Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge Dealing with elitism (what is art?)

Haha, I was wondering when Boulez would come up.

Don't get me wrong, I really do love his piano sonatas, Marteau, and Pli selon pli, and he's certainly a champion of new music; but it's a little hypocritical for the European experimentalists to revere a guy who pays the bills by recording Mahler and Debussy.

LOL. This is the best post I have seen on PW in a long time! Where can I sign up?

BTW, don't forget selling insurance as a lucrative way to support your composing self. It was good enough for Charles Ives and he was no slouch when it came down to innovation.

If you really want to deal with elitism firsthand, try posting something contrary to classical music on the Teacher's Forum right here in PW. Quite a revelation.

----------------------------
Play New Age Piano
http://www.quiescencemusic.com

Quiescen...careful how you cast the academia and piano teacher stones. Not all of us are how you perceive mate

The ebb flows both ways, and some of us operate holistically as is the best way to be in my opinion. Dualism constricts when it originates from any side of the fence.

Elitism is a subjective experience amongst all genres...I've witnessed it amongst the classicists, the new-agers, improv jazz musos, and rock based artists.

In a perfect world, there'd be no such thing...Elitism, like any class system is rubbish. We all have a calling, and that's all that matters

I think it must be the way you tell 'em.

I thought I'd share a story about a piece of music I was looking into just this week. I've been looking into the meaning of the text by James Agee that Morten Lauridsen in Sure on this Shining Night.

Somewhere in my searches I came across some discussion by people who apparently know Lauridsen at USC. They were saying that they were at the premiere of this work and how disappointed they were in it. So here I am searching the internet looking for discussion of the meaning of this text because I find the music deeply moving and these kids are saying they were disappointed by it because it was not daring enough for them.

Which brings up the central question of this thread what is the purpose of music? Is it to be technically daring or to express something which will hopefully be appreciated by an audience? I personally fall squarely into the latter camp.

FYI, anyone interested in the piece which I found so moving, here is the text (from James Agee's "A Death in the Family").

Sure on this shining night
Of star-made shadows round
Kindness must watch for me
This side the ground

The late year lies down the north,
All is healed, all is health
High summer holds the earth,
Hearts all whole

Sure on this shining night
I weep for wonder
Wandr’ing far alone
Of shadows on the stars.


And here's a link to a fine performance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icp4bNb7TDI

Huh?

Hi Lotus,

You're right of course. And I didn't mean to say "all." Just overwhelmed at the response I got from some when expressing a contrary opinion.

-- Edward

No worries

Poem posted by Steve Chandler

Steve,

Thanks for posting the poem. It's been a few years since I've thought of it. I don't know what it means. What I do know, though, is that anything James Agee involved himself with moves me in inexplicable ways. I think Barber's setting of "Sure on this shining night is one of most beautiful songs in the English language, but I can't tell you what the poem means. I feel the same way about "Knoxville: Summer 1915." And the same way when he associates with Walker Evans in "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men." James Agee always reaches me deeply, but I don't know why.

Tomasino

I don't really agree with that definition of gnosticism. :rolleyes:

This is already a long thread and much of what can be written has been. Maybe a few things, perhaps as reinforcement.

The emotions that music engenders in the listener span a wide spectrum that by the turn of the 19th century seemed to have been exhaustively explored.

Along comes Sibelius, utterly within the romantic tradition, and nevertheless says something new. Likewise Rachmaninov. The 'Rite of Spring' appears, also not radically breaking the rules of harmony (though just about every other rule!). Likewise Shostakovich, Bartok ....

Schoenberg may have led a lot of musicians down a cul-de-sac, but no-one can be untouched by his Verklaerte Nacht, or by the violin concerto of disciple Webern (whose appeal, I would contend, is in spite of rather than because of the 12 tone architecture).

Always, composers find new ways to tap into the well-spring of human emotion. The means are irrelevant.

Was the Beatle's music art? Or the Stones'?

I think the answer is the test of time. Emotions have evolved much more slowly than the evolution of musical composition. Some music hits the Zeitgeist, but when this shifts becomes ineffective. Some does not.

Great music is timeless. One can safely predict that the interpretation of Beethoven's late work, Opus 111, for example, will be as controversial in 2108 as it is today. This is because the notes on the page together with the composer's instructions imply, but do not uniquely identify, an appeal to our most secret longings, fears, hatreds, and to a desire for internal peace which Beethoven strove for in his life, but never found.

How does one know whether a composition is 'timeless', or appeals because it strikes a concordant note in the times in which it is composed? Hard question.

The only answer I can offer is the canonical response to 'What is beauty?'. One knows it when one sees it.

All art is quite useless.
Even more useless are discussions on art.
.What often happens in these discussions is that the ears get pulled forward and cover the hearing mechanism so nothing gets heard anyway.

What matters is virtue. if something is good or has merit it will endure. this applies to less than 1% of all creative endevour.
This proves the point that genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration

"arts"
"music"
"noise"

Labels? You know, this really reminds me of the HSBC adverts you get to see through the airport gates (like the one that says "Dull?" and "Riveting?" on the pictures of cricketers and ballet dancers and then swap them round) Maybe soon there'll be one with "Music?" and "Noise?" with pictures of - I dunno - a chamber orchestra and rock band or something...

You get my point!

Searching within my memory now I remember that there's exactly one HSBC advert on that context. It's the pictures of a rock singer and an ethnic (Indian?) musician with the labels "enjoyable" and "unbearable", then they're swapped around.

I let this answer sit for a few days because itbothered me, but feel I must respond. I find answers like this rather disingenuous. If art is useless and discussions about art even more useless then what are you doing here? There is some truth to the quote that, "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture," but the reality is that we can describe more accurately with words our thoughts and feelings about music that we can express ourselves with body movements (excepting sign language). Because music is abstract complete accuracy of expression is not possible, that afterall is what the music itself is for. However, discussions are far from useless. If they really were you wouldn't be here.

I believe he's quoting Oscar Wilde:

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~garden/art.html

Oh yeh?

Ah! I get it. Interesting preface. Thanks for pointing out the literary reference.