EPTClassical music, “elitism,” and cultural relevancy - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4673 Posts
| ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
On March 13 2010 19:39 Silvanel wrote: Anyone who claims that one form of art is better than the other is just plainly wrong. They are all equal. Most academics i know dont listen to any kind of music, a few listens fo Jazz, hell when i started counting, it turned out there are more metal fans than classical among them. so a story written by a 6 year old cannot be judged inferior art than shakespearean literature? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7796 Posts
On March 13 2010 16:43 JohnColtrane wrote: hey bro im making artwork right now jealous? also i dont know what you are pissing on about. it's silence being sold for money. i dont give a fig whether or not you think its about it being 'art' or what not - it's a track of nothing being sold as money, and i found that retarded. what's your beef with that, gumby? you gonna tell me not to laugh at silence being sold for 3 bucks because its artistic? l 0 l I'm a mucician myself, darling, and I have played John Cage. You see how jaleous I am. If you are an artist and don't understand that the problem of a concept piece is not its trade value, I'm deeply sorry for you. That's all I can say. | ||
|
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7796 Posts
On March 13 2010 19:55 phosphorylation wrote: so a story written by a 6 year old cannot be judged inferior art than shakespearean literature? On an aesthetic level, no. Or yes, but it will be extremely hard to justify it. Aesthetic problems are an incredibly hard nut to crack, and I doubt we have the space to even make a outline of the problem of tastes and artistic judgement. That's hardcore philosophy in its most complicated form. The most complete answer is to be found in Critic of the Judgement from Immanuel Kant, although I don't like his approach. Art is to be related with his transcandantal moral, to summarize. A simpler approach is the one of David Hume, which considers that some people are experts, are "true critiques", which needs both objectivity and science. That's not very satisfactory neither. You can also refer to someone like Alain Badiou who consider that the novelty (in fact of the process of artistic Truth which is always revolutionary) gives its value to an artwork. You also have Heidegger who studied the problem, and I won't even try to make a resumee. etc, etc, etc... It is obvious that Shakespeare has more artistic value than your 6 years old, or that Beethoven is plai better than Britney Spears. But to find out why and how to justify it, that's years and years of work for the greatest philosophers, and years of studying for you to understand them. There is this sentence from Adorno: "It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident" | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7796 Posts
On March 13 2010 20:09 JohnColtrane wrote: the problem of the piece is that nothing is happening for 4 minutes Most clever post I've read on TL, congratulations. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
| ||
|
Navane
Netherlands2730 Posts
| ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On March 13 2010 20:09 JohnColtrane wrote: the problem of the piece is that nothing is happening for 4 minutes do you actually understand what the point of the piece is the sound is supposed to be the background of the audience, like the rustling, and the air conditioners, and coughing, and whatnot. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
| ||
|
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
On March 13 2010 21:19 Caller wrote: do you actually understand what the point of the piece is the sound is supposed to be the background of the audience, like the rustling, and the air conditioners, and coughing, and whatnot. "The difference is that John Cage's work is supposed to be done live (so you can hear the shut up stifled audience (well still not exactly good use of money IMO)) and Telepopmusik made a recording of silence." despite that, coughing and air conditioners? are you srs | ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
On March 13 2010 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote: On an aesthetic level, no. Or yes, but it will be extremely hard to justify it. Aesthetic problems are an incredibly hard nut to crack, and I doubt we have the space to even make a outline of the problem of tastes and artistic judgement. That's hardcore philosophy in its most complicated form. The most complete answer is to be found in Critic of the Judgement from Immanuel Kant, although I don't like his approach. Art is to be related with his transcandantal moral, to summarize. A simpler approach is the one of David Hume, which considers that some people are experts, are "true critiques", which needs both objectivity and science. That's not very satisfactory neither. You can also refer to someone like Alain Badiou who consider that the novelty (in fact of the process of artistic Truth which is always revolutionary) gives its value to an artwork. You also have Heidegger who studied the problem, and I won't even try to make a resumee. etc, etc, etc... It is obvious that Shakespeare has more artistic value than your 6 years old, or that Beethoven is plai better than Britney Spears. But to find out why and how to justify it, that's years and years of work for the greatest philosophers, and years of studying for you to understand them. There is this sentence from Adorno: "It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident" i like how you cite philosophers to seem hard core and proceed to label them as not satisfactory and very funny how you mention adorno (i fucking love that jew) coz he would be in profound agreement with me he spent much of his life thinking about why certain art is wortwhile while others are not you are grossly simplifying the meaning of his quote and seemingly not comprehending it on the argument itself, you first say this: "Anyone who claims that one form of art is better than the other is just plainly wrong" and proceed to give in, saying " It is obvious that Shakespeare has more artistic value than your 6 years old, or that Beethoven is plai better than Britney Spears. But to find out why and how to justify it, that's years and years of work for the greatest philosophers, and years of studying for you to understand them." ruh roh | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
Minimalists in America in the mid-1960s had to fight against the expected serial style of composition like Stockhausen, and In Britain, composers who were to become minimalists were largely under the influence of Cageian musical philosophies, having passed through a phase of serialism, and consequently you do see that the early works of some minimalists had strong serialist influences. Almost all of the late-20th-century minimalist composers have reported feeling restricted by the accepted musical practices of their various situations. Steve Reich did write serial music when he was a student, but he inclined towards stronger tonality. For god's sake, Steve Reich explicitly even says here that he had to stop writing 12-tone serialism. If that isn't a direct statement of rebellion against Schoenberg then I don't know what is, and if you yourself can't hear the distancing from Schoenberg in the music of Terry Riley, Steve Reich, and some of Philip Glass' early works, then you are just beyond help. And I have never said that all contemporary composers are rebelling against Schoenberg either. I just said that the minimalists did. Your idea that atonal music is "suppressed" by the opponents of Schoenberg is just absurd as the influence of Schoenberg is literally everywhere, and only an area of composers moved to minimalism. The whole idea of atonal vs old classical that you presented is nonexistent. | ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
On March 13 2010 21:28 JohnColtrane wrote: "The difference is that John Cage's work is supposed to be done live (so you can hear the shut up stifled audience (well still not exactly good use of money IMO)) and Telepopmusik made a recording of silence." despite that, coughing and air conditioners? are you srs of course "listening" to 4' 33" on a regular basis is sheer foolishness it's a purely conceptual piece.. almost on the level that it shoudl not be performed once you read on the philosophy and logic of the piece's concept, you too would agree that it's qutie brilliant in its unconventional way and that's that, no more, no less if you are not able to get over the inherent novelty and absurdity of the piece, then you are childish | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7796 Posts
On March 13 2010 21:38 phosphorylation wrote: i like how you cite philosophers to seem hard core and proceed to label them as not satisfactory and very funny how you mention adorno (i fucking love that jew) coz he would be in profound agreement with me he spent much of his life thinking about why certain art is wortwhile while others are not you are grossly simplifying the meaning of his quote and seemingly not comprehending it on the argument itself, you first say this: "Anyone who claims that one form of art is better than the other is just plainly wrong" and proceed to give in, saying " It is obvious that Shakespeare has more artistic value than your 6 years old, or that Beethoven is plai better than Britney Spears. But to find out why and how to justify it, that's years and years of work for the greatest philosophers, and years of studying for you to understand them." ruh roh Did you read what I have written? If yes, read again. I say that it is possible to judge an artwork, but that it is very difficult. Let's assume you just misread. Then I say that aesthetic theories are so complicated that anything written here would be too sumarized. Why the fuck do you reproach me to be grossly simpifying when I said a sentence earlier that it would be the case. Doesn't make any sense. Then I said that I didn't like Kantian moral, not that it was not good. David Hume is interesting, but the theory of the true critique is just obsolete in philosophy. And then you say that you like this jew, but if you can't understand a sentence of a basic post on a video game website, I don't see how you could understand a single sentence Adorno has written. And again, how on the fucking earth could what I quoted from Adorno could be misunderstood. There is nothing evident about aesthetic, that all what this sentence says. That's not the fucking kabal. I never wrote that "Anyone who claims that one form of art is better than the other is just plainly wrong" anywhere. You didn't take time to make the difference between the previous poost and mine. What I say is that there is evidence that Beethoven is better than BS, but that it is years and years to be able to justify it. Which is the pooint of departure of most philosophers that wrote on aesthetic: why something evident is so hard to justify. Fucking learn to read, instead of making yourself ridiculous and ruining threads like that. Jesus... | ||
|
SF-Fork
Russian Federation1401 Posts
How do you name the chord B - D - F# - G??? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7796 Posts
On March 13 2010 22:32 SF-Fork wrote: off topic and quick question: How do you name the chord B - D - F# - G??? It's a G major seventh chord first inversion (assuming that you started with bass note). | ||
|
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
On March 13 2010 22:32 SF-Fork wrote: off topic and quick question: How do you name the chord B - D - F# - G??? gmaj7 | ||
|
SF-Fork
Russian Federation1401 Posts
| ||
| ||
