What can I say NMB has sunk even lower and no comment Colin. M presents his either/or view of the world. He conflates complexity of explanation with dissonance. As if serial music is by its very nature formally complex. It's not. Sometimes its incredibly simple.
Then again for me its not my serial music right or wrong.
http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/adding-by-subtracting/#comment-12532
Phil Fried says:
Two things Mclaren:
The complex or rigorous jargon filled explanations of recent works, (even consonant or tonal ones) continue in university and college seminars everywhere.
As for form; humor, music drama, and emotion, (to name a few) are not easily achieved without it.
______________________________
http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/just-say-no-to-great-men/
Naturally the person commenting back has no idea what I'm talking about their frame of reference limited--that doesn't stop them from talking pop music. The velvet underground may be a rock classic but they are never played on classic rock radio.
Phil Fried says:
The scorn of anonymous bloggers is well know and can be found attached to most every news story not just about the arts. Even here. The arts, for the main stream media exist mostly as weird news; multimillion dollar painting sold for pennies etc. etc. Or as a playground for press agents and publicists with an angle. Sigh.
I understand the need to get rid of the idea that only a “great man” (or person)can possibly create great art. The problem is what has come to replace this idea.
Rather than praise a “great artist” who set a standard we might perhaps aspire to, we now live in the time of the “successful artist.”
Hardly an improvement.
Phil Fried says:
Jon I do agree with you. Yet the successful writer Edith Wharton gave financial support to the less successful Henry James and there are many other examples of this. Rossini’s deference to the aforementioned Beethoven for example. What their criteria was for assuming greatness in others I’m not sure. This is for certain; until we all agree on what greatness means –what are the qualifiers etc. the point is moot.
Then again for me its not my serial music right or wrong.
http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/adding-by-subtracting/#comment-12532
Phil Fried says:
Two things Mclaren:
The complex or rigorous jargon filled explanations of recent works, (even consonant or tonal ones) continue in university and college seminars everywhere.
As for form; humor, music drama, and emotion, (to name a few) are not easily achieved without it.
______________________________
http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/just-say-no-to-great-men/
Naturally the person commenting back has no idea what I'm talking about their frame of reference limited--that doesn't stop them from talking pop music. The velvet underground may be a rock classic but they are never played on classic rock radio.
Phil Fried says:
The scorn of anonymous bloggers is well know and can be found attached to most every news story not just about the arts. Even here. The arts, for the main stream media exist mostly as weird news; multimillion dollar painting sold for pennies etc. etc. Or as a playground for press agents and publicists with an angle. Sigh.
I understand the need to get rid of the idea that only a “great man” (or person)can possibly create great art. The problem is what has come to replace this idea.
Rather than praise a “great artist” who set a standard we might perhaps aspire to, we now live in the time of the “successful artist.”
Hardly an improvement.
Phil Fried says:
Jon I do agree with you. Yet the successful writer Edith Wharton gave financial support to the less successful Henry James and there are many other examples of this. Rossini’s deference to the aforementioned Beethoven for example. What their criteria was for assuming greatness in others I’m not sure. This is for certain; until we all agree on what greatness means –what are the qualifiers etc. the point is moot.
