Music and Architecture

Are you suggesting that there should be rules in music? It's an interesting thought that a piece of music has to have justification for its existence. Maybe these are the reasons that some music "works" better than others, simply because they surround an element within that music with a soundscape to support the purpose.
I find that some music just has to be played on a sunny Saturday morning, or a hot sweltering summer afternoon, such as Royksopp's Melody AM, which just places me on a beach in Greece. Sometimes music needs a situation and sometimes music can create a virtual situation by itself.
Maybe some music indeed does, as you say, rely on the surrounding Architecture to be the backdrop to the music in order for it to work, and maybe that backdrop can be beyond merely Architecture and can be the seasons too, in an extreme case.
To be able, consciously or sub-consciously, to build that into a piece of music is an extraordinary gift.
Maybe also, to find a piece of music to be ugly, is to find it out of context. Maybe it just might be that that particular piece has no relation within your life experience?

**

It is certainly the case that a movement in the arts spans many disciplines, so the connection between Corbusier and the music of the twentieth century is very valid.

Artists, composers, architects were all applying the ideas of modernism to their own form of the arts.

I would not say that the ideas of modernism represent a degeneration in ideas, but an exploration of how developments in technology, changes in ways of living, could be reflected through the arts.

In any period, there are such movements, take the baroque period similarities can be seen between very clearly between the different arts.

As to if something is ugly, that is personal subjectvity.

Sometimes I have found that if something makes you initially react strongly against it, it has made some emotional resonance with you, and it might be a taste that can be acquired with time. Not always, some things you just plain do not like.

Personally in painting and the visual arts I find the modernist period the most rewarding, but getting to like painters like Malevich was something that required an effort to understand what he, and his contemporaries were tyring to express.

George,
You are absolutely right in my opinion. The beginning of the twentieth century seems to herald the beginning of disorder in music, which seems to me an oxymoron. Hence, such works as John Cage's 4'33". Malcolm Arnold has a silent movement in his "Carnival of Animals" but that is actually intended as a joke.
The other day, my youngest daughter sent me a link to a video clip of Ligeti's "Poeme symphonique pour 100 metronomes", together with some amazing demonstrations of out-of-phase metronomes falling into phase.

http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2008/05/very-pleasing-vi...five-metronomes.html

If this is music, then my name is not KenM.

Organisation or rules have always been in music. Church music was regulated to chants in a formulaic way. Musicians who introduced harmonics discords etc were initially fought by the church.
Many forms of church seem to be more right in huge cathedral type spaces the architecture seeming to be part of the music.

quote:

Originally posted by KenM:
George,
... The beginning of the twentieth century seems to herald the beginning of disorder in music, which seems to me an oxymoron.

http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2008/05/very-pleasing-vi...five-metronomes.html

If this is music, then my name is not KenM.

Dear Ken,

If music has a purpose, and I believe it does - a vital importance in manycases for people - then disorder is actually as you suggest!

George

George,
I mostly agree with your assertion that great music and architecture share in a symbiotic relationship but I would extend the relationship to say that music and the culture in general feed off of each other. As was mentioned above, the church had a great deal to do with the music produced and the architecture that existed many centuries ago. For example, after each cantata or score that Bach wrote he signed the letters, SDG ("Soli deo gloria" or "to the Glory of God alone.") This to me seems to be the difference. To show your devotion and desire to serve the Creator, I believe this is the incentive to strive for the highest ideals and you wouldn't think of being satisfied with mediocre or less. In other words, it just means that you care enough about something that you dare not sluff off. Hence, designers of buildings and musicians tended to want to show God's greatness through these means. In my opinion, it is around the late 1930's that this ideal was finally snuffed out (in the western world at least). And it is evident today even more so that one cannot or should not care strongly about anything. Culturally speaking, no one has vision or drive for these things anymore. I often wonder why it is that today, in the 21st century where we have so much of everything but we are actually incapable of producing/creating anything of long lasting value or merit. In my view, all the pinnacles in music, art, literature, science etc. were achieved from the Renaissance period to the late 1930's. And most of this period blossomed despite no electricity, indoor plumbing, planes, automobiles, phones, or iPods . So what is our excuse?

quote:

I have always thought that the length of a piece of music should be justified by its content.

George, I'm not really sure I totally understand your meaning here. Are you saying that the shorter a piece is the less complex its ideas will be (or should be). In other words, a shorter work will likely have less to say that is meaningful.

quote:

Another factor is to what extent the surface elements of music should be polite. Is an ugly sound justified in music?

Again, I'd be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this. By "ugly" are you referring to the difference between tonal and atonal music where atonal implies ugly? Or are you speaking of the sounds that a harmonic chord or progression produces? For instance, on the surface, the sound world of Debussy, Ravel, Shostakovich, or Prokofiev are more complex and seemingly far removed from that of Haydn or Bach but on a closer look you find that interesting music always has aspects of tension and relief/resolution (ugliness and beauty you could say). When you play a Bach keyboard work you find some pretty strange things going on sometimes within the counterpoint. For instance, I don't think a major or minor 2nd is particularly beautiful but it is the ugliness which is eventually resolved into something safe that is very interesting to the ear. Bach used this many times and to great effect.

Regards,
Doug

Dear Doug,

I entirely agree with your first paragraph.

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:

quote:

I have always thought that the length of a piece of music should be justified by its content.

George, I'm not really sure I totally understand your meaning here. Are you saying that the shorter a piece is the less complex its ideas will be (or should be)? In other words, a shorter work will likely have less to say that is meaningful.

I think that there is usually an inevitable link between the length of a piece of music and its possible significance, though sometimes the very short piece will have a significance that is entirely greater than might be thought possible. Schubert's songs often manage this. Two or three minutes of music, which in some cases say more and have more significance than an entire Act in a Wagner Opera!

What I am driving at is something slightly different though. If you consider the joy and life-enhancing element in a Haydn Symphony, it seems to me to be massive, and just as a massive as say any Bruckner Symphony. I find the Haydn preferable even if the significance of the works may be seen as similar, because the Haydn is so much more compressed. It requires only a quarter of my time and life to listen to a Haydn Symphony as compared to a Bruckner one. I would prefer a twenty-minute Haydn performance of a most profound nature and then an hour of silence to eighty minutes of a Bruckner Symphony. It seems to me that Haydn was giving every bit as much as Bruckner, but demand less of my remaining life. In this way the attitude of Haydn seems to me about giving the chance of a great musical experience, but doing so in a way that is less self-centred than Bruckner who demands that you listen for so much longer, without any greater emotional uplift.

So where does that leave a very long work like the Choral Symphony of Beethoven? In that case the octane level seems every bit as high as Haydn and genuinely sustained for much longer. Thus for me a Haydn Symphony is even more significant than a Bruckner one, but the Choral is more significant than either, in spite of the challenge of its length and demand on the listener's time.

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:

quote:

Another factor is to what extent the surface elements of music should be polite. Is an ugly sound justified in music?

Again, I'd be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this. By "ugly" are you referring to the difference between tonal and atonal music where atonal implies ugly? Or are you speaking of the sounds that a harmonic chord or progression produces? For instance, on the surface, the sound world of Debussy, Ravel, Schostakowich, or Prokofiev are more complex and seemingly far removed from that of Haydn or Bach but on a closer look you find that interesting music always has aspects of tension and relief/resolution (ugliness and beauty you could say). When you play a Bach keyboard work you find some pretty strange things going on sometimes within the counterpoint. For instance, I don't think a major or minor 2nd is particularly beautiful but it is the ugliness, which is eventually resolved into something safe that is very interesting to the ear. Bach used this many times and to great effect.

Regards,
Doug

Bach used discord to huge effect, because he resolves them! Unresolved discord is what I mean by ugly. Also it is possible to see certain styles of orchestration as being ugly as sound, and again this can be used as a useful highlight in the tension and release of music, if it is contextualised, rather than simply used with abandon.

For me the way music works is a question of starting from [possible] emotional uncertainty, which allows tension to be explored, and its resolution, which allows for a satisfactory emotional uplift to be achieved through the release that occurs with resolution. In tonal music this is structurally made clear with the return to the home key and cadence to the tonic, albeit that many listeners are not aware of the musical craft involved..

In this way music is profoundly different to what can be achieved in literature! But music's emotional uplift is often of an altogether more elemental level in the human psych than can be achieved through words. In some ways music seems simpler [possibly more primitive in its appeal to the human response to order and disorder], but it is capable of much more power in a positive sense. I think that music that attempts the chaotic and unresolved often seems merely unsatisfying. Irony is not possible in music. It can be attempted, and may be understood with the assistance of a written explanation. In this sort of case, I do not consider the result as pure music, but merely an adjunct of the written explanation! A sort of musical polemic. Viz, Schostakowich Symphonies.

The most satisfying music resolves and consoles. That is why it is so often turned to in times of difficulty.

George

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
I often wonder why it is that today, in the 21st century where we have so much of everything but we are actually incapable of producing/creating anything of long lasting value or merit.

Well, we won't know if something is of any lasting value until a sufficient amount of time passes, will we ?

I'm afraid some of this 'modern' music bashing reminds me a little of undergraduate philistinism. Or maybe the nazi's had a point about 'decadent' art. For me, I will choose to believe that music evolved greatly in the last century but that we didn't evolve with it.

Concerning the vital link between music and the Church, I would agree with Stravinsky: "all music comes from God. "


Noyes

Noye's just made the main point I had in mind - it's simply too early to say what art of the 20th Century will have lasting value.

However, I'm willing to bet that jazz will feature prominently in a future history of 20th Century music. Surely only an overly narrow view of what counts as "serious" music could discount the already obvious huge achievements of Ellington, Miles, Monk, etc. I've recently discovered the work of Andrew Hill, one of Blue Note's relatively undersung artists, but one whom I expect will be seen as increasingly important in the development of jazz. His music bursts with passionate intelligence, and humanity, and maintains a great balance between form and freedom. Again, hartd to believe this music will not be listened to in a hundred years' time.

In my view, the 20th Century was full of astonishing music - even *if* (for the sake of argument) classical "art" music lost the plot.

Nigel

I would agreee that only seven years into the twenty first century, we might have some difficulty working out what will be regarded as our contemprary musical master works in a future historical perspective, but we can still have an opinion on what is currently good without being Nazis!

I am not sure the Nazis, themselves, actually worked out what was good [according to them] musically even in their time. Even Bach was edited, but Bizet's Carmen was incredibly popular as it stood! The music of Hindemith was censored!

There are huge periods in history where no music really still speaks to us from. The begining of modern music may well still be regarded as that of Bach, even though we see still that there was much music before that. The earlier music remains, except in very rare cases, a sort of appendix.

George

quote:

There are huge periods in history where no music really still speaks to us from.

Hello George

An interesting thought, this. I hold the (unfashionable) view that aesthetic judgements (e.g. about he value of a piece of music) are not purely subjective expressions of personal taste. So, to me, the fact that music no longer speaks to us does not necessarily mean that it cannot be great music - we just, as it were, happen to have lost touch with it due to random historical shifts in taste. I guess the question is: culd we listen to some of the music you refer to, and recognise it as great music, without feeling a sense of personal connection?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on jazz - surely if any music is a candidate to fill the alleged vacuum left by contemporary classical music, this is it? Random example: the great american songbooks (Gershwin, Porter, etc.) appear to be standing the test of time - will they be seen as the 20th Century lieder, in the long run?

Regards
Nigel

WOW George, what a topic, I don't have time to read it all but will get back to you. I do love old things and structure and great technique. but I also have an adventuresome spirit which leads me to explore all sorts of other things and has opened up my mind.

One "abstract' piece I heard was just twiterings and I disliked it. Some time later it was a hot afternoon outside in a natural setting, then the heat broke and the woods came alive with sounds of insects, birds and such. It became the most beautiful experience. I would not have really perceived that had I not known about some contemporary music like John Cage.

More later.

George,
Thanks to your replies above. It makes sense to me and I certainly cannot disagree with any of your points and excellent explanation.

Noyes & Nigel,
First I'd like to clarify some statements that were made in the context of the Music and Architecture framework. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the 20th century and the 21st century and so on will be noted for certain styles of music and this is usually determined by popularity etc. The future will hold onto the names of the Jazz greats, some of which you named, and the likes of Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc. because they essentially ruled the industry during their time and it's all well documented. I have no problem with this and I accept the fact that this is the way it was and is going. I grew up in the late 60's and 70's and of all the music from the 20th century after WWII I naturally gravitate towards this period because as a teenager it made an impression on me.

However, and more to the point, I maintain that music and architecture/culture reflect each other. I'd also like to add that an extended corollary can be made to show this applies as well to even the way we dress today compared to the past. And the fact that I prefer "Western Art Music" created largely before the 20th century has no bearing on the argument. I do listen to and enjoy a broad range of music. Furthermore, I am not trying to diminish the efforts and product of the mid-20th century forwards. It is what it is and I am simply stating an observation.

I would argue that for later 20th century music (Jazz, Folk, Rock, C & W, etc) or for classical music it makes the most sense in the venue that it was created for or under originally. This is because the culture of the time dictates what is appropriate and the stylistic ideals. Not to say that you can't listen to any music anywhere...so bear with me. A large chunk of the music of Bach was written with a church setting in mind and frankly, really makes the most sense in a beautiful cathedral and not a smoke filled, dark jazz club, for instance, where Miles Davis works a treat. The music of Bach is quite complicated and would have taken a huge effort to create and no surprise, it also takes a huge effort to learn it and perform it and understand it and to boot it would have taken decades to build the cathedrals and to finance the cost etc. where it was mostly played. A Country and Western artist, on the other hand, typically prefers to wear a cowboy hat, jeans, and cowboy boots and needs a 6 string guitar, 3 chords, and a few simple ideas plus a hay bale to sit on in the back 40 for good measure. (Again, I'm not making a comment on the music and which is better - just setting the context). Bach doesn't really fit in at the county fair and Johnny Cash is best heard far away from the inside of an opulent building. And no matter which camp you are sitting in I don't believe anyone could ever successfully argue that the past 70 years or so has produced anything of the stature of what the likes of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, to name only a few, produced and accomplished.

Music has become much simpler because musicians generally do not want to expend the energy it takes to create something complicated. The listener doesn't want complex either where they are left searching for hidden treasures either - popular music gives you under 3 minutes to eat only the icing or sugary coating. It follows then that society doesn't want to create beautiful architecture anymore because of the time, effort, and money that is required to get it off the ground. We prefer to bulldoze the MacDonald's, Walmart's and other nondescript box stores down every 25 years and put up another new box (and play nondescript music while shoppers wile away the time). We also don't dress very well because it also takes time, effort, and money to do so and so on.

Noye, I am not sure I totally agree with the Stravinsky quote "all music comes from God.". Personally, I would say that while God created man and gave him the ability to create music and enjoy it, it is really up to the individual to choose what the outcome is (refer to comments made above about Bach and his reason for writing music). Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc (as well as the painters, writers etc. of the time) chose to buck the establishment and the rules and logic that go hand in hand with great architecture/music etc. And we see the results around us everyday in our advanced, modern society.

Regards,
Doug

Dear Friends!

Such beautiful answers! I have been out on a Polish party, and know that I could answer better tomorrow, even if I enjoy the reading tonight!

Most kind wishes, George

I was at a concert at Disney Hall this year and the woman in her 40s who sits next to me brought a female friend not her husband. We chatted a bit, at half time when I usually go outside I talked with them and found her friend plays piano. Lots of questions about how scores are written and read etc. She was really engaging.

The first short piece was lovely early 20th C, Something like Debussy. The second was terse and obviously 2nd Viennese school. At the break I made the comment I was glad to hear it but wouldn't buy it or want to hear it again. And She said "Some things are made to make you feel uncomfortable".

That was a Duh! moment. I've seen art that was like that, I've seen buildings And gardens like that.

The last piece was the whole Daphnis and Cloe by Ravel. Just incredible and I'm so glad I heard that little terse piece between them.

I have a recording of Schubert's Trout Quintet, beautifully played, but the first Quartet is by Ades and only 12 minutes. I can't stand it. I've heard Ades 6-8 times in concerts and don't like his sound. I skip over it to hear the Quintet.

I hear lots of contemporary pieces that are second rate, but when they get it right it's just incredible. My concert friend has a phrase he uses sparingly but calls it "sophist twaddle" when it sounds harsh and never comes to a good point. It's sound/music that is philosophically derived by incompetents that can't put a good idea/melody across.

I just laugh at that phrase.

quote:

And no matter which camp you are sitting in I don't believe anyone could ever successfully argue that the past 70 years or so has produced anything of the stature of what the likes of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, to name only a few, produced and accomplished.

Hi Doug

Reading your last post, and nodding my head a great deal, I think we may have two main points of disagreement. Firstly:

quote:

And no matter which camp you are sitting in I don't believe anyone could ever successfully argue that the past 70 years or so has produced anything of the stature of what the likes of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, to name only a few, produced and accomplished.

Maybe, but this is hardly a fair contest. We are simply too close to the present to reach the kind of informed, concensus that has emerged about the last few hundred years. I've already indicated that I believe some jazz musicians/composers will make the cut, but if you're looking for Western Art Music nominees, I suspect that Ligeti may have legs, as his music is challenging and inventive, without being painful to the (my!) ears. Of course you may disagree, but that is exactly my point - too early for any genuine concensus. It's also worth pointing out that Bach was not revered as the great composer he is today by his contemporaries - he was more reknowned as an organ virtuoso. Likewise, I'm sure that critics reacted in horror to some of Beethoven's work when it was first performed. In general, the reputations we take for granted today, have taken time to build and solidify.

Putting the argument positively, I am simply making the reasonable generalisation that there *is* music of lasting value being made in our age - since this has been the case in all previous ages within the last few hundred years - but that it will take time fopr the identity of this music to be known. You (and George?) seem to hold that there is something uniquely blighted about the present day, but I find this implausible, in light of empirical evidence about the music of previous ages.

The second disagreement is about where we place jazz on the spectrum of complexity between three minute pop, and Western Art Music (taking, for the sake of argument, the existence of this spectrum as given). Although jazz has it's origins in the humble twelve bar blues and ragtime, it's come a long way since those days, and my mind is often boggled by the complexity and intricacy of the jazz I hear. Therfore I would put a lot of jazz much closer to - maybe even on a par with - Western Art Music than you appear to (you mention it along with Country music, etc, and then go on only to discuss the latter, as if the case of jazz were adequately covered in doing so). This is important to me, as I tend to relate the value of music to its complexity and longevity. Good music tends to be complex, substantial - it has a "chewy" quality that can sustain one for longer than a pop tune. Yes, we sometimes fancy a Mars Bar rather than a nutritious meal, but we wouldn't want to make confectionery the basis of our diet.

That's quite enough rumination for a Sunday Morning. Over toy you!

Regards
Nigel

Hi Nigel,
I do understand your points but I can see that we really are coming at this topic from two different angles. And that's OK too! Perhaps others can also add some some additional viewpoints to the mix. I don't believe there is any right and wrong ideas here but we're just giving our own humble opinions and observations as we each see it.

Firstly, I'm not so sure that you can assuredly draw such a link that what occurred in the past will continue on in the same way. I tried to make it clear that our present day history will surely be made known and preserved for the future so we do agree on this. But what I am trying to say though is that each period in history can be viewed like a snapshot to assess many of its fundamental characteristics. One way one might do this is to compare the architecture, music, sculpture, painting, science etc. of each period to draw some conclusions about what the culture was about and what period of history maybe excelled more so than at other times. In order to view this logically (and not cloud the argument with emotional views) maybe we should remove the music aspect for just a brief moment. Look only at architecture for the past 70 years - remove every building that was built prior to say 1940. What does your view look like? Now do the same for say the Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Neoclassic, Romantic etc. What did each period add that wasn't there before? For Europeans this may be difficult because you get to enjoy the many buildings that were part of your legacy. In North America their are a few older cities that have some worthwhile history that is preserved but just imagine if every building prior to 1940 was removed. This covers the period that most here on this forum have knowledge about and have experienced first hand. Most "boxes" built in North America are torn down in 40 or 50 years because it is viewed as cheaper to rebuild than to renovate. This is the snapshot that will be or should be shown about us in 100 or 300 years. And here is where the opinions start but in general, I don't see that we have come anywhere close to exceeding what was accomplished prior to 1940. And if I had the time I could go on in detail to illustrate that these clear differences in cultural philosophies are connected within architecture, music, art etc.

Put another way, let's pretend that someone in 300 years from now is asked to assess the following. Not for what they like best (a subjective opinion), but for what they suppose the differences in culture were like (an objective view). So we have a coffee table book showing samples of Renaissance or Baroque architecture, a musical sample of the polyphony of Palestrina or one of Bach's passions, a book on art & sculpture of the day, and a representation of how they dressed and looked. Next, this person views a coffee table book showing a typical sample of architecture ("you tell me something representative because I'll just say Walmart"), a sample of one of music "you decide whose music", a book on art of the day (let's just say Andy Warhol), and a photo of how we typically dressed and looked. Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but I personally can't imagine how one could say that we are evolving (for the better, that is). And in every case, the level of detail and beauty within these sub-categories follow each other within each cultural period. And by this, I generally mean that I don't think that anyone today can emulate or produce what was happening in Europe several hundred years ago but do you think that the same culture that could build a glorious cathedral or castle couldn't also put up a nondescript box (what we build in the 21st century) if asked to without too much thought? And we are living 200 or 400 years after this period? Same goes for music. So I'll reiterate. I'm merely saying that history will reflect what we are today (in a general way) just as history tells us through evidence what was created and done in the past too.

Secondly, Nigel, I don't disagree with your comments on jazz. In fact I agree absolutely but just wasn't able to say it as well as you did. I do disagree with the comments about Bach's music. As far as I know, most keyboardist of the time would have been very familiar with Bach's works as they were generally copied out for teaching purposes. Even Haydn and Mozart studied these works. I'd imagine the difficulty though in those times was that it took longer for anything to spread around in those days. So locally you were for sure aware of what was happening and a delay occurs as it slowly spreads outward.

So in the end I'll just say that I am trying not to assign a value judgement on this topic (yes I do have my preferences) but I'm trying to state that what it is is what it is. There are clear differences between the way we do things and our attitudes compared to the way architecture and music and art were viewed hundreds of years ago. What we hold in high esteem today says a lot about our culture today and the results are well documented for the future to see. In the future we will be known more for our rampant consumerism/greed and gadget technology than for our art, architecture, and music. Just my two cents worth....

Best Regards,
Doug

I was just at the LA Phil and two Messian piano pieces of birds were the first half. The second was Beethoven's 3rd "Eroica". Second half was much more satisfying and really radical for its day.

I think this just illustrates George's comment that music can create tension and then resolve it. Wagner does the same, he builds and builds and builds then resolves in incredible ways. It took me a long time to appreciate Wagner.

I find new music tends to be aggressive and analytical in the first movement to show what can be done or prove some point. Then the rest seem to relax and carry me thru different stages.

I don't think jazz will be as important tho it's an area unto it's own. Quincy Jones took composing lessons from Nadia Boulanger and invited her to an improvisational jazz concert. He said there were some great changes and shifts in the music and she declined saying that there would also be some awkward moments and she just couldn't allow that to her ear.

Another aspect of this is musical education of composers. I am talking about the preference to teach the 2nd Viennese school of composing as critical theory and previous eras dismissed.

Many composers get out and end up looking back to tonal music and doing amazing things. I'm thinking about John Adams who studied Stockhausen and serial theory, and yet heard jazz, rock and pop coming from the dorms and he played swing in his father's band. He moved to the west coast to get away from that rigid influence of serialism.

I've heard Esa-pekka Salonen interviewed several times and said he had all that atonal theory and tried writing in it. But on conducting Stravinsky he had an epiphany and just loved the tonal music so he changed course. He does use a bit of atonal flavorings, but his work is tonal and wonderfully radical. He is taking off from the Phil and going to compose some bigger works and considering an opera. Hold on to your seats when he does that. Later this month I get to hear his west coast premiere of a piano concerto, I'm looking forward to that. He has a unique sound I like.

Dear Wolf,

Isn't music [with hindsight] always something to bring on philosophical connections! I think we live in times of unprecedented uncertainty, and it seems that the old certainties in music became modern and uncertain, and now that no one accepts the plot at all, post-modern.

This will settle, but a whole new order is going to come in the next generation or perhaps two. No longer shall we assume we can fly across the Atlantic at will, or even assume that we shall run an Internal Combustion Engined Vehicle! The visit to a town 100 miles away will be a once in a lifetime experience for many in the future, I suspect.

But from the inevitable changes that are coming perhaps the great music will survive, and we can once again see a direction to it. I suspect that Nadia Boulanger would have been a better judge than most of us today at picking what is truly significant among this "post modern" music that we have, and what will seem ephemera in fifty or one hundred years [if the human race is still extant in a century].

It is a pleasure to read your words once again. George

Thanks, I certainly enjoy your posts since you've played music and have a keener ear than mine from R&R.

Lots of changes in the future indeed. From what I understand Nadia was probably the most influential person in education anyway of the 20th C. she taught EVERYONE!!!

I told a documentarian about her in Santa Barbara who is French and he thought it interesting, but hasn't done anything in that direction. It's a shame, she must have been a remarkable woman. He has no real knowledge of music and I think the best person would be someone with that insight.

Reminds me when I was in Italy with a study group 13 years ago. Most of the kids were 20 and I was 42. They didn't seem to be impressed by much. We toured the Medici tombs with Michelangelo's sculptures with a passionate Italian teacher. He ended up focusing on a Madonna and child statue. But I couldn't hear much with so many other tours at the same time.

Next day he asked if there were any questions so I asked about the Madonna and child. He went into the most amazing rant about M's involvement with leading thinkers of the day and their questioning science, religion and everything so it was an unsettling time in the Medici court. When he carved teh pair he had her looking left and the child twisting and turning off her knee about to fall instead of a stable triangular shape with Christ child firmly planted facing out. Just a subtle hint at what was going on. This all took 45 minutes of Paulo parading around the stage and really blew the group away. My teacher smiled at me when I got to lunch and said he'd heard I'd asked the $64,000 question. Paulo was something else, ripping the church and state apart.

Unstable times makes for unstable exploration of the arts and some dark thoughts. No one wanted to paint a regular figure after WW2, everything was strange and tormented. Thinking of Dubuffet sp? and other figurative expressionist painters.

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
OMD did a very good album.
Architecture & Morality.

Architecture And Morality, Ted And Alice