"But it is only...

"...by searching for a new discrimination that we will extend the horizons of the real."

~Peter Brook, The Empty Space

The above quote is from a book on theater, but it seemed to me particularly applicable to music, and particularly music criticism.

How can we apply a sense of unified or objective discrimination to music that, by its very existence, defies objectification or unification?

Oh, and just for laughs -

"[Destroying and recreating a character for each performance] is easier for French actors than for English ones, because temperamentally they are more open to the idea that nothing is any good."

Same author, same source.

Peter Brook is an interesting character. A lot of really good ideas, and an assload of amazing productions under his belt, but I saw a recent production of his and really didn't like it. I also really disagree with a lot of things he says. But, still, he's a revolutionary director who took leaps and bounds in both stage and screen, so who am I to refute him?

How can we apply a sense of unified or objective discrimination to music that, by its very existence, defies objectification or unification?

Why try or even bother? Why discriminate? Out of taste, I guess? But isn't that personal and, uh, not objective at all?

Also, I don't really understand the quotes themselves. He is implying that you have to discriminate X or Y music to make... progress? I don't know.

Yet another "quote, discuss" thread, how exciting.

Why try or even bother? Why discriminate? Out of taste, I guess? But isn't that personal and, uh, not objective at all?

Also, I don't really understand the quotes themselves. He is implying that you have to discriminate X or Y music to make... progress? I don't know.

Yet another "quote, discuss" thread, how exciting.

Why discriminate? Brook says why in the quote: "To move forward." He is stating in the quote that as people who are receptive to theater, it is our responsibility to be able to find a method of discerning the bad from the good in order to cause theater's progression to a viable and present art form.

And now I'm wondering peoples' thoughts on the same idea as it applies to music.

Oh, and there will be more "quote, discuss" threads from me as I read more of them. These people have very interesting ideas. And you don't have to answer if you don't want to.

Why discriminate? Brook says why in the quote: "To move forward." He is stating in the quote that as people who are receptive to theater, it is our responsibility to be able to find a method of discerning the bad from the good in order to cause theater's progression to a viable and present art form.

And now I'm wondering peoples' thoughts on the same idea as it applies to music.

Right, but viability and presentness may not be viable and present goals for art. There is nothing, aside from arbitrary choice, that assigns art to have to maintain a connection to the present age, especially since the alleged bounds of music are transgressed on a regular basis.

And now I'm wondering peoples' thoughts on the same idea as it applies to music.

Oh, and there will be more "quote, discuss" threads from me as I read more of them. These people have very interesting ideas. And you don't have to answer if you don't want to.

Oh. In that case, no. I don't think it applies to music at all, and I'd really argue it doesn't apply to theater or art in general honestly.

And, well, I'm against this type of thread because it's really too vague. If you could elaborate on your opinion then we can do something, but otherwise it's not very inviting to me at least.

Separating the bad from good to make progress isn't something I think should be done or can be done. In your earlier thread you mentioned that Fux that the music he was hearing was insanity, but a few hundred years later, we think it's quite good. We cannot let our bias and modern opinions distort future bias and future modern opinion.

If it is improper to distinguish good from bad, what is the role of the critic?

I didn't say it was improper, I am just stating that it seems a bit asinine to condemn music you think is bad and say it won't help music progress.

What if the condemnation is qualified? To say, for example, that wholly composed music is passe as "forward thinking," due to its current role of separation of music, musician, and audience, as opposed to the integral combination of music and musician, even given an outside composer, of improvisation.

I mean, no one person is going to change the musical face, so if each composer rejects his own chaff, what is ultimately removed from the language of music is the true chaff - the utterly worthless to any composer. (at this stage of music, where genres are malleable to meaninglessness)

Exactly. Peter Brook worked heavily in the '60s and '70s, and I doubt very much that he'd advocate a universal objectivism about music/theater criticism. But a personal objectivism - essentially, a solid (if malleable) clarification of one's personal preferences, tempered in expertise and experience - is useful, I think. And it's preference that goes beyond just the style of music, or the notes used in a composition. Performance as much as composition is a necessary area of critique.

To me, it's just seems like one of those academic theories that doesn't really serve much of a purpose besides to propose an academic theory. Is there validity in it? Sure, but I can't justify to myself that I should think the way he thinks I should think.

I think he's talking about a natural process. Clearly it's happened over time before - it's why we have a reverence for Mozart, Beethoven, etc. But the difference is that Beethoven and Mozart were working in an absolutist world-view. In a post-modern setting, when we have so many different worldviews, it is incumbent on each of us to develop our own means of music criticism in order to keep the art from becoming a static enterprise. Whether it is or not already - that's an entirely different question.

Christopher -

You mentioned a vital point which negates much immediate criticism for its value. The performance! Usually a performance practice needs quite a few decades to communicate a composition as written. Naturally there is a small group of exceptions but honestly small. Notice that some of the most "successful" composers were expert at their instrument - Tallis, Byrd, Palestrina - accomplished choir singers and the art of singing; Mauchaut - accomplished poet; Hildegard de Bingen - accomplished singer of chant and student of the modern musical trends of her times; Bach - virtuoso organist, music director; Beethoven/Mozart - great pianists and long time experience either in the church or stage ....

Now, I am NOT assuming a great performer will result in a great composer -- it just increases the odds because he or she can communicate the "performance practice" of his compositions more easily than a composer who is competent at several instruments or abilities outside composition. How? The performer-composer has the advantage of setting a context for the composition.

The other way a few composers have been able to put forward their works and speed the process of performance practice catching up to their works - the inventor/composer. Hadyn is a good example - a very good musician but not "A virtuoso" - he paid his dues and basically took the Divertimento and created the string quartet, took the Mannheim experiment and Concerto grossi templates and turned them into the modern symphony. And at one point, aside from CPE Bach, Hadyn was one of the most experimental writer for clavichors, pianoforte etc. Mozart and many composers learned much from Hadyn (and they all learned a ton from CPE Bach). Some of our modern day equivalents would be Harry Partch and Xenakis.

For myself, the present performance of common-practice music is almost universally a handicap. Music of that era has been so CODIFIED that if someone tries to do something different, there is someone in authority who will shake his head and accuse the performer of "not executing appropriate performance practice."

I say gently caress that. In the Classical Era, people wouldn't PLAY a piece unless they could bring something new to it. "Well, Liszt plays it like that, and why should I imitate him?" And that has become so foreign in our modern performance culture that common-practice music has become stagnant. And that's why I don't like it all that much - because I can just get it on CD.

So give me new stuff, or new interpretations of old stuff, or so sorry, Mr. Philharmonic Dude, you're not getting my season ticket subscription.

Whether it is or not already - that's an entirely different question.

There was a pretty loltastic thread about this not too long ago :)

Christopher -

You mentioned a vital point which negates much immediate criticism for its value. The performance! Usually a performance practice needs quite a few decades to communicate a composition as written. Naturally there is a small group of exceptions but honestly small. Notice that some of the most "successful" composers were expert at their instrument (...)

Now, I am NOT assuming a great performer will result in a great composer -- it just increases the odds because he or she can communicate the "performance practice" of his compositions more easily than a composer who is competent at several instruments or abilities outside composition. How? The performer-composer has the advantage of setting a context for the composition.

The other way a few composers have been able to put forward their works and speed the process of performance practice catching up to their works - the inventor/composer. (...) Some of our modern day equivalents would be Harry Partch and Xenakis.

See, I've thought about this a lot, as a non-performer. I feel that performers get a deep, but limited, view of music - they see their repertoire and that's it. I feel that this style of learning is not beneficial in the world now. However, the other group - the inventor-composer - is mostly a thing of the past as well, unless you count things which are more rote or chance than invention, such as programming, circuit bending, or instrument creation. And with this dichotomy, where would you put, say Berlioz, who did not play any instrument, yet didn't exactly invent in the same way as Xenakis or Cage.

For myself, the present performance of common-practice music is almost universally a handicap. Music of that era has been so CODIFIED that if someone tries to do something different, there is someone in authority who will shake his head and accuse the performer of "not executing appropriate performance practice."

I say gently caress that. In the Classical Era, people wouldn't PLAY a piece unless they could bring something new to it. "Well, Liszt plays it like that, and why should I imitate him?" And that has become so foreign in our modern performance culture that common-practice music has become stagnant. And that's why I don't like it all that much - because I can just get it on CD.

Well, we do have the benefit of attempting the recreate the past, and respecting the composer as he intended is the cornerstone of performance, as I understand it. (Please someone smarter beat me down here...) The reason why you'd want to play it like Liszt is because he wrote it.

Common-practice music is only as common as you allow it. If you're looking for an avant revolution, start one. Get some like-minded players and talk to your directors.

Ferk and Chris -

Great points. Let me just clarify perfromance practice -- it just takes awhile for the performers to figure roughly how the composers wishes his worked performed (it is an inherent expectation and when societies reach a point of maturation - before decline and forgetting - a realization that the composers intent become so distant as to be meaningless - that is why a bit of fatalism is good for any composer. Not that in Beethoven and Mozart's time it really wasn't that rigid of a view -- yes in comparison to today but their ideals originated from what they thought was the building upon the rediscovery and reinterpretation of ancient philosophy. In some ways we are still in their worldview as around their time arose the scientific and industrial revolutions. In fact these revolutions are approaching their apogee (yes even the industrial revolution but applied into the entirely new areas).

Well, I will stop, I am getting too broad. My original intention was simply to point out that performance practice is one variable to consider in this discussion

I leave for two minutes and look at this train-wreck.

Let's be clear about the performance thing, for one. There is a lot of work put into historical performances BECAUSE it's part of the whole "understanding the past!" branch. It's IMPORTANT. It's worth looking into and thanking these people's efforts into finding out more info about old performance practices, history, etc etc.

This is GOOD. It is HELPFUL.

Now, want non-historical performances? There's a truckload of them too. Look at Glenn Gould's performances of Bach, for an immediate example. And well honestly the "historical performance" branch is a highly specialized one, which isn't really big compared to the overall mass of people who play the same pieces in their own way anyways.

As for taste? I don't care. I think people who want to go for the historical performance thing are brave since that's really hard and takes a lot of studying beyond just learning to play the piece. If not, it's always great to offer new interpretations. I think both are positive.

Anyways, as for:

I think he's talking about a natural process. Clearly it's happened over time before - it's why we have a reverence for Mozart, Beethoven, etc.

Um. I don't have any "reverence" for Mozart or Beethoven or anyone you care to mention. Historical importance isn't assigned based on taste, it's assigned based on achievements/things that shape history itself. Natural process? EH, it could've gone in an entirely different direction as it did in other non-western cultures. Taste is something entirely different from historical fact and progression.

So regardless what the theory proposed is, if it involves somehow asserting that X music is "better" than Y music, or that music "should" go (or remain) in X or Y direction (and whatever doesn't is crazy/wrong/bla), is utter crap. It brings nothing and that's all there really is to it.

PS: Though some theories are rather amusing, at least. So for entertainment, I guess they're not so useless!

Um. I don't have any "reverence" for Mozart or Beethoven or anyone you care to mention. Historical importance isn't assigned based on taste, it's assigned based on achievements/things that shape history itself. Natural process? EH, it could've gone in an entirely different direction as it did in other non-western cultures. Taste is something entirely different from historical fact and progression.

Except for the taste of those in power who decided to bring some of the "greats" into the forefront. It is entirely taste of decision-makers that shapes history. Getting out of the West, look at the affects that "should" be invoked when playing certain ragas - totally based off of what those in power decided they felt when hearing those they considered to be great.

Why would CPE Bach be "the" Bach until Mendohlssohn rediscovered JS? ANd then the change from CPE to JS is simply because of the weight of Mendohlssohn in society.

Except for the taste of those in power who decided to bring some of the "greats" into the forefront. It is entirely taste of decision-makers that shapes history. Getting out of the West, look at the affects that "should" be invoked when playing certain ragas - totally based off of what those in power decided they felt when hearing those they considered to be great.

Why would CPE Bach be "the" Bach until Mendohlssohn rediscovered JS? ANd then the change from CPE to JS is simply because of the weight of Mendohlssohn in society.

?

Huh? So there are no other factors that shape music history, eh? Like the actual music surviving, influences across composers, etc etc. For example JS and CPE's influence on Mozart had absolutely nothing to do with "those in power." In fact nobody really even cared/knew about Mozart's fascination with Bach until the later pieces were uncovered and analyzed in the 20th century.

There's a lot of stuff going on that has nothing to do with "those in power." Look at the huge load of composers that were seemingly "forgotten" by time that get played these days or are known at all.

So I'm not sure what you mean. Taste of "Those in power" has zero to do with our understanding of music history today, though it may have had something to do with what happened back, it has no effect on musicology now. That's what I'm saying.

So I'm not sure what you mean. Taste of "Those in power" has zero to do with our understanding of music history today, though it may have had something to do with what happened back, it has no effect on musicology now. That's what I'm saying.

Of course, the effect is significantly less now, since there isn't so much a clear "Power" anymore in the West, in the sense of a true ruling class. But in the past, the effects of, say, Stalin's sense of "Socialist Nationalism" effected composers' choices on both sides of the fence. In the same way, the effect of monarchical tastes changed who ultimately ended up in the courts, and some of those court musicians are considered "greats."

Eh, like I said, historical importance has nothing to do with "greatness" or considering anyone "great" it has to do with people who sum up or symbolize tendencies in the time they lived in, or are good examples of such. ETC ETC. Beethoven is important because he's in the transition between the Vienna Classic (Mozart, Haydn) to the romantic (Schubert.) But there are lots of other people who wrote music at the same time as he did, and there's even other composers who were writing figured bass sonatas(!) in Beethoven's time. It's really amazing the amount of info we have on so many composers which were seemingly forgotten.

That they're not "greats" has less to do with them as composers or our info about them, and more with advertising. Pure and simple PR.

That they're not "greats" has less to do with them as composers or our info about them, and more with advertising. Pure and simple PR.

Totally what I'm arguing - my point, however, is that the PR was administered by elites throughout, whether the musicians were court appointees or subjects of journal articles, and the value decisions that got the musicians their status were made at the whim of the elites.

Oh in that case we're actually in agreement. Though a lot of composers got famous through championing of other composers. Chopin surely was helped by Schumann, as Schumann talked to a lot of people about him, for example. More recently, Takemitsu got a huge boost of popularity by Stravinsky thinking he was cool. Certainly if you're famous and you recommend someone, that someone will enjoy some popularity by proxy. :>