On why we make music and who is it for

Well, i posted a reply and then saw another post and then replied back to that. Didn't mean to seem like i wasn't observing etiquette.

I don't want to make a big deal out of it either, I just thought it was worth pointing it out.

I don't think it's up to me, a random uneducated citizen, to decide why people compose! In my opinion, writing for the masses is perfectly valid. Writing as part of a consumer-producer relationship, like Hindemith's Gebrauschmusik, is perfectly valid. Writing to express emotion if perfectly valid, as is writing for no real reason at all. I don't see why people have a problem with "academic" music like Feldman's. Just listen to this to see how great "academic" music can be: http://artofthestates.org/cgi-bin/piece.pl?pid=92 (thank you, juji!)

In fact, you know whose beliefs on YC remind me of Mao's? JT's. How ironic.

About the first post, though:

1. Hitler was a watercolor painter.

2. Hitler was a Nazi.

3. If you do watercolor painting, you're a Nazi.

And yes, I know watercolor painting is not an ideology. I was trying to illustrate the fallacy...

I think Maoist ideas on culture are really interesting, even if I don't personally believe music is inherently ideological or anything.

I basically use composition as masturbation.

I assume you use Finale. (snicker)

I don't think it's up to me, a random uneducated citizen, to decide why people compose! In my opinion, writing for the masses is perfectly valid. Writing as part of a consumer-producer relationship, like Hindemith's Gebrauschmusik, is perfectly valid. Writing to express emotion if perfectly valid, as is writing for no real reason at all. I don't see why people have a problem with "academic" music like Feldman's. Just listen to this to see how great "academic" music can be: Art of the States: Palais de Mari (thank you, juji!)

In fact, you know whose beliefs on YC remind me of Mao's? JT's. How ironic.

About the first post, though:

1. Hitler was a watercolor painter.

2. Hitler was a Nazi.

3. If you do watercolor painting, you're a Nazi.

And yes, I know watercolor painting is not an ideology. I was trying to illustrate the fallacy...

I think Maoist ideas on culture are really interesting, even if I don't personally believe music is inherently ideological or anything.

For the record - Feldman wasn't an academic, nor was his music academic. In fact, his music was pretty anti-academy and anti-establishment and anti-tradition...man I could go on and on

The rest of your post is solid gold though

That's why I put "academic" in quotes. He was "academic" in the same sense Cage and artists like Rothko were "academic". Not really very academic at all (especially in Cage's case), but to many normal people the distinction is purely theoretical. I mean, yeah, a guy who associated with the Greenwich Village crowd in the 50s couldn't be a hardcore Darmstadter or anything...

That's why I put "academic" in quotes. He was "academic" in the same sense Cage and artists like Rothko were "academic". Not really very academic at all (especially in Cage's case), but to many normal people the distinction is purely theoretical. I mean, yeah, a guy who associated with the Greenwich Village crowd in the 50s couldn't be a hardcore Darmstadter or anything...

I like this guy

I mean, I don't worry about the audience ever, compositionally. How I present something, explain something? Sure. Just look at the different ways you promote your music if you're into a number of different styles.

And Stalin also had his Socialist Realism... In effect, it boils down to forcing a style to become popular. But Feldman's quote is more revealing about the reality of the situation: if you make a sound, someone will say "cool."

it's an interesting topic.it is easier to say what will politics must represent - and this is

a will to equality and justice, it would be much more problematic to see what will music may represent.for you ca not reach equality of treatment and justice by making music. this is why for communism art(ist) is a problematic thing. by saying that you must represent people's will, you do not imply any content it might express. you may live up/down to the taste of audiences, may express feelings, desires and what not, but with 'will' things are different. the will to equality and justice, in music, to my mind could only be bringing to life more an more artistic anarchism. since, by being unable to express a will proper to communism (that is a will to equality and justice) in purely musical terms, the ideology must accept that it (unrepresantation of will) is its limits and let the principle of equality and justice work on another level - letting equality in expressing everyone's will as it is in personal unit.if communism does not recognize this inner need for anarchism, it falls down to making people's will sound in unison, which is not just and equal.

while i see communism as the yet only possible expression of will to equality and justice in terms of political organization (which does not amount to USSR), i think it's artistic policy is wrong, even in their own terms.

re: Mao quote, music must be for the masses, blah blah blah

Dunno if this really applies, but I tend to disagree that music must be for the masses. I don't care if John Q. Public likes my music. It's irrelevant to me. I've chosen to work almost exclusively in a very specific setting, and write my music for a very select audience.

I don't want everyone to like it...I don't expect everyone to "get it"... it doesn't matter! I can make a living as a performer playing anything I need to (be it commercial or art or otherwise), but when it comes to my own compositional and artistic output, I write what I want, without any regard for how it will be received or how much mass appeal it may have.

In short, I don't give a :censored:

;)

People get too bent out of shape over this issue, as if there is only one possible outcome... a 'right' way and a 'wrong' way to make art. Does the music written for a culture NOT serve as an 'artistic' expression of the people? What is the role of the composer then if not as a spokesperson of the people to musically express the patriotism of the nation? It's utilitarian, no different than Shostakovich's works - the period of Nationalism that we recognize as art, as subversive as he was.

But Shostakovich made his choice to remain in Russia to serve the people he felt he was connected to in nationality and brotherhood. Stravinsky, in the same time period, fled Russia. His art reflected this move to a more individualized art form in music, turning away from 'Nationalism' in music. We don't say that Stravinsky made art and Shostakovich didn't. WE ACCEPT THE WORK OF BOTH COMPOSERS AS ART. Shostakovich certainly didn't support 'communism' in the sense that Mao expresses it. Shostakovich was tied TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, his countrymen, not his political climate.

That, I feel, is a perspective on this discussion that the OP is failing to address, that art appears in many forms and for many purposes... not just the wholly 'individualized' or 'humanist' form that characterizes today's music. Perhaps we're all a bit too spoiled as well, because we really aren't left with facing the challenges that Stravinsky and Shostakovich had to deal with... exile or compromise vs death... but to say that one's music is not art or that it is tainted by political forces because of this compromise is to ignore the very reality that art and its environment don't always cater to the artist.

Feldman pouts that a reviewer thinks poorly of his music, but he never demonstrates in his rhetoric any understanding of the climate that brings about this approach to art. His expression is that of a spoiled child. He should be grateful that he never faced imprisonment or death at the hands of a social monopolization of his art form. Let's face the music. As artists today, we're more like spoiled little children. Let's at least be grateful for what we have today and that our choices don't force us to live with the severity of conditions our predecessors faced.

Hmmm...actually, I lied. Now that I think about it, a lot of very much anti-establishment composers did lots of studying at Darmstadt. Never mind then.

re: Mao quote, music must be for the masses, blah blah blah

Dunno if this really applies, but I tend to disagree that music must be for the masses. I don't care if John Q. Public likes my music. It's irrelevant to me. I've chosen to work almost exclusively in a very specific setting, and write my music for a very select audience.

I don't want everyone to like it...I don't expect everyone to "get it"... it doesn't matter! I can make a living as a performer playing anything I need to (be it commercial or art or otherwise), but when it comes to my own compositional and artistic output, I write what I want, without any regard for how it will be received or how much mass appeal it may have.

In short, I don't give a :censored:

;)

I take Robin's opposite stand, but only slightly. I tend to write music for the masses. Of course, I don't except super majority of the people to like what I write, but I do expect more people to like what i write than what Tokke's write. My main goal is to literally bring mindless enjoyment to them. I don't know why I like doing that, but I do.

Yeah sometimes, I will spend time writing something more complex that a lot of people won't get, but that side of music doesn't appeal to me much.

Look I write because -

a) I have the time, money to do so

b) Since I have these things, I cannot help but write the more I write and learn

c) As for whom I write - very situational. I write for myself mostly - usually to clear my head of the ideas and visions that run amok in my head; sometimes for friends - and a performance is a BIG enticemnent

d) What I seek - well, I love approval and compliments. But I welcome constructive criticism.

Essentially beyond this, it becomes a case of understanding of the function and role of music in society. One could say in Western culture music's role and function began to be more diffuse as it lost its association and role in pagan and Christian rites and rituals. In other cultures such as India, music's role and function is extremely explicit (eg certain ragas and talas are for specific times of days - an interesting parallel is the hymns and chant assigned to the different times of day in the Roman Catholic church) and more rigid than Western music.

I'd say too the demarcation line between private and public music was clearer 200 years ago - for example the clavichord was an instrument designed specifically for private music making while the organ was meant for church services and public affairs.

I'd like to emphasize that there has always been private and public roles and functions for music. And this has always had an affect upon how we compose. It is rather a matter of degree. In my opinion the borders today are far more amorphous and music is becoming much more private - you can listen to an hour of preselected music on your IPod - a luxury very few had even 100 years ago.

Possibly Henk, that is the true heart of your discussion. As for Hitler and Mao - well it is in keeping with dictators to circumscribe the private realm until all that is private is public. The closest we have to that in the arts in our society is the controls put on recording production and access to digital media (eg degrees of censorship) and advertising. I will add that even in more open cultures - humans will self-censor themselves to some degree according to their role, economic status and milieu. And, in turn, this effects the process of composition,making it an imperative to present your music to the world - it can serve as a mirror, albeit imperfect one.

Thanks again for posting these wonderful quotes Henk.

Does the music written for a culture NOT serve as an 'artistic' expression of the people? What is the role of the composer then if not as a spokesperson of the people to musically express the patriotism of the nation? It's utilitarian, no different than Shostakovich's works - the period of Nationalism that we recognize as art, as subversive as he was.

There is no universal "role of a composer"

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, just sayin'

But Shostakovich made his choice to remain in Russia to serve the people he felt he was connected to in nationality and brotherhood. Stravinsky, in the same time period, fled Russia. His art reflected this move to a more individualized art form in music, turning away from 'Nationalism' in music. We don't say that Stravinsky made art and Shostakovich didn't. WE ACCEPT THE WORK OF BOTH COMPOSERS AS ART. Shostakovich certainly didn't support 'communism' in the sense that Mao expresses it. Shostakovich was tied TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, his countrymen, not his political climate.

1) Shostakovich was like 7 years old when the October Revolution happened, by the time he was an adult the Soviet Union didn't really make it easy for someone to "just leave". Ever heard of the KGB? Vladimir Putin was in it, and that mofugga is a black belt.

2) Stravinsky was already pretty much out of Russia well before the revolution anyway, and then he moved to Switzerland...then France.

3) The situation concerning Shostakovich and Stalin and all that is kind of complex. It's really pointless to just say, "He was expressing the will of the people.......but not!!" The stories about the 5th symphony being some sort of wolf in sheep's clothing or whatever is pretty much conjecture that you probably got from a Michael Tilson Thomas DVD (or god forbid, Bernstein). I guess my advice is.......read a book and stop watching Bernstein DVDs?

Anyway, I think the argument of "what is/isn't art" is boring. If Shostakovich meant for something to be art then it is. His intent and true feelings are still sort of up in the air, scholars are still debating.

That, I feel, is a perspective on this discussion that the OP is failing to address, that art appears in many forms and for many purposes... not just the wholly 'individualized' or 'humanist' form that characterizes today's music.

No I just wanted to point out certain correlations. Mole hills =/= mountains.

Perhaps we're all a bit too spoiled as well, because we really aren't left with facing the challenges that Stravinsky and Shostakovich had to deal with... exile or compromise vs death... but to say that one's music is not art or that it is tainted by political forces because of this compromise is to ignore the very reality that art and its environment don't always cater to the artist.

Stravinsky and Shostakovich's situations were completely different. Stravinsky was never threatened by the state for any of his works. He got out before anything even happened. In fact, his debuting of A Soldier's Tale (the first work of his neo-classical period) coincides directly with him moving back to Switzerland. Stravinsky was never threatened by the state or Stalin or anything like that for being a formalist or whatever. Do you know why? Because he left Russia before the revolution even happened! Even then it was a few years until the Soviet Union was established, workers of the world unite blahblahblah. I honestly think you just make things up every time you post. You literally just made up information about Stravinsky.

Feldman pouts that a reviewer thinks poorly of his music, but he never demonstrates in his rhetoric any understanding of the climate that brings about this approach to art. His expression is that of a spoiled child. He should be grateful that he never faced imprisonment or death at the hands of a social monopolization of his art form. Let's face the music. As artists today, we're more like spoiled little children. Let's at least be grateful for what we have today and that our choices don't force us to live with the severity of conditions our predecessors faced.

sigh

For the record: I'm not, like, superman or something. These are basic historical facts. I had to double check a couple of dates with wikipedia which takes 5 seconds. Please don't just post lies to make yourself look smart...otherwise someone who knows better will factcheck you and call your donkey out, just sayin'.

Please don't just post lies to make yourself look smart...otherwise someone who knows better will factcheck you and call your donkey out, just sayin'.

Whatever you say, Kremlin. The information I posted isn't 'made up'. The entire discussion on 'Nationalism' in music revolves around this period of time in Russia. Stravinsky knew full well in 1914 when he returned to Russia that war was imminent, when he was collecting research materials for Les Noces. In July, he made the decision to return to Switzerland knowing full well that Russia would close its borders and he would face exile from the country. He's not the only composer that faced tough choices about remaining in (or in Stravinsky's case returning to) Russia or facing exile. These composers all knew that if they left that the borders would be closed and they wouldn't be able to return.

Here's a wiki discussing 'The Five' composers in Russia that shaped Russia's Nationalist movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five

Among the composers who were taught by these figures were Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and Shostakovich. The first two left Russia in rebellion, at least in part, to Balakirev's ideological positions on Russian music and to explore a more personal style of composition.

Stravinsky and Shostakovich's situations were completely different. Stravinsky was never threatened by the state for any of his works.

You 'completely' missed the point I am making... by a LOT. Yes, Stravinsky's situation was ENTIRELY different than Shostakovich. That's the whole point, Twit! Stravinsky was free to compose on a more personalized, individual level. Shostakovich was constrained in composing music as a 'voice of the people', which meant he faced severe consequences if his personal political views surfaced in his music. You're absolutely right, they are completely different scenarios. BUT we don't view the music of Shostakovich as any lesser form of art than we do Stravinsky. That's the point - art doesn't happen in a vacuum.

You're making the argument that anyone who thinks music should be catered to the audience is a communist. I'm actually putting your argument into historical context to explain how completely misguided this whole discussion becomes when you ignore history. Feldman happens to think (according to his quote) that new artistic expression only happens "after 6 weeks," he practically encourages 'art in a vacuum'! Of course, he has that luxury not every composer had.

kremlin, i read the original post but i can't quite discern what your point/question is. What exactly is your point of view?

On communism, i'd just like to ask if anyone knows of a situation where communism has worked and been successful and not turned into a dictatorship. just wondering.

kremlin, i read the original post but i can't quite discern what your point/question is. What exactly is your point of view?

From what I gather, his argument is that agreeing with the idea that music should cater to an audience makes you a communist...

Also, he seems to think Feldman's ideas that art should not be restricted to catering to an audience produces something better... maybe better art?

The whole discussion lacks any context beyond two quotes from two different historical figures in two very different historical periods. It's a wash.

On communism, i'd just like to ask if anyone knows of a situation where communism has worked and been successful and not turned into a dictatorship. just wondering.

Well, Communism truly HASNT been realized - at least not by its true definition.

From what I gather, his argument is that agreeing with the idea that music should cater to an audience makes you a communist...

Also, he seems to think Feldman's ideas that art should not be restricted to catering to an audience produces something better... maybe better art?

The whole discussion lacks any context beyond two quotes from two different historical figures in two very different historical periods. It's a wash.

Hence why I just pointed out the conversation was, to me, offensive and didn't waste my time posting my opinion fully.

^^ Doublepost for the win! ^^

That's the whole point, Twit!

"Twit?"

But you're the one saying:

Perhaps we're all a bit too spoiled as well, because we really aren't left with facing the challenges that Stravinsky and Shostakovich had to deal with... exile or compromise vs death...

and then saying

Yes, Stravinsky's situation was ENTIRELY different than Shostakovich.

You're the one explicitly grouping them together as if they were the same. You're not a twit, AA, you're a fully fledged idiot and a liar.

^^ Doublepost for the win! ^^

Sorry, again I saw your reply to the post AFTER i posted mine.

"Twit?"

But you're the one saying:

"Perhaps we're all a bit too spoiled as well, because we really aren't left with facing the challenges that Stravinsky and Shostakovich had to deal with... exile or compromise vs death..."

and then saying

"Yes, Stravinsky's situation was ENTIRELY different than Shostakovich."

Was Stravinsky's 'exile' a challenge? Sure, not being able to return to his homeland and being forced to live somewhere else so he could write what he wanted to write... I'd call it a challenge. Maybe you wouldn't. But it was almost 50 years before he was ever able to return to his homeland in Russia.

Was Shostakovich's 'compromise' a challenge? Of course, and it even shows in his music.

Did they write different music as a result of their choices when facing these challenges? Yes. Should either artist's work be viewed as a lesser form of or not a "new" art in Shostakovich's case because of their choices? Absolutely not!

You're the one explicitly grouping them together as if they were the same. You're not a twit, AA, you're a fully fledged idiot and a liar.

Clearly, I'm not. Be a dear... open your mouth, insert your foot. :whistling:

I don't have a problem with you correcting your statements or explaining them if they seem bizarre, AA, I have a problem with you insulting others for pointing out a problem with your statements.

Clearly, I'm not. Be a dear... open your mouth, insert your foot.

But you just never learn, do you?