OK, I was going to shut up. But I've seen particular pieces mentioned on this thread (there was a comment on a cow-bell being an improvement on a European composer of a recent period - pardon that I don't check back on the message as to which one).
I am disappointed. > To say that something you do not understand or do not find what you expect to find in it > is not art or is not beautiful or uplifting (and what else you said) is simply to show > that you do not understand or find what you expect to find. My friend Mathias said that, and he is correct. But he is also wrong. not all efforts at music are good, I think I described that in mine on my friend of fifty years whose mistake may have been that he was so skilled at an early age that he felt he needed to break new ground. Another of my friends spent his career as first chair, first stand flautist in a number of orchestras both in the US and Europe. He now, in retirement, has a baroque musica on original instruments group. Johnny and John (Solum) went different ways with their skills and musicology. Not all experimental music is good, and not all experimental music is bad. It isn't necessary that the critic be full of resentment to take the piece as junk. I remind you all of the Gypsie's Lilt chord (which I like, in context). Enough, Jon > I think it was Adorno who called this kind of an attitude towards music that of a > resentment-listener (Ressentiment-Hoerer), and it was not meant as a compliment. > > > "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > Dear Doctor Oakroot, > > > > To say that someone is missing the point pre-supposes that there is > > a point in the first place. There is no point in a > > pseudo-performance, where an audience is conned into listening to > > nothing. There may be some clever idea behind it all to justify the > > unjustifiable, but four and half minutes of silence is not music. It > > is not art. It is neither beautiful nor uplifting. It has no virtue. > > It has no meaning. It is utterly worthless. By purporting to be > > music, it is a lie - a shameful con - an insult to the intelligence > > and sensitivity of the audience. In fact the audience is put in a > > no-win situation: either they look stupid by accepting that the > > performance has merit; or they are made to look stupid, because, > > when they reject the charade for the meaningless poppycock that it > > is, they are told that they miss the point, or they lack a sense of > > humour. One is reminded of the story of the Emperor's new clothes, > > where a little boy - the only person with a modicum of common > > sense - unmasks the charlatans for what they are. > > > > What irritates me about the purveyors of such tosh is their tacit > > assumption that we should take any of it at all seriously. I have > > had the misfortune to witness one of these ridiculous so-called > > performances some years ago on an early music course. One of the > > tutors, an excellent recorder player, took his turn on stage, but > > instead of playing music like everyone else, he pranced about > > pretending to play. It was not funny. He looked a fool, and I felt > > cheated. If I'd known he wasn't going to play anything, I'd have > > gone to the pub instead. Instead I wasted my time. Who knows? I may > > have missed some subtle, questioning-the-existence-of-it-all point, > > but I certainly missed a good pint. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Stewart. > > -- > Regards, > > Mathias > > Mathias Roesel, Grosze Annenstrasze 5, 28199 Bremen, Deutschland/ Germany, T/F +49 - 421 - > 165 49 97, Fax +49 1805 060 334 480 67, E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
