Nora Jones-spurious noises

Isn't a quality judgement also matter of taste?

If I do not like a musical genre. Or even a particular composer or performer. Then I am probably in no position to judge quality.

But then again. If I like a particular composer or performer too much. Then I am possibly no longer able to judge quality. Due to positive bias.

Do I then allow others to judge quality for me? Even if I totally disagree with their decision?

I dislike much modern classical music. Just as I dislike free-form jazz. Yet there are many who judge the quality of these musical genres by standards which I do not attempt to understand. Nor care about. Does this mean that these musical forms do have quality? But that I am simply deaf to their cacophany?

I remember reading about an orchestra which walked out in protest because they were expected to play a single note (or chord) continuously for about 20 minutes. Somehow this piece of "music" got past the quality screening to reach the conductor's podium. Define quality in this context.

My test for modern art having been produced by a true artist is that I could not myself duplicate it. If I can, with my barely adeqaute skills, then it is simply not art. It is a daub.

The difficulty with music is that some skill is required to actually play the notes quickly on any instrument. Even completely at random. But does that make the ghastly "music" being played of high quality? Says who?

Nime

Surely the only criteria to what is good is yourself? Others can guide,but to like something for fashion for want of a better word is wrong. I can remember when Stockhausen was the thing man! I hated it and have never listened again and still ignore modern (ie still breathing) composers.Jazz is a genre I never thought would darken my system.My good mate reccomended Lee Ritenour/Larry Carlton/Fourplay and The Rippingtons.I love these but still have trouble likeing other artists. Have I conditioned myself because I respect my mates music knowledge or do I really like it? Mind you he really liked a Chick Corea concert and I didn't.

Loved Nime's criteria for modern art.

Howard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Lees:

Like you I tend to dislike modern classical music and free-form jazz, but here I'm inclined to never say never. I still remember distinctly how I thought Stravinsky and Bartok to be unlistenable noise-makers only to learn to like them a lot.

nick.lees at btinternet.com

---

Oh I don't include Bartok or Stravinsky in modern music. They have some decent tunes. It's the deliberate dissonance and seemingly completely random choice of notes that I can't bear. Like those splatter painting where the "arteest" relies on chance to achieve visual drivel.

I also have a confession on the jazz front. I've been listening to an hour of jazz on the radio every night and am beginning to get a feel for it. The names still sail over the top of my head. But I am occasionally excited by what I hear. The free-form stuff is actually worth listening to for the sheer vigour of the drumming on some tracks! Though I suppose it would be rather difficult for a drummer to play out of tune. A skill his accompanists manage to perfection.

Nime

Dear Nime

I knew very well that you would answer in that way. But I disagree with you.

I think objective criteria for quality exist,
which are not a matter of taste.

For example: I immediately recognize the quality in much romantic music even if I dont like the genre. The same applies to much Jazz (in my case), and sometimes my innate stubbornnes makes me listen and relisten many times to some unquestionable great music I didnt like right from the start, until I really begin to like it, e.g the secular songs of Machaut. The greatest art is not always easily accessible.

The single note the orchester was to play in your example stinks of loss of quality whatever the taste.

Venlig hilsen

I knew you'd raise the subject of Machaut eventually.

"The Art of Courtly Love" (Early Music Consort)is superb. No need to listen more than once to appreciate it's sheer quality and variety. I particularly liked the early instruments and the surprising lack of "prettiness" in some of the voices. My wife hoped for the Duracell batteries to run out on the rather monosyllabic drumming on one track. Though I had to disagree.
I might buy this CD if I find it in the shops.

I also obtained the Hilliard Ensemble "Motets".
The Orlando Consort's "Chansons" and The Taverner "Messe De Nostre Dame".

These I enjoyed immediately too but on a more shallow level. I found many pieces were a little "samey". What I would describe as "pretty music for book shops". Sung with gusto and emotion, the singing was always superb. But I could not sit for hours listening in raptures. It was too lacking in contrast to keep me rivetted to my chair. So I used it as music to browse by and still enjoyed them just the same. I suppose that just makes me part-philistine?

Nime

Dear Nime

Your reaction to this music is much like mine.

I attended two outstanding recitals by Early Music Consort/David Munrow in Kunstindustimussæet in Copenhagen in the mid 1970-ies (shortly before Munrow committed suicide) and when "The Art of Courtly Love" was released (ca 1977) I got it (LP) and was immidiately very fascinated by it, not the least because of the strong instrumental contribution (a prominent part of the recitals too). Along with the pioneering recordings by Studio der Frühen Musik it
gave me the incentive to investigate this repertoire more thoroughly.

Later I aquired the Taverner Consort Machaut Mass, and since Andrew Parrott for this recording has added a traditional Proprium
to the four-part Ordinarium by Machaut(Ordinarium=Kyrie,Gloria,Credo,Sanctus,Agnus Dei,Ite Missa Est), this CD lasts rather long time. I dont think the Gregorian part of it can stand repeated listening in the same way as the Machaut part, and usually I restrict myself to listening to the Machaut-Ordinarium. In this way I find the CD outstanding, the strong energetic style of Parrott being much similar to the style of Munrow, and the Mass very exiting with strong dissonances and unexpected rhytms, elements underlined by the interpretation.

The Orlando Consort CD took me long time and many repeated listenings to get used to, you have to know the music almost by heart to be able to appreciate it properly. This music is more lyric than the Mass, and perhaps not "exiting" in the same way, even if the dissonant style is similar.

The Hilliard MotetsCD is rather new, I havent heard it but two times until now, and my impression of it is incomplete.

I think it is suitable to listen to music like this for not more than ca 20 minutes at a time, to avoid wandering of the attention.
So to conclude I would encourage you to listen to the Mass a little more, but only the Machaut-part of it.

Venlig hilsen

I have now obtained "Music of the Gothic Era".
Another Munrow double CD rather like "The Art of Courtly Love".

This offers much more spontaneity and variety than the other CDs I mentioned in my previous post. With drums, bells, trumpets, recorders and many other instruments punctuating the wonderful singing. The voices are distictly individual and easily followed even when a number are singing together. The freshness of the performances is remarkable. The voices varying from sweetly angelic to the almost comic. This is a very difficult album to ignore while browsing. Particularly at higher volume levels!


This double album is even more fun than "Courtly Love" in its variety of approaches to the music. Hardly two tracks are alike. The acoustic is lively and suits the music well. This is certainly my new favourite CD.

Thankyou for your CD recommendations of this fascinating early period of music.

Munrow's "Music Of The Gothic Era" (The Early Music Consort of London) is quite simply superb.

Archiv Production 'Blue' 471 731-2.
(Deutsche Grammafon 1976 ADD)

Best regards
Nime

quote:
...............................................Originally posted by Nime:

'My test for modern art having been produced by a true artist is that I could not myself duplicate it. If I can, with my barely adequate skills, then it is simply not art. It is a daub.'

and

'Like those splatter painting where the "arteest" relies on chance to achieve visual drivel.'

...............................................

I've been away for a few days so have missed all the comings and goings of this thread but I must answer the above. As an artist with an art history background I cannot let glib, inadequate, and woefully ill-informed comment like this go.

Please Nime, ask yourself why contemporary and Modern art looks the way it does. Better still, read around the subject. Since the modern-era, say the mid-1850s on, art has undergone immense changes caused by a combination of many things, without resorting to a long list, let's just say the Industrial Revolution, war and the political and cultural changes that have followed.

Having jusy attended the Turner Prize show at Tate Britain I am the first to admit that art can be frustrating and difficult, but it can also be incredibly rewarding and thought-provoking.

Forget about crass definitions of what is or what isn't art, they are of no help at all. There is a fascinating world of art out there. Get reading and looking.

Andy

Sorry Andy

But I know what I like.

I hear what you say and I'm not convinced for a moment.

Perhaps the industrial revolution and a couple of world wars produced laziness, lack of skill and the absence of imagination in equal measure?

The world is full of second rate artists. And third rate art. The cavemen working by a guttering torch did better. As did the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc etc.

Save your 'demanding', your 'difficult' and your 'frustrating' for a more sympathetic audience. I've heard it all for decades.

The only thing your argument convices me of. Is that art is (uniquely) the only known proof of time passing in reverse.

And don't call me a Philistine!

Regards
Nime