Classical Music: Why Bother?

Fuck, THAT'S why the world doesn't bother, we're waiting for summations that actually mentions 'fun' and 'enjoyment' rather than saintly reverence in capital letters.

Phil Masstransfer to thread, obviously. ;-)

seems to me the guy w/o the patience is him

A Rembrandt hanging in the forest would still be great, even if no one ever got to see it.

I actually like this quote because it seems to sum up the most explicit anti-reader response stance possible. I don't agree with it (if we don't know something exists, how can we really know it's a masterpiece? -- or is the unspoken implication 'we know it exists because of the name of the creator associated with it, even if we haven't encountered it, and therefore it is great'?), but it's nice to see someone just say it.

I don't have any grand formulations on this (death of art, triumph of vulgar, whatev), but this guy's complaint didn't get me. I mean, how many pop stars (the washed-up esp) draw a paycheck from Harvard? I know the issue is bigger than one scribbler's employ, but christ what a whiner.

Even if nobody ever knows the true greatness of Vitaly Butenko's C algorithims, the faculty database of West Miami State is a testament to his work

Which is odd, because the article ends with him pleading for trying to have the patience to listen to what someone has to provide to the world artistically. I actually have no problem with that at all (even if the subtext is, 'take the patience to listen to my stuff, dammit!'). Still, I think where it all falls down is here:

The lesson that has been taken from Cage and Duchamp is that if traffic noise and toilet seats are equal to Mozart and Rembrandt then so are Garth Brooks and black-velvet Elvis paintings. This view quickly leads to taste being the only legitimate arbiter. In the cultural realm this rapidly leads to the downward homogenization of taste toward the least common denominator, a phenomenon that makes almost everyone vaguely uncomfortable.

A rereading in context will help me deal with this more thoroughly, I'm sure. Still, I can't quite follow his logic here. Unsurprisingly, I'm of the 'taste = legitimate arbiter' bent, but I'm not seeing how or why that automatically leads towards a 'least common denominator' conclusion. Almost seems like a bit of the tail wagging the dog? Or maybe an assumption that individual taste must always be crushed within a larger context, which I don't necessarily see as automatic...hm, and hm again. Yes, Phil to thread, quickly please. I'd like to hear his thoughts. :-)

The lesson I take from Cage and Duchamp is not that all art is equal, but that all art demands that we surrender our vision to the artist's.

This is the best expression of the subjective taste argument I've ever seen. I also like that he is arguing the case for classical music without stating that popular music is by definition crap; in fact, he goes out of his way to chastize the people who think this way.

Ned, you're being too literal with that quote, I think. What I took from it is that an amazing piece of work is an amazing piece of work whether one person sees/hears it or millions of people see/hear it. "A Rembrandt" may have been to general to get this idea across unless you think all of his work is superlative, but he was wise enough to know that the majority of his readership isn't going to recognize specific Rembrandt paintings by name (I was going to name the one of the woman in the blue hat as a substitute for that phrase and realized I didn't know what it was called).

The whole "lowest common denominator of taste" thing dervies almost directly from how much contempt you hold for humanity as a general body and is the only spot in the article where the author's elitism really shows through. However, I fully agree with him because humanity sucks ass.

This line jumped out at me too. I look at art as the relationship between the artist/work and the person consuming the work -- ideally, art is not just something you LIKE or DISLIKE point blank, it's something that triggers us to think about the intent, the context, and what we infer or learn about the artist himself. If art is educational, it's not because It Makes Us More Sophisti-Muh-Cated, it's because, quite simply, it makes us think. And any art can do that. Where the academics go wrong is in enforcing "appreciation" on students, when mere exposure and a gentle "you might find this interesting and here's why I think so" would be way more effective.

Exactly.Enforcing "appreciation" is the main reason that for many many years I did not want anything to do with classical music since I was forced to play it for a decade. As soon as I tried to get my teachers to let me bring anything else such as Jazz or the Dreaded 20th Century Compisitions they told me I was wasting my time and talent.

I'm of the no-intrinsic-values school, but I still grapple if I see a reward in sight. Or maybe I just like grappling. Or something. Anyway, surely you don't need to believe in "intrinsic values" to push yourself to listen to something you don't immediately like if, say, you're interested by the idea of it.

I like the idea of giving the artist the benefit of the doubt if you don't enjoy or understand the work right away. This is part of the "educational" nature of art -- when you hear a piece of music that's different from what you like, you think about why you don't like it, and sometimes if you think hard enough or give the piece a chance to grow on you, you realize that maybe it's you and not the artist that's being the difficult, unyielding one. This is all "maybe," obviously.

Hmm...*rereads* It is and it isn't, though. I see what you and Jody are saying, but that's not the sense I'm getting from it. 'Surrender,' I think, is a very, very loaded word, but for reasons I admit I can't quite put my finger on. That's why this follow-up line:

They both know that art is a team effort between artist and audience and that the latter half of that pair needs help in understanding the importance and nature of its role.

...is both more to my taste (in the first part) and less (in the latter -- I'm not sure why the audience needs help where the artist apparently does not).

That said, to turn it around again, art might not necessarily make ya think per se. It might make you blanked out. And that's something I have no problem with. :-)

Ned, you're being too literal with that quote, I think. What I took from it is that an amazing piece of work is an amazing piece of work whether one person sees/hears it or millions of people see/hear it.

Yes, but I don't get a sense that he's saying that the individual decides, I get a sense that it's intrinsically so. That may be an overliteral take on the quote, I'll grant, but that very nature of the quote is what leaps out at me in turn; your extrapolation of the quote actually comes across as much more warm -- and to my mind true -- than his own words, precisely because you allow for one where he says it can be no-one. It's off-putting and unnecessary, in light of comments elsewhere.

However, I fully agree with him because humanity sucks ass.

Mmm...I'm with Jody here. Rather than writing off humanity as a whole and throwing terms like 'lowest common denominator' around, simply saying that greatest exposure (instead of dictation from on high) can mean greater appreciation infers a greater respect for the individual listeners that make up humanity. That doesn't contradict the idea of taste as universal arbiter in place of the canon.

This is all "maybe," obviously.

Very key, to be sure. Some stuff I hate I grew to like, other things I still despise. But I don't engage with what I hate and am reexposed to on that conscious level, and I don't think there are moments of revelation -- you change without knowing, I think, more often than not, which I think is the case with people and life in general.

Interestingly, Axl Rose comes across as a very specific case to illustrate Jody's point, though -- in Pet Shop Boys versus America, he talks to the author at an LA aftershow party where he says specifically that if he doesn't like something, as he initially did with PSB, he'll listen to it in detail to find out why it is that he doesn't like it, and often changes his mind. It made me respect him much more as a listener, I'll admit! But then he said that "My October Symphony" was a semi-inspiration for "November Rain," which is unfortunate in retrospect. ;-)

Well, I extend "thinking" to include any reaction from the central nervous system.

That's because you don't like to surrender your preconceptions! Very few people do (I sure as hell don't).

I'm not sure why the audience needs help where the artist apparently does not

I took that to mean that the audience needs the artist's help to understand what it was that the artist was attempting to put across. The specific examples of Glass and Duchamp reinforce that reading for me; unless you align yourself somewhat with the artists' mindset, you aren't going to see the value in their work. It's up to the audience to decide whether the potential payoff of seeing what the artist saw/heard is worth the effort (or conversely, if something the artist did evokes an orthoganol-yet-equally-strong reaction).

Yes, but I don't get a sense that he's saying that the individual decides, I get a sense that it's intrinsically so.

Okay, he very well may be. He's arguing from a position that states that there is such a thing as Great Art. In order for Great Art to exist, it has to exist outside of a subjective frame of reference, otherwise it's Great Art To Me. The thing that saves his argument is that he states that not everyone likes Great Art and, at the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with that. His issue seems to be more that people are shutting themselves off to wide swaths of music because the listening skill-set is slightly different AND the people operating in the sphere that appreciates this music is operating under the false impression that either the mere fact of their genre or the right marketing should make people want to listen to their music. He seems to be advocating a tighter partnership between the composer/musician and the listener than one gets with most popular music, largely because the people writing classical music today aren't doing so from an obvious viewpoint. The best analogy I can think of is that if he wants to be like the guy who put the subtitles on "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon".

Rather than writing off humanity as a whole and throwing terms like 'lowest common denominator' around, simply saying that greatest exposure (instead of dictation from on high) can mean greater appreciation infers a greater respect for the individual listeners that make up humanity. That doesn't contradict the idea of taste as universal arbiter in place of the canon.

Humanity as a general body is deeply stupid, though. (Snarkiness aside, I oftentimes think people focus far too much on the "lowest" in "lowest common denominator". I'm going to start referring to things that I like that a large number of people like as "greatest common factors".)

But then he said that "My October Symphony" was a semi-inspiration for "November Rain," which is unfortunate in retrospect. ;-)

Ow, that hurt my soul.

Achtung! I'll second that!

Faith in the value of art depends on a second, less obvious, premise, just as most religions' beliefs in a divine creator are predicated on a belief in an immaterial human soul. To believe in art, one has to believe in abstract criteria of worth or value. This notion, which is profoundly out of fashion today, has formed the underpinning of artistic endeavor in the West for a long time.

With the phrase 'abstract criteria of worth or value' Fineberg distances art from taste; with the concept of 'intrinsic value' he severs them altogether.

The problem with Fineberg's position is that it allows no middle ground between the vissicitudes of taste and the virtues of an artwork. In other words, artistic value must either be objective or subjective -- it cannot be 'intersubjective', in other words there cannot be broad agreement by influential curators, tastemakers, and (perhaps) the public about the status of works.

Fineberg is certainly far from Duchamp, who said that something was only a work of art for ten or twenty years, while the context was as the artist and audience understood it. It then became a museum piece, or something else. Grist to some new artist's mill, perhaps. Source material, a readymade, a corpse. Duchamp's urinal means something totally different now than it did in 1917, when one 'Richard Mutt' submitted it for exhibition to test the boundaries of the art system of the day.

Works of art change their meanings and are never 'correctly' valued. This is healthy and realistic. Canons shift and alter, although some names might always feature in some lists. To say that this undermines the whole production of art is nonsense. It's like saying that without a concept of God there is no basis for human morality. Of course there is! Human morality doesn't need God, it can perfectly happily be based in a mixture of personal responsibility and internalised social conditioning. In the same way, an artist has many reasons to make art without needing to make the bogus and eccentric assertion that his work is 'objectively' great, beyond all human reckoning.

Momus has indeed spotted one of the major weaknesses in Fineberg's argument, but I don't agree with his (Momus's) conclusions at all: there's a third alternative.

Mark: why do you have "fuck all patience for Great Art"? You could mean a few different things here, and -- given my habit of assuming the worst! -- I want to be clear before I respond to that.

I like the phrase "aesthetic response" for What Art Makes Us Do, not least because it potentially includes both "think" and "feel".

Dan raises some good points. I don't agree with everything -- in particular, there's a much less elitist way to deal with the "lowest common denominator/humanity at large = shit" bit, one that I think reflects more accurately what the key issue there is.

To me, the notion of "great art" is less useful, in discussion, than something like art that "has something important to say, and says it in an articulate and interesting way". It's too easy to set up a straw man of some accountant-like tastemaster, saying that Work X rates a 97% whereas Work Y rates 89% and that's that. Sure, there are people out there who do that -- for instance, the ones who make top 100 lists -- and it's not a particularly compelling way to look at things. But it's a straw man argument -- it's just window dressing. The real question is...

...well, that can wait for now!

If Fineman wants the audience to (partially) see his (or whomever's) work from the artist's perspective, I think the 'intrinsic' part of its "greatness" is more to do with the skill and strategy at work (certainly intended by the composers -- and one reason I think many are opt to read convoluted intent into music; in classical music, it is almost *always* there) than some kind of "you must know me *and* love me" argument. In truth, I think he should have said, "when you visit the Eiffel Tower, you marvel at its construction and thrilling heights -- why not do the same with modern classical music?" I suppose from his point of view, this part is not debatable -- but I don't really think many classical composers believe their music is more *enjoyable* than any other music, unless you happen to enjoy their methods -- and even the "off chance" you enjoy the sound of the stuff.

I can also say that from my perspective, having an audience who enjoyed the sound of my music, and appreciated anything I had done to make it sound that way is a dream. What else could a composer want?

Actually I dont even think you need to believe that grappling has a general intrinsic value (though maybe I do) as long as it has an intrinsic value to you. I like putting effort into liking things: that says nothing concrete about the things themselves.

This is what I think he is saying re: appreciating the construction, while not necessarily liking how it sounds.

To me, this is the difference between saying, "That is a dog," and, "That is a domesticated quadrupedal mammal of the canis family."

plenty of things that ppl have over time called "Great Art" i find v.useful and valuable: i'm not sure there's what help it is to abstract from these various items a general intrinsic characteristic

(for example is "articulate" a good word to describe all strong non-verbal art?) (i *don't* buy the idea that every strong artist always sees or understands everything going on in his/her projects: sometimes the reason for pushing the project out into the world is to say "erm what am i getting at here? help me ppl...")

if it means, i dunno, something like value-at-a-distance – as in, hmmm, value that emerges over time via genuine open-minded engagement w.[whatever], and not dependent on yr local cultural background – then of course it exists

"Great Art" as a promo campaign often announces the importance of "stands-the-test-of-time" while actually allowing announcer and announcee NOT to put themselves and the "work" to/thru that test

which only makes sense if there's a risk of someone or something NOT passing

Is then part of the problem a lack of sentient beings willing to evaluate classical music?

Hmm, I didn't read it like that, probably because I didn't think of construction in music in that way. I think of construction as the "work" and the object as the "end result". This kind of construction, I think, is very rarely discussed in music criticism -- and with good reason, as most of us weren't privy to any of the details, and in many cases probably wouldn't care to be anyway. But I *do* want to know how something was (generally technically) accomplished by artists I love -- maybe this is because I am a musician (or so I hope).

A by-product of that thinking is that one can appreciate the grappling of the "work" while not necessarily applying value to the object.

Although Franzen didn't explicity say as much, I think it was inferred in the New Yorker piece that the Status writers were writing for themselves, while Contract writers were writing for their audience. And I think he makes a poor assumption here. There seems to be this unspoken idea that if you are creating for yourself then this means that your art will be difficult, lengthy, opaque. Of course this isn't true. It would make sense that there are more weekend John Grishams out there than Gaddises. I guess I think the notion of creating for yourself is a little too romanticized. Fineberg offers an out to that, even if it is a flawed one.

Then I think we agree.

There is a difference between aspiring to make Great Art, and hoping that someday people will recognize your greatness. The first depends on the Status model, the second doesn't. You don't need to subscribe to the Status model to allow that the hope of future recognition can be a motivation for composers or artists. In fact, I think that the Contract model gives a more convincing account of this situation than the Status model. Because in the Status model, it doesn't really matter, in the end, whether anyone ever appreciates the work. Either it was Great Art all along (unbeknownst to all) or it wasn't, but you really have no way of proving either way. After all, what is considered Great Art today may be forgotten tomorrow. So was it Great Art or not? How can you tell?

It is potentially misleading in the sense you described, because it implies that the value was somehow in the material, pre-dating the artist's involvement, waiting to be discovered, so to speak. However, the way that I use the term is to distinguish the view that art has value regardless of what people may think of it (hence, "intrinsically") or whether it's value depends on being in a relationship with an audience (hence, "non-intrinsically" or "contingently").

We believe that if through determination, hard work and talent, we are able to make truly great works of art, sooner or later people will grapple with these works, come to see their value, and develop the sense of awe we feel in the presence of true masterpieces.

This is not to say many composers are certain that they themselves are writing masterpieces. The belief has more to do with the possibility of masterpieces and a confidence that such works will inevitably, even if belatedly, be recognized. Ultimately, we share what some may view as an embarrassingly corny and idealistic view of art: We believe it enriches the world, whether or not the world knows or cares.

I see Fineberg as clearly a Status artist.

I think this is the Achilles' heel of the Status position. At bottom, they are reduced to a statement of faith. "If we make Great Art, sooner or later, someone has got to appreciate it." However, they can't be certain that anyone ever will, because if the value of art necessitated being appreciated, then they'd be in the Contract school, and not the Status school at all.

"It is still spoken of, when it is noted, with high regard, though seldom played."

o.nate, so does this imply that this notion of 'Great Art' is fundamentally a meaningless or useless one, and that it should be removed from our cultural exchange.

After all, what is considered Great Art today may be forgotten tomorrow. So was it Great Art or not? How can you tell?

Isn't one criterion for being able to tell just that this very forgetting doesn't happen? (I do not fully understand what mark s is getting at above wrt the 'promo campaign' not 'allowing' that - unless it's about 'values' being foisted upon us as some kind of cultural brainwashing masquerading as education?) That implies you can never have 'Great Art' that isn't old - but for the contractualists that doesn't matter, because they don't believe you can have such a Thing anytime.

Deborah Voight didn't have her stomach stapled in a vacuum. Okay that reads kind of oddly but hopefully you see what I mean.

I fully endorse the continued existence of classical music, as it's broadly defined, and am willing to pay for it. I'm happy keeping it in the museum with the cobwebs. Writers of polemics about the great importance of their music and the need to spead the word need to put up or shut up. That's my position.

Why doesn't New York have a bar for 20somethings that has a really kickass interpreter of Chopin and Satie in residence? White tie, outlandish approach to meter, while people sneak coke in bathroom stalls...

Why don't any of the big outdoor rock festivals (I'm looking at you, Coachella) ever have orchestras? Imagine how well a live showing/playing of Koyanisqaatsi, giant projection + orchestra, would go over.

I guess the characteristic both examples have in common, and the reason I can imagine them succeeding, is that they don't require people to sit in a room and do nothing but listen. Depressing.

No you didn't and I wasn't referrin to your post at that point in my little shitfit there.

My gateway to appreciating classical music was certainly in my 4AD phase, via This Mortal Coil's Filigree & Shadow circa 1989/1990... although growing up on late 70s disco, I'm sure the pop appropriations of classical music that were highly present there subconsciously seeped into my brain at a wee age.

Then again, I listened to the Saturday Night Fever 8-track non stop as a little kid on my 2XL robot, and Beethoven gets full props in the soundtrack.. so there you go.. also I think that soundtrack also subconsciously leaped tribal/techno into my brain via Ralph MacDonald's "Calypso Breakdown".. which was my first memory of listening to a long-form dance track that was more stripped down than disco.

I just want to get a survery of whom I'm boring to death, and whom I'm not.. that's all. I don't want to turn people off music or anything.

I was only giving credence to it as the best current indicator I can think of regarding what people who subscribe to what is (afaik - and please remember I'm a Limey so forgive me if I'm wrong about any of this!) the biggest selling and longest running popular music publication in the US, consider to be the best albums of all time; and hence an indicator of the direction that the groundswell of popular opinion is moving in.

There was certainly no intention on my part to suggest that the publication itself has any relevance beyond that or that it will be remembered any more than I imagine (for example) "Q" will be in 25 years time; nor indeed any approval of the direction that I believe that groundswell is moving in!

Not to say the RS poll is insignificant, nor the magazine, per se. I'm just saying a combination of various polls that include as much of the whole American demographic as possible would be far more telling. Country mags, Hip-hop mags, etc. Some think RS is over the hill. Some think RS is commie! It's been a weird era of music pub specialization and split-offs for a while now; and it's not flattening out any time in the foreseeable future.

The proliferation of new genres (and other publications dedicated to their inherents) and the fact that the younger generations do seem to be predominantly interested in new music (which is probably how it should be, after all), only suggests to me that the profile of Elvis and his ilk are only likely to be further diluted if we could (be bothered to) factor in "a combination of various polls that include as much of the whole American demographic as possible".

Sadly it seems that Neil Young was wrong:
The King is gone and he's been forgotten
And this will probably be the story for Johnny Rotten.

Not that the readers of Rolling Stone know who Neil Young is or give a shit what he thinks, if that same readers' poll is any indication....

Of course, there will probably be revivals too.

Of those people, how many of them know the name Stephen Foster? I think that's more the point I've been driving at in the latter half of this conversationg than anything else; there are acts from now and the past 50 years whose longevity is assured, not as the forefront of the current listening trend, but as the representatives of their era. They will be the first names to come to mind when a genre comes up or is rediscovered. I further posit that, as time goes on, most music genres make a transition from lowbrow to highbrow, due mostly to the added gravitas of history and distance as time goes on.

Please excuse my last post, a poor attempt at Comstock C. type humor.

I just got this.

Hopefully someone who seriously knows about this will chime in, but my impression is that Indian classical and Persian classical are both much more fixed than the European classical tradition (in which I would include plenty people outside of Europe). (Maybe the heavy emphasis on improvisation in both traditions helps to balance the relatively strict definition of their boundaries?) From what I gather, the South Indian Karnatak classical tradition is more open to experiment with new instrumental timbres than the Hindustani tradition. Within Persian classical music, it's true that you do have a great like Mohammed Reza Shahjarian participating in a project like Night Silence Desert, where there is some very modest use of vocal overdubs; but I kind of rememmber reading that he had some trepidation about the whole project, even though it is hardly wildly modern.

In Syria, you have a particular classical tradition that was apparently revived in the 19th Century, and from what I've gathered, the singers Sabah Fakhry and Shadi Jamil both bring the percussion into the foreground a little more, with the idea of creating broader popular appeal.

I hope I live to see the day when The Sex Pistols are considered highbrow, and I mean that with the utmost sincerity.

Give it 20 more years! (Alternately make John Lydon stop appearing in public and this could happen overnight.)