Wasn't it John Cage who said, "The same 200 people go to all the new music concerts in New York."?
gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "howard posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:55 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Specialization (was: 8-course?) > > On Nov 29, 2007, at 2:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I also believe this road of super-specialization > > (i.e. _must_ use a 7-course for this piece, _only_ a > > 9-course for this..., etc.) is an _extremely_ > > dangerous road to go down for the entire field. > * * * > > How can you program a whole concert that > > features, for example, "Italian Music, 1538-42" or > > "German Music, 1712-20" and have it interest anyone > > but diehard specialists? > > Really, really bad example. Lots of ensembles do "German Music, > 1712-1720." They title it "Complete Brandenburgs" and sell lots of > tickets. > > > This also starts to sound ominously like the > > philosophy laid out in Milton Babbitt's 1958 essay > > "Who Cares If You Listen?" (interestingly, the > > original title was "The Composer as Specialist") > > stating that it didn't matter if a regular audience of > > Joe Blows related to a composition at all: what > > mattered was that the piece remained faithful to a > > system of arbitrarily selected parameters that were > > academically accepted by a small group of > > self-appointed cognoscenti. > > I think we should let Babbitt speak for himself. I'll just copy a > few sentences from "Who Cares if You Listen" without expressing any > opinion about whether it's self-important crap with logical flaws > that a retarded chimpanzee would avoid. > > Why refuse to recognize the possibility that contemporary music has > reached a stage long since attained by other forms of activity? The > time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special > preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, > mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Advanced music, to the extent > that it reflects the knowledge and originality of the informed > composer, scarcely can be expected to appear more intelligible than > these arts and sciences to the person whose musical education usually > has been even less extensive than his background in other fields. But > to this, a double standard is invoked, with the words music is > music," implying also that "music is just music." Why not, then, > equate the activities of the radio repairman with those of the > theoretical physicist, on the basis of the dictum that "physics is > physics." > > The whole essay can be found at http://www.palestrant.com/ > babbitt.html#layman. I find Babbitt's prose mildly more palatable > than his music. > > > Well, were is Babbitt's > > music today? > > Right where it always was. I daresay it has as many rabid fans as it > always did -- about 37. > > > Too much artificially academic specialization has > > lead to the absolute downfall of contemporary music in > > its entirety as a legitimate cultural force. > > Contemporary classical music is still present at the > > university level were it is supported by grants and > > endowments as if it were some kind of research rather > > than art. > > I think this is barking up the wrong tree. All sorts of popular > music is as specialized and limited in its way as Babbitt's, but it > sells. Lots of blues or country guitarists are more picky about > their instruments than lute players are. > > > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1158 - Release Date: 11/28/2007 9:11 PM > >
