is far from "trotting out other peoples music with variations". Surely, one could argue that we are merely dealing with a variation of sorts in these cases as the underlying score remains the same, but I maintain that gifted conductors achieve more than mere pedestrian variation. The relentless training and immense skill needed to accomplish a good performance aside, the artistic merit of which cannot be dismissed, a great conductor will imbue a piece with his particular vision, thus creating something new, distinct, unique and inspired.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
So what are your thoughts on where music is going?

I'm talking about music to inspire as art -

As the palestinian kid said on CNN when questioned why he threw petrol bombs - 'the city looks so pretty when it burns' - absolutely my man, absolutely.

this makes absloutely no sense to me.

mat, to what extent do you think your damaged hearing influences your impressions of music?
i think it would impare your ability to hear harmony, and it would distort your perception of melody, unless the music were very, very LOUD. given that, your impressions of classical music are tainted, because in addition to what is being played, you are always hearing other sounds. if you can't hear mozart as played, without other tones always being present, then you simply can't hear mozart.

imagine if you went to a classical concert, and they set a pair of speakers up on stage, and played a constant a=440 throughout the entire concert. would that affect the performance?

so how can you make a judgement?

i used to do a lot of art photography, but had to stop because my eye sight is not what it used to be. same difference.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

mat, to what extent do you think your damaged hearing influences your impressions of music?
i think it would impare your ability to hear harmony, and it would distort your perception of melody, unless the music were very, very LOUD. given that, your impressions of classical music are tainted, because in addition to what is being played, you are always hearing other sounds. if you can't hear mozart as played, without other tones always being present, then you simply can't hear mozart.

i used to do a lot of art photography, but had to stop because my eye sight is not what it used to be. same difference.

It is a fact that once you get beyond 18 years of age you begin lose the ability to hear higher frequencies, and that the older you get the less you can discern. In effect, you can't hear now what you heard 10 years ago - so maybe you can't hear Mozart in quite the same way either.

Generally speaking poor eyesight can be corrected so the photographic analogy does not really work.

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

mat, to what extent do you think your damaged hearing influences your impressions of music?
i think it would impare your ability to hear harmony, and it would distort your perception of melody, unless the music were very, very LOUD. given that, your impressions of classical music are tainted, because in addition to what is being played, you are always hearing other sounds. if you can't hear mozart as played, without other tones always being present, then you simply can't hear mozart.

i used to do a lot of art photography, but had to stop because my eye sight is not what it used to be. same difference.

It is a fact that once you get beyond 18 years of age you begin lose the ability to hear higher frequencies, and that the older you get the less you can discern. In effect, you can't hear now what you heard 10 years ago - so maybe you can't hear Mozart in quite the same way either.

Generally speaking poor eyesight can be corrected so the photographic analogy does not really work.

1 - mark hears a constant tone, so it's not just loss of high frequency. the tone is always there.

2 - i can't focus a large photographic print in the darkroom anymore. if you do art photography, you have to make your own prints. i tried for about a year, but the results were unsatisfactory. so it goes.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
1 - mat hears a constant tone, so it's not just loss of high frequency. the tone is always there.

if mat always hears a tone that is 8kh or higher, that would not impair his ability to hear classical music the way it is intended, because the partials are so close together up there, it would not matter musically.

but if he hears a constant tone below 8kh, there would be a musical problem. it would alter the harmonic composition of everything he listens to. the lower the tone, the greater the problem. if the tone were at say 2000hz, that would be a real problem.

unless the music was really loud.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
this makes absloutely no sense to me.

Mike if you can't understand the absolute joy of music that actively seeks to toss aside the rule book, it does explain your focus on the classical genre and indeed your satisfaction with it.

As for my hearing? ...oh how very underhand, mocking the infirm. I think the integrity of your hearing explains why you can't understand other music Mike, unless you've been to a concert or nightclub and felt the glorious feeling of a power chord or beat physically take your breath away, you'll never fully understand much of the last centuries great art.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
this makes absloutely no sense to me.

Mike if you can't understand the absolute joy of music that actively seeks to toss aside the rule book, it does explain your focus on the classical genre and indeed your satisfaction with it.

As for my hearing? ...oh how very underhand, mocking the infirm. I think the integrity of your hearing explains why you can't understand other music Mike, unless you've been to a concert or nightclub and felt the glorious feeling of a power chord or beat physically take your breath away, you'll never fully understand much of the last centuries great art.

sorry mat, i wasn't mocking you. i actually have some concern for you. please forget my posts, i am absolutely full of shit.

once again, sorry - accept my apologies.

Matt,


One cannot live without the other, art of the past fuels the art of the present and applying any form of restrictive barriers to what constitutes art in music is to kill the art itself.

There are many interesting movements in music which do break down the conventions of what is deemed the norm be they Noise, Sludge Drone, Improv, Dubstep etc... but even if they are repeatedly re-interpreted in the future the essense that makes them art will always remain because even though you have a familiarity with the musical artists of the past does not mean that I have or the next generation has so these "hackneyed" pieces will always be new and fresh to ears that have not heard them before, therefore if they touch these new listeners emotionally, intellectually or viscerally they can still be seen as art. When they cease to be relevant to our culture they stop being art in my veiw.

There was a piece in the Wire that sums up my views that installing a "scortched earth" policy where every musical event should start at ground zero with the "that chords been dealt with" attitude is missing the point of why we enjoy music some of us like those chords and enjoy the new ways they are put to creating something familiar but strange at the same time, interpretation falls into this latter thought for me.

Also after thinking about it what James (JWM) says he could be right on the button for making the music of today the classics of tomorrow.



Dean..

Mike...no, not at all, I appreciate the joke, not in any way offended by it mate. I'm totally full of it, it's just nice discussing music with passionate folk.

Remember tho Mike, I do love classical. I was listening to some Kapsberger lute compositions recently, it amongst all the lovely stuff, there's a bit where the chord sequence is totally modern, it is so out of place and it's a great twist on the melody. Marvelous.

All I'm on about here, is those moments where folk take a huge punt and pursue something different - when it works it is truly magical. Trout Mask Replica is a good example, sure it follows some rules, but it breaks many - can't sing, out of tune, opaque at first - but stunning, truly stunning work. It's that magic I mean.

Whizzkid, I agree with your post, I think it is about balance. Great post.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Can't it just be music?

I agree!

I could not care less whether somone else calls a great performance of Beethove's Choral Symphony, done almost two centuries after it was written, "art" provided it moves my soul!

Another thread I would have nothing to do with might be "What is Art?" It is more likely to be about what is the wordy definition of what we call art than art itself. If is moves the soul - even my soul - that is good enough for me, and the descriptive word "art" has no place in my repertoire, except that it is used to describe a certain type of song from the classic world - as in "art song."

So why might I post here? Simply because, dear Matt, you seem to have an agenda that reinforces the view that recreated classical msuci is "not art," is a museum piece, is conformist, and [etc] ... safe, ... all the while claiming to be an enthusiast for the classics. Very strange.

I disagree with these sentiments and I will say so when I see what I consider very easily challenged statements about a style of music I care for and love with every fibre of my body and every facet of my soul ... A naive love of something truly great, which I will defend and attempt to share my enthusiasm for, as I have in countless threads in this section over more than five years ... Search under GFFJ and FRedrik fiske. You might be surprised how much shared enthusiasm for not just classical music you will find ...

ATB from George

George, I'm not sure that my 'easily challenged' statements have in any way been challenged - I'd be happy for them to be.

I've no agenda, simply questioning whether creativity on a real scale, exists in classical music. I'm not in any way a knocker of given genre's, my love of music generally is just as yours my friend, but it's a love of all music that moves me (I'm loyal to no genre). I greatly admire your love of music (I love people who love something)...but questioning things we love can be a very healthy habit.

Thanks for the discussion, enjoy your favourite disk with a glass of something for me. Night.

About conformity, in another thread.

In fact there was no reason for me to gloss what had already been said by another about the over-simplification you made concerning the "alleged conformity" of classical composers. No group of musicians was ever more probing or inventive, even over centuries ... They make the Sex Pistols' artistic work look like the comfortable effort of my favourite maiden aunt, at the piano, by comparison ...

ATB from George

PS: Please don't forget that classical music has always required players to breath life into it in performance - even when the composer was there to lead these performances. Even in the time documented by the gramophone there seems to be little evidence that the composer of a given piece would lead a performance that was uniquely finer that given by other performing musical artists. Fine but not the only essential rendering ...

Words there chosen with absolute care and intention ...

That's more like it George...but I actually didn't suggest classical composers lacked creativity (in fact I said, Cage etc were extremely creative). My point (and I have heard absolutely nothing to suggest it's not valid) is that in performing say - Bartok, you as a musician have a limited, but not non-existent (I fully accept) scope for creativity, in comparison with somebody who seeks to create some music of their own creation. Examples I gave clearly stated that the beauty of say the Sex Pistols and movements of that time, enabled creative people to do this, without the need for years of training and having to play in tune, hold the guitar a certain way etc etc. It fosters creativity as performers, where classical stifles it. I stand by that, not a simplification.

I'm sure your maiden aunt is lovely George, but history will remember the Sex Pistols.

She has been dead since the late 1970s, but she was lovely!

Used to spoil my broither and me! We did not see her nearly often enough!

As regards the artistry of recreative musicial artists. Of course there are rules, but these rules are challenged even within good style and taste.

Some people admire Glenn Gould!

The restriction is to play what is written, but that is less than half the story! A rendering of the printed notes does not guarantee and life enhancing [ie emotionally involving] performance! The art in performance is to bring life to the music without distorting the music to the point where it is no longer obviously a presentation of the musical art and emotional message of the composer, but purely a performance that brings the listener to more of an understanding of the performer's [or performers'] intentions than the composer's.

Some of the greatest performing artists, people like Clara Haskil for one great example, would give such an apparently simple rendition of the printed notes that the auditor, the reviewer perhaps, even other musicians would be unable to explain what artistry had been brought to the performance!

The greatest complement one can give to a great and emotionally involving performance of music from the classics is that it was all the while seemingly "artless" in its means, while being completely captivation in its consequence!

ATB from George