Russell Malone mocking avant-garde performance

[ecj]

To point out here - Russell Malone has previously supported avant-garde music, specifically that of Mary Halvorsen's.

Did you watch the vid that Malone posted on his FB page and was making fun of? It's a long way from Halvorsen. It was almost comedically strange. Looks like he took it down, but I think there's avant garde, and then there's avant garde.

It was a guy tapping parts of his guitar without playing notes and a person simulating what I can only describe as the sound that baby barn owls must make.

[sgcim]

I'm sorry, but regarding the 'ridiculousness' of Schoenberg's rules - isn't a Fugue ridiculous? Why do you have to have the voices entering in one after the other, and what is all that stuff about Parallel Fifths?

I always feel like I want to stand up for Arnold. Such a great musician, totally self taught, deep thinker, obstinate and headstrong. And I love his music, his 12 tone stuff has incredible classical balance and poise to it. The modernists hated it, ironically, as much as the conservatives.

Yes the 12 tone system is ridiculous, I guess, but listening to Gurrelieder I can see why Arnie saw it necessary to play with a handicap. He had to give everyone else a chance ;-)

I judge music by sound, and not solely by some mathematical construct. Bach's mathematical rules for fugues and harmony were based on sound first. There are stories of Schoenberg not having any idea of what his own music sounded like. One pianist gave a recital with a Schoenberg piano piece, and completely blanked out on stage.
Nobody noticed!
Leonard Bernstein got up before a meeting of the most prominent 12-tone composers in the world, and played a melody on the piano. He then asked them what melody it was. Not one had any idea.
It turned out to be "Happy Birthday" played in retrograde!
When I hear a piece of music that doesn't repeat a note until eleven other notes have been sounded, for the entire piece, I just shut it off.

Schuller's 12-tone music is a joy to listen to, because he's not afraid to have melodies that repeat notes. He'll even have some tonal harmony as a contrast.
Berg's Violin Concerto used polytonality, so don't cite him as an example.

I'm sorry, when Thomas Mann used Arnie's theories as the basis for Adrian Leverkuhn's pact with the devil, he knew what he was writing about.

[tribalfusion]

Leonard Bernstein got up before a meeting of the most prominent 12-tone composers in the world, and played a melody on the piano. He then asked them what melody it was. Not one had any idea.
It turned out to be "Happy Birthday" played in retrograde!

Sorry but what does this establish (if true)?

Thanks!

[dortmundjazzguitar]

I respect differing points of view, but although I may well share feelings about those b*stards the Nazis (my family tree details German ancestry going back to the 16th century), I honestly don't understand how your point was supported. Could I respectfully ask you to spell out how? Thanks and best wishes in advance.

no. if you as an artist can not figure out what is wrong with sentences like the below, what could i possibly tell you?

"Goebbels had a point when it comes to modern art ..... it doesn't make us a Nazi if we agree with him about something as innocuous as art" (bluedawg)

here's a plan: why don't you forward this thread to fellow jazz guitarist and auschwitz survivor coco schumann? maybe he has a comment or two about this innocuous art...

the notion that good/honest/healthy art is self-evident is a centrepiece of any fascist ideology. from hitler to stalin to the taliban. because if "good" art is self-evident, "bad" art is either done by people who, due to a mental illness can't see the self-evident, or fraudulent criminals who deliberately produce dishonest art. which brings us back to coco schumann and auschwitz.

here's hitlers speech at the 1937 nazi exhibition in munich:

"We are more interested in ability than in so-called intent. An artist who is counting on having his works displayed, in this House or anywhere else in Germany, must possess ability. Intent is something that is self-evident. These windbags have tried to make their works more palatable by representing them as expressions of a new age; but they need to be told that art does not create a new age,"

"I do not want to argue about whether or not they really experience this. But in the name of the German people I only want to prevent these pitiable unfortunates, who clearly suffer from defective vision, from attempting with their chatter to force on their contemporaries the results of their faulty observations, and indeed from presenting them as "art." Here there are only two possibilities open: either these so-called artists really do see things this way and believe in that which they create — and if so, one has to investigate how this defective vision arose — if it is a mechanical problem or if it came about through heredity. The first case would be pitiable, while the second would be a matter for the Ministry of the Interior, which would then deal with the problem of preventing the perpetuation of such horrid disorders. Or they themselves do not believe in the reality of such impressions, but are for different reasons attempting to annoy the nation with this humbug. If this is the case, then it is a matter for a criminal court."

GHDI - Document - Page

sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

[Jonah]

For me I like to see/hear some traditional credibility and refined craft before someone goes avant-garde. That way I feel they are in control of what they are doing and it's not just a bunch of BS.

To me it's wrong... they could control their own tools and language.

I already gave musical samples here - Yanis Xenakis or Morton Feldman to me one of the greatest composers of 20th century, and I see no sence for them to learn classical compostion.

Besides I am convinced that the fact that Picasso masters does not make his 'avant-guarde' works more valueable.
That will not help from being pretentious/

Braque for me is much better but he could not draw a bird in academical style...

We should look at the thing as it is and just trust our first feeling.. if you find it BS it's ok, if you love it it's ok too.

I am myself pretty deeply involved into classical art - in music, architecture, painting...

I love visiting Venice and a couple of times there was Biennale.. for me it was a good chance to take a look from inside at palaces that are usually closed because they were used for temporary exhibitions... to be fair it was.. I do not even know correct word.... I was not irritated or really shocked... I was confused.. bewildered.. upset... I saw that people took it all seriously... they put a pair of dirty shoes in the middle of frescoed gothic palace...

I felt that really things changed - and I am not in this world any more...

The same thing is Peggy Guggenheim museum in Venice... I just felt embarassed most of the time... what was the idea to put it all there?

But at the same time there was Rothko, Chagall, Modigliani, Braque - thiose who brought love and life in this new worls speaking their own language...

By the way people oftne mistake modern art too... I take Rothkos painting as alsmost prayers - very intense and dramatic, but a few years ago i saw them in McDonald's - I think partly he provoked it himself with his interst for decoration - but anyway for me it was something like to see 'lamentation of christ' there...

People see things differently...

My friend - to me the greatest living composer - has been also criticized for be fake pretencious avant-guard, but for me his music is the direct light of the world's heart

Or Klee who inspired this piece of music

[eddy b.]

I am always amazed at people's lack of awareness of the viral nature of social media, and the complete lack of anonymity when on the Internet. I also find a lesson in what can be at times a very wide gulf between someone's complete musical artistry and their everyday personality, why it is that spiritual enlightenment rarely follows musical brilliance. Oh well Russel Malone made fun of someone....oh well.

[joe2758]

Martin Taylor did a "cover" of Russell Malone's piece today on his FB page.

I took a look. Now THAT was surprising! Not only was I surprised that Mr. Taylor would post a rude video like that (Although I don't really find any offense since it wasn't obviously mocking someone else's efforts like Mr. Malone's), but it appears that he liked RM's video and made his own with a different write up as if passing it off as his own idea. Classic musician move! haha

Edit: I went back to grab a link and paste the video description (some sort of facetious thing about it being a tone poem from what I remember), but it appears like Mr. Taylor and Mr. Malone have removed the videos being discussed

[smokinguit]

It was a guy tapping parts of his guitar without playing notes and a person simulating what I can only describe as the sound that baby barn owls must make.

I like avant-garde music, but unfortunately a lot of it do sound like that. I think he should've specify what type of avant-garde music he meant instead of treating everything as if it were the same. There are many different flavors of avant-garde.

[destinytot]

no. if you as an artist can not figure out what is wrong with sentences like the below, what could i possibly tell you?

"Goebbels had a point when it comes to modern art ..... it doesn't make us a Nazi if we agree with him about something as innocuous as art" (bluedawg)

here's a plan: why don't you forward this thread to fellow jazz guitarist and auschwitz survivor coco schumann? maybe he has a comment or two about this innocuous art...

Thanks for a thorough and considered response.

With respect, I prefer to think that Herr Schumann would not claim to have a monopoly on human suffering. As a direct descendant of an African slave, I wouldn't seek to trivialise such matters - but neither would I exaggerate them.

If I put my artist hat on for a moment, the only bone of contention I might see in bluedawg's sentence is the qualification of art as something 'innocuous'.

Personally, I see that word as the nub of any discord, whereas the assortment of Nazis evoked here are - for me - red herrings. Frankly, I find their evocation in argument - reductio ad Hitlerum - to be (almost) a laughing matter.

Tyranny, on the other hand, is no laughing matter.

I take the view that jazz guitar is not necessarily art, and that it is only - if at all - elevated to that status by force of circumstance, intention and design.

I value art precisely because it is elevated - first and foremost, by virtue of its effect (especially that which James Joyce called aesthetic arrest).

I emphasise, however, that I value some art for an effect that is not characterised by rapturous joy, bliss or delight. With regard to 'jazz', and regardless of style, the effect of what I value involves an experience of catharsis and renewal.

For me, and - or so he would have it appear - for the creature delivering that 1937 Munich exhibition speech, the artist's intention pertains to a moral or ethical dimension of human experience. But I no more recognise said creature's right to define the dignity and legitimacy of an artist's intention than I do

the notion that good/honest/healthy art is self-evident is a centrepiece of any fascist ideology.

Obviously, I have no way of really knowing the intention behind The Fountain by Duchamp. However, I like to think that the timing, circumstances, and 'signature' all suggest clues: 'R Mutt' can be considered a transliteration of Armut (German for 'poverty'). While there's nothing 'pretty' about the piece, not only do I see beauty in the intention behind such a statement, I also consider both the statement and its mode of expression to be entirely appropriate.


I do think it's a pose - but, in my book, the exceptionally extenuating circumstances warrant giving the artist a pass on any charges.

Furthermore, in my 'book', there's a page reserved for parasites - especially those who discreetly position themselves so as to profit from the perpetuation of others' pain. I'll add - with eyes rolling towards the heavens at the thought of further talk of 'fascism' - that those parasites are the proper object of satire, (not violence).

My life may be a bed of roses compared to the lives of many people I know, but I'm confident that I know what time it is. I think Russell Malone does, too.

I think his mockery is perfectly reasonable - but quite unnecessary. For me, it's just another pose (yawn).

[christianm77]

I judge music by sound, and not solely by some mathematical construct. Bach's mathematical rules for fugues and harmony were based on sound first. There are stories of Schoenberg not having any idea of what his own music sounded like. One pianist gave a recital with a Schoenberg piano piece, and completely blanked out on stage.
Nobody noticed!
Leonard Bernstein got up before a meeting of the most prominent 12-tone composers in the world, and played a melody on the piano. He then asked them what melody it was. Not one had any idea.
It turned out to be "Happy Birthday" played in retrograde!
When I hear a piece of music that doesn't repeat a note until eleven other notes have been sounded, for the entire piece, I just shut it off.

Schuller's 12-tone music is a joy to listen to, because he's not afraid to have melodies that repeat notes. He'll even have some tonal harmony as a contrast.
Berg's Violin Concerto used polytonality, so don't cite him as an example.

I'm sorry, when Thomas Mann used Arnie's theories as the basis for Adrian Leverkuhn's pact with the devil, he knew what he was writing about.

You are aware of course, that Bach had used retrogrades in his music, as had composers going back into the late middle ages. I suppose Bernstein in this case, was being a bit of a prat, or at the very least somewhat disingenuous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_(music)

I think there is an inherent musicality and balance about using a 12-tone circuit. Richard Strauss used one in Also Sprach Zarathustra as a fugue subject. Schoenberg half joking points out that some of Bach's more chromatic music almost uses 12-tone style themes. Sure there's something quite 'mad' about it, but I think that's what I like.

Also bear in mind that Schoenberg's 12-tone music represents a fraction of his output. Many of his most famous and influential works - Pierrot Lunaire, Five Orchestral Pieces etc are not 12-tone at all - they are 'freely tonal' i.e. not governed by any harmonic rules at all.


The problem with this - of course - is structure, which is his pieces from this period tend to be either very short or based on a text. Schoenberg's 12-tone system in many way is directly inspired by the sorts of things that you do when you write a piece of imitative counterpoint, such as fugue.

Interestingly, by the time he drew up his new theory - according to him - it was a formulation of something he had already been doing intuitively...

When you refer to Bach, it's worth pointing out that the sound of Bach's music is governed by the strictures of the harmonic theory of the time - counterpoint etc. The actual structure of his music can be governed by different concerns. I've already mention the use of retrogrades and inversions in Bach's music. There are others - a cantus firmus, for example, might be so stretched out that it is unrecognisable as the original plain song theme. The manipulation of material in a composition is not necessarily for the listener to pick out - it might simply be part of the composer's creative process.

It is also true that it is hard to hear structure in general. You might be better at this, but it has truly taken me decades to hear symphonic structure, for instance. Similarly, take the example of Indian or Arabic classical music, for example. You might enjoy the sound it makes, be able to enjoy the instrumentation and modality of the piece and totally miss the point culturally speaking. (A lot of the World Music market is based on this kind of thing haha.)

What it comes down to is that we can dress up what we are saying in intellectual garb, but it comes down to a gut reaction, a taste - an opinion. I like Schoenberg's 12-tone stuff and you don't. That's cool.

But if you are bring out an intellectual argument to back up your aesthetic judgement you are on shaky ground. These debates have raged for almost a hundred years and basically ground to a halt with no declared winner...

[bobsguitars09]

People should be allowed to have an opinion. I disagree with what he said but that doesn't mean I don't like him anymore. he has a small point. I like avant gard but I also like Malone. go figure. How many times have we had a friend or relative that says some really dumb shit? it's just an opinion.


I am not finding the video

[MarkRhodes]

no. if you as an artist can not figure out what is wrong with sentences like the below, what could i possibly tell you?

"Goebbels had a point when it comes to modern art ..... it doesn't make us a Nazi if we agree with him about something as innocuous as art" (bluedawg)

What is wrong here is that you are implying guilt by association. You are suggesting that dislike of modern art is Nazi-like, 'O, you don't like modern art? Well, Goebbels didn't like it either! I guess we know what that makes you!' For a man riding such a high horse, this is a humbling logical fallacy.

(To be clear: NO ONE here has said modern art is bad because Goebbels said so.)

[NSJ]

no. if you as an artist can not figure out what is wrong with sentences like the below, what could i possibly tell you?

"Goebbels had a point when it comes to modern art ..... it doesn't make us a Nazi if we agree with him about something as innocuous as art" (bluedawg)

here's a plan: why don't you forward this thread to fellow jazz guitarist and auschwitz survivor coco schumann? maybe he has a comment or two about this innocuous art...

the notion that good/honest/healthy art is self-evident is a centrepiece of any fascist ideology. from hitler to stalin to the taliban. because if "good" art is self-evident, "bad" art is either done by people who, due to a mental illness can't see the self-evident, or fraudulent criminals who deliberately produce dishonest art. which brings us back to coco schumann and...

sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

You want to bring politics and history in to this ? well then, here's a plan--why don't you look up how Hitler's fundamental views on art and, more importantly , the totalitarian views on the inferiority of the the backward "races" in the face of the "Master Race" were not fundamentally different than...the man who was voted the Greatest Briton of All Time by the BBC in 2002.

of course, Hitler killed 6 million Jews in 12 years. But the "Greatest Briton" of all time managed to kill up to 5 million darkies in Bengal in the span of one year, 1943-1944.

But, as we know, the latter doesn't matter and has never mattered. Al we need to do is bring up the NSDAP bogey man and all relevant discussion will shut down.

[destinytot]

What is wrong here is that you are implying guilt by association.

Thank you for articulating that idea so clearly and succinctly.

[dortmundjazzguitar]

What is wrong here is that you are implying guilt by association. You are suggesting that dislike of modern art is Nazi-like, 'O, you don't like modern art? Well, Goebbels didn't like it either! I guess we know what that makes you!' For a man riding such a high horse, this is a humbling logical fallacy.

(To be clear: NO ONE here has said modern art is bad because Goebbels said so.)

nonsense. if you read my posts again i am making exactly two points.

1. the video *you* posted is a carbon copy of a speech hitler gave in 1937. make of that what you wish.

2. the notion that art is self-evident is a fascist idea.

i'm not talking about "disliking something". i'm talking about guys like you who need to rationalize their dislike. people that do not have the first clue about art, but fantasize about "honest self-expression", as if they were some sort of human lie-detector. the "regular" guys who can tell what good art is, simply because they are regular guys, and can see through the conspiracies. and of course it is only logical and desirable that a society should promote honesty and punish dishonesty, right? which brings us back to 1937.


p.s. it is quite interesting that you seem to think that the reasons for the suppression of modern art was due to goebbels dislike. actually he was a big fan. because, you see, like in the video you posted, it's actually not about art at all, but about what it represents.

[dasein]

That's true, but he stopped following Schoenberg's rules, such as the ridiculous rule that you can't repeat a note until the twelve tone row has been sounded.

even a cursory glance at Schoenberg's, Webern's, and Berg's scores will reveal that this was never a "rule"

[NSJ]

nonsense. if you read my posts again i am making exactly two points.

1. the video *you* posted is a carbon copy of a speech hitler gave in 1937. make of that what you wish.

2. the notion that art is self-evident is a fascist idea.

i'm not talking about "disliking something". i'm talking about guys like you who need to rationalize their dislike. people that do not have the first clue about art, but fantasize about "honest self-expression", as if they were some sort of human lie-detector. the "regular" guys who can tell what good art is, simply because they are regular guys, and can see through the conspiracies. and of course it is only logical and desirable that a society should promote honesty and punish dishonesty, right? which brings us back to 1937.


p.s. it is quite interesting that you seem to think that the reasons for the suppression of modern art was due to goebbels dislike. actually he was a big fan. because, you see, like in the video you posted, it's actually not about art at all, but about what it represents.

Why the need to create a strawman of the plebeian "regular guys" who apparently "do not have the first clue about art"?
It just renders your argument a tad bit aristocratic, haughty and cork -sniffing. One can easily construct a counter argument that esoteric, Petty bourgeois academics helped create the sillier side of modern art ( indulgently pontificating for half an hour about four pieces of white cardboard against a white background, as I have seen ).

This reminds me of a music lesson I received . My teacher is very unique, possibly the only one who has played with Chicago symphony orchestra both in a jazz context (Electric guitar backing Sarah Vaughan ) and in a European classical context (guitar concerto). What started as a regular guitar lesson ended in a story about how academics and academia have ruined music with their esoteric theories ( in fact, there was even a point in which he picked up the guitar and made incidental scraping noises and the like, to demonstrate such esoteric theories ).

I can very much see how "regular guys" may be aggrieved because they are told they lack the requisite education and sophistication to appreciate the significance of four pieces of white cardboard against a white backdrop.

[sgcim]

even a cursory glance at Schoenberg's, Webern's, and Berg's scores will reveal that this was never a "rule"

He did relax that rule in some of his later pieces, but the strict 12-tone method as he described it was followed in his earlier pieces.
As I said, Berg broke away from the strict 12-tone method.

I like Schoenberg's earlier work, "Transfigured Night", but as a composition student in the 1970s, I was forced to write in the strict 12-tone method by two different private teachers at the university I attended. I stopped taking those courses.

This type of 'coercion' went on a great deal in the 1960s through the 1980s, until they realized that even the great instrumentalists disliked serial music.
Schuller submitted a cello sonata to Janos Starker written in Schoenberg's strict system, and was angrily refused a performance with words to the effect that, I don't perform that serial garbage.

In the spirit of the OP, things got so out of hand in Darnstadt, that Stockhausen stood up in the middle of a rehearsal of a Webern song, denouncing Webern as being passe, and not worthy of a performance!
Schuller had to pull him down so the rehearsal could continue.

Stockhausen then started to compose his music based on pure mathematical formulas, that he'd write on the blackboard.
Schuller copied them down, and sent them to mathematicians he knew in the US, who told him they were pure nonsense.
Then Stockhausen and Boulez started to put down other composers in their classes that didn't serialize every aspect of their music. This resulted in their followers disrupting performances of any composers that didn't follow Boulez and Stockhausen.

Stockhausen then denounced any music that contained material that used the old idea of having some relation to the material that directly preceded it!

At this point, Schuller broke away from the avant garde movement.

I think this is the type of thinking Malone was ridiculing.

[sgcim]

Sorry but what does this establish (if true)?

Thanks!

Serial composers based their music on the fact that they could use various permutations of the 12-tone row such as retrograde, retrograde inversion, etc.. to give their music a sense of structural unity.

The fact that they couldn't even recognize "Happy Birthday" played backwards means that if even the most advanced minds can't recognize a simple diatonic melody played backwards, how could they hope to understand the more complex serial melodies played backwards?

Bernstein has a series of lectures you can watch on you tube that denounce the 12-tone method as Schoenberg practiced it as a mistake in the direction of 20th Century music.

He exempts Berg's Violin Concerto, though.

[sgcim]

You are aware of course, that Bach had used retrogrades in his music, as had composers going back into the late middle ages. I suppose Bernstein in this case, was being a bit of a prat, or at the very least somewhat disingenuous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_(music)

I think there is an inherent musicality and balance about using a 12-tone circuit. Richard Strauss used one in Also Sprach Zarathustra as a fugue subject. Schoenberg half joking points out that some of Bach's more chromatic music almost uses 12-tone style themes. Sure there's something quite 'mad' about it, but I think that's what I like.

Also bear in mind that Schoenberg's 12-tone music represents a fraction of his output. Many of his most famous and influential works - Pierrot Lunaire, Five Orchestral Pieces etc are not 12-tone at all - they are 'freely tonal' i.e. not governed by any harmonic rules at all.


The problem with this - of course - is structure, which is his pieces from this period tend to be either very short or based on a text. Schoenberg's 12-tone system in many way is directly inspired by the sorts of things that you do when you write a piece of imitative counterpoint, such as fugue.

Interestingly, by the time he drew up his new theory - according to him - it was a formulation of something he had already been doing intuitively...

When you refer to Bach, it's worth pointing out that the sound of Bach's music is governed by the strictures of the harmonic theory of the time - counterpoint etc. The actual structure of his music can be governed by different concerns. I've already mention the use of retrogrades and inversions in Bach's music. There are others - a cantus firmus, for example, might be so stretched out that it is unrecognisable as the original plain song theme. The manipulation of material in a composition is not necessarily for the listener to pick out - it might simply be part of the composer's creative process.

It is also true that it is hard to hear structure in general. You might be better at this, but it has truly taken me decades to hear symphonic structure, for instance. Similarly, take the example of Indian or Arabic classical music, for example. You might enjoy the sound it makes, be able to enjoy the instrumentation and modality of the piece and totally miss the point culturally speaking. (A lot of the World Music market is based on this kind of thing haha.)

What it comes down to is that we can dress up what we are saying in intellectual garb, but it comes down to a gut reaction, a taste - an opinion. I like Schoenberg's 12-tone stuff and you don't. That's cool.

But if you are bring out an intellectual argument to back up your aesthetic judgement you are on shaky ground. These debates have raged for almost a hundred years and basically ground to a halt with no declared winner...

I basically agree with your last two statements, it does come down to a gut reaction, taste, an opinion.
I studied with one composer who was one of Nadia Boulanger's favorite students, and he hated Schoenberg with a passion, but liked Webern.

Then I studied with another teacher who had studied with Milhaud and Babbitt, and he hated Webern, saying that his music sounded like a bunch of little farts!

At this point I realized it's all subjective, and you can write, play or listen to any music that you like.

However, that doesn't change the fact that both of these two teachers forced their students to write serial music.

[christianm77]

I basically agree with your last two statements, it does come down to a gut reaction, taste, an opinion.
I studied with one composer who was one of Nadia Boulanger's favorite students, and he hated Schoenberg with a passion, but liked Webern.

Then I studied with another teacher who had studied with Milhaud and Babbitt, and he hated Webern, saying that his music sounded like a bunch of little farts!

At this point I realized it's all subjective, and you can write, play or listen to any music that you like.

However, that doesn't change the fact that both of these two teachers forced their students to write serial music.

Your background doesn't surprise me at all, and this is a standard reaction for many of your generation - those who had to deal with the modernist orthodoxy... (Itself somewhat tyrannical, especially in its heyday.)

When people object to serial music on a gut level (John Adams for example) often this is bound up with the musico-political climate of the 1950s and 60s (perhaps 70s?)

This seems to be a common byproduct of dogmatic teaching.

For example, many of the jazz players I work with see bebop as something very academic, and while some worked on it and saw it as a challenge, many also rebel against it and see it as essentially dusty, cold and cerebral. They were required to study bop at college... Sound familiar?

And I hate being made to do anything I don't want to do more than most! I'm glad that I came to bebop with a genuine passion and interest, not because I had to pass a course module in it.... I've never been to music college, so I haven't had to deal with stuff... And the music world now seems super eclectic - if anything that is the new orthodoxy....

[christianm77]

Why the need to create a strawman of the plebeian "regular guys" who apparently "do not have the first clue about art"?
It just renders your argument a tad bit aristocratic, haughty and cork -sniffing. One can easily construct a counter argument that esoteric, Petty bourgeois academics helped create the sillier side of modern art ( indulgently pontificating for half an hour about four pieces of white cardboard against a white background, as I have seen ).

This reminds me of a music lesson I received . My teacher is very unique, possibly the only one who has played with Chicago symphony orchestra both in a jazz context (Electric guitar backing Sarah Vaughan ) and in a European classical context (guitar concerto). What started as a regular guitar lesson ended in a story about how academics and academia have ruined music with their esoteric theories ( in fact, there was even a point in which he picked up the guitar and made incidental scraping noises and the like, to demonstrate such esoteric theories ).

I can very much see how "regular guys" may be aggrieved because they are told they lack the requisite education and sophistication to appreciate the significance of four pieces of white cardboard against a white backdrop.

That's nice, but to be honest, I don't really care what your teacher said. I wouldn't care even if he was Mozart or Charlie Parker reborn.

I can make up my own mind about music, and so can you. We don't have to feel like a doofus because we don't like something, and we don't have to feel superior because we get something 'rarified' (like - say - modern jazz) Life is too short.

If we start quoting what musician x or y said we can go on all day. It's a bit like 'my dad can beat up your dad.' Musicians are real people, with strongly held opinions, emotional hang ups, insecurities and personal tastes.

In terms of fascism's relationship to art, that is a very interesting and important thing to confront and try and understand. Given that jazz was banned in the USSR and strictly controlled in the Third Reich, you'd think jazzers would be tribally against totalitarian rhetoric on 'degenerate art' but hey, it's all part of life's rich tapestry.

Which incidentally why I go with Miles's attitude towards music - 'if I don't like it, I ignore it.' No point letting it wind you up. Some people like Nickleback FFS, but I'm letting it go. (They'd be the first against the wall come the Great Day, comrade.)

[rictroll]

IMO all art forms need the traditionalists, the avant-gardists, and everything in between.

A mix is needed to ensure both growth (incremental evolution and revolution) and conservation of the art.

Kind of like nature.

[christianm77]

Serial composers based their music on the fact that they could use various permutations of the 12-tone row such as retrograde, retrograde inversion, etc.. to give their music a sense of structural unity.

The fact that they couldn't even recognize "Happy Birthday" played backwards means that if even the most advanced minds can't recognize a simple diatonic melody played backwards, how could they hope to understand the more complex serial melodies played backwards?

Bernstein has a series of lectures you can watch on you tube that denounce the 12-tone method as Schoenberg practiced it as a mistake in the direction of 20th Century music.

He exempts Berg's Violin Concerto, though.

Again, I am at a loss as to Bernstein's actual point, because retrogrades have been in use since the early years of polyphony (Machaut was using simple retrogrades in the 14th century.) And composers have often composed things that can't be heard. Often they saw music as a cosmic, eternal thing, as much for God as for Man. Recall that in the Middle Ages, music was grouped with Astronomy, Geometry and Arithmetic, a tradition that lasted through the Renaissance.

Bach is a prime suspect. Some of Bach's music wasn't even intended for actual performance (AFAIK.) How rarified and elitist can you get?

Anyway, I'm repeating myself. I think it's a good point.

Leonard Bernstein was a towering cultural figure beyond simply being a great musician. Why didn't he simply say 'I don't care for the music of Schoenberg and Webern, but I do like Berg'? I doubt it was insecurity or lack of confidence.

All sorts of reasons, same reasons why Boulez said what he said. Politics. Influence.

Boring.