Discussion:
The Future of Art Music
(too old to reply)
c***@suscom.net
2005-08-05 11:32:50 UTC
Permalink
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.

Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music
to be equated with art music.

Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.

Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."

Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.

Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania
Robert Feinman
2005-08-05 13:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@suscom.net
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music.
Firstly, the music scene has been taken over by big business. The
concentration of commercial music in just 5 companies has reduced the
options open to creators and listeners alike.
During much of the 20th Century the commercial aspects were balanced
to a certain extent by patronage for the "arts". This is no longer as
true and the big established music organizations are suffering as a
consequence.

Secondly, most of the innovation in the past 100 years has come from
the popular side. Starting with ragtime and jazz up through hip hop
and "world music". The concert scene is stuck in a 19th century
framework. Perhaps twelve tone or other techniques are innovations in
a technical sense, but they don't speak to the modern generation like
the popular idioms do.

Thirdly, the concert going experience is out of touch with modern
audiences. Live shows of popular music feature video, special effects,
dancing in the aisles and marketing of related products. Promotion on
TV and radio brings in fans. For concert music one is stuck in a tight
seat, sitting passively and listening to something which is pretty much
the same as the last concert.

Finally, the concert presenters do nothing to leverage the costs of
their productions. If I attend the NYC or Met opera I can't purchase
a recording or DVD. Same for the symphonies or chamber groups.
No wonder arts organizations are hurting when it costs $500,000 to
$1,000,000 to stage an opera which get 8 performances with 2,000 people
at each performance. The patrons make up the loss instead of having the
arts organizations figure out ways to remarket their product.

Academia has sheltered two generations of composers from the harsh
market realities and has made their music essentially irrelevant in
the dynamic parts of the culture scene. It is possible to create
interesting music that is also popular, but it requires breaking out
of the existing patterns.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: ***@gmail.com
Tom Sacold
2005-08-05 13:45:06 UTC
Permalink
<snip the stuff I agree with>
Post by Robert Feinman
Thirdly, the concert going experience is out of touch with modern
audiences. Live shows of popular music feature video, special effects,
dancing in the aisles and marketing of related products. Promotion on
TV and radio brings in fans. For concert music one is stuck in a tight
seat, sitting passively and listening to something which is pretty much
the same as the last concert.
The whole point of serious concert music, solo, chamber or orchestral, is
active listening. The audience is expected to get involved in the
intellectual process of the music in its natural acoustic balance. To
amplify or add extra visual stimulation takes away from the audience this
intellectual involvement.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that serious music requires effort on
the part of the listener / audience. I suppose that's why I despair at the
typical guitar recital programmes of Spanish and Latin Americal lollypops.
Tim Panting
2005-08-05 15:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Isn't the guitar (nylon-string) a pretty anachronistic instrument in the
contemporary pantheon of more muscular inventions?

Latin American/Spanish music suits it so well because of the complete
cultural adaptation of the instrument.

There are lutenists who play Reich and Cage on their instruments but
generally 'intellectual' music sounds pretty crap on a nylon stringed
instrument. Why?

Probably because it is.

It takes the same intellect to create a beautifully crafted piece of music;
i.e a simple and accessible piece, as it does to sit in Harrison
Birtwhistle's presence.

Aren't there only two kinds of music, good and bad?

Music shouldn't require any effort in my op. It should be so good that it
appeals to a wide range of ears.

A truly great piece will appeal to the man on the street and (less
importantly) the man with his degree (s) proudly plastered after his
surname.

TP
Post by Tom Sacold
<snip the stuff I agree with>
Post by Robert Feinman
Thirdly, the concert going experience is out of touch with modern
audiences. Live shows of popular music feature video, special effects,
dancing in the aisles and marketing of related products. Promotion on
TV and radio brings in fans. For concert music one is stuck in a tight
seat, sitting passively and listening to something which is pretty much
the same as the last concert.
The whole point of serious concert music, solo, chamber or orchestral, is
active listening. The audience is expected to get involved in the
intellectual process of the music in its natural acoustic balance. To
amplify or add extra visual stimulation takes away from the audience this
intellectual involvement.
I suppose it comes down to the fact that serious music requires effort on
the part of the listener / audience. I suppose that's why I despair at the
typical guitar recital programmes of Spanish and Latin Americal lollypops.
Larry Deack
2005-08-05 15:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Panting
Isn't the guitar (nylon-string) a pretty anachronistic instrument in the
contemporary pantheon of more muscular inventions?
Tim... this was a big cross post. I took out the other groups so RMCG
could also see who they were posting to.
angelo gilardino
2005-08-05 16:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Panting
Isn't the guitar (nylon-string) a pretty anachronistic instrument in the
contemporary pantheon of more muscular inventions?
Guitar is a private matter. As far as there will be humanity, there will be
private matters.
Post by Tim Panting
There are lutenists who play Reich and Cage on their instruments but
generally 'intellectual' music sounds pretty crap on a nylon stringed
instrument. Why?
Probably because it is.
Not probably. Surely. You can drunk listeners with an orchestra, but not
with a guitar. An orchestra allows somebody with nothing to tell, to tell it
with fooling people into believing that the nothing is something.
A guitar obliges those who have nothing to tell, to admit and confess they
have nothing to tell. These admissions and confessions are often given in
form of pieces of music. But the nothing appears as such.
Post by Tim Panting
It takes the same intellect to create a beautifully crafted piece of
music; i.e a simple and accessible piece, as it does to sit in Harrison
Birtwhistle's presence.
Aren't there only two kinds of music, good and bad?
Yes, but there are many kinds or judgements.
Post by Tim Panting
Music shouldn't require any effort in my op. It should be so good that it
appeals to a wide range of ears.
Indeed. But at least, we should however require that those ears are still
working in phase with a brain. This is no longer guaranteed nowadays.
Post by Tim Panting
A truly great piece will appeal to the man on the street and (less
importantly) the man with his degree (s) proudly plastered after his
surname.
TP
A truly great piece makes everybody listening to it a man of the street.
Such a street leads somewhere, this is the point.

AG
Tim Panting
2005-08-06 11:14:54 UTC
Permalink
The beauty of the nylon-stringed instrument is its intimacy. The feeling of
cradling an instrument in your arms that can bequeath the softest chords
that can erupt into a tumult of strums and back again to the simplest of
plucked melody; there is no better instrument.

My statements that (not too seriously) doubt the classical guitar's
strengths are no more than a little goading.

You can visualise enormous things, musically, on the guitar.

TP
Post by angelo gilardino
Post by Tim Panting
Isn't the guitar (nylon-string) a pretty anachronistic instrument in the
contemporary pantheon of more muscular inventions?
Guitar is a private matter. As far as there will be humanity, there will
be private matters.
Post by Tim Panting
There are lutenists who play Reich and Cage on their instruments but
generally 'intellectual' music sounds pretty crap on a nylon stringed
instrument. Why?
Probably because it is.
Not probably. Surely. You can drunk listeners with an orchestra, but not
with a guitar. An orchestra allows somebody with nothing to tell, to tell
it with fooling people into believing that the nothing is something.
A guitar obliges those who have nothing to tell, to admit and confess they
have nothing to tell. These admissions and confessions are often given in
form of pieces of music. But the nothing appears as such.
Post by Tim Panting
It takes the same intellect to create a beautifully crafted piece of
music; i.e a simple and accessible piece, as it does to sit in Harrison
Birtwhistle's presence.
Aren't there only two kinds of music, good and bad?
Yes, but there are many kinds or judgements.
Post by Tim Panting
Music shouldn't require any effort in my op. It should be so good that it
appeals to a wide range of ears.
Indeed. But at least, we should however require that those ears are still
working in phase with a brain. This is no longer guaranteed nowadays.
Post by Tim Panting
A truly great piece will appeal to the man on the street and (less
importantly) the man with his degree (s) proudly plastered after his
surname.
TP
A truly great piece makes everybody listening to it a man of the street.
Such a street leads somewhere, this is the point.
AG
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-05 23:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Feinman
Perhaps twelve tone or other techniques are innovations in
a technical sense, but they don't speak to the modern generation like
the popular idioms do.
Suppose I am young and don't like popular idioms?
Post by Robert Feinman
Academia has sheltered two generations of composers from the harsh
market realities
There's no such thing as market realities. Markets are a form of mass hysteria,
useful at times for getting things sold if you're on a good advertising budget
or friends with Dubya; as a measure of cultural relevance they are at best
deeply flawed.
Post by Robert Feinman
and has made their music essentially irrelevant in
the dynamic parts of the culture scene.
Now WHAT did I tell you!?
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Matthew Fields
2005-08-05 15:17:23 UTC
Permalink
If you think you can promote my music more widely, tell me about it
off-line in e-mail (you can find my e-mail address on my home page).
We'll see whether something mutually beneficial can come of it.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
a***@cellsignal.com
2005-08-05 15:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Dr. Brandon,

Your article rehashes all the standard, often-heard arguments about and
against modern music. Certainly, modern music, even the most radical
one, is based on the "classical" tradition of art music composition and
therefore its continuation. However, the flawed premise derived from
this fact is that also the audiences for modern music should be the
same as for "traditional" classical music, or that modern music should
cater to audiences for "traditional" classical music and make these
"happy". This flawed thinking seems to be shared by many, including
marketers for classical music in the big record companies (no, I am not
talking about the so-called "cross-over" issue, which is an entirely
different story).

The "traditional" audience for classical music becomes older and older,
and ever more set in its ways. This audience is only interested in the
old masters and will never embrace the idea that there might be modern
classical music that is worth a listen: "What can ever be as good as
the old masters -- the holy canon of classical music is closed." (Of
course, the canon of classical music is not holy at all, but it is
treated that way.) If this audience would still be interested in new
music, the many neo-romantic composers that write nowadays, and which
-- one might think -- cater to the tastes of this traditional classic
music audience, would have found a huge following already.

No, the problem is not the composers, the problem is the traditional
classical music audience. However, more recently, in the past few
decades, a parallel phenomenon has developed. Young audiences in their
20s and 30s, which have not been raised with "traditional" classic
music, show interest in modern art music composition -- even, and maybe
particularly, in avantgarde composition. From what I hear, in San
Francisco successful modern-music concert series have been established
where the audience is young, again mostly in their 20s and 30s -- much
younger than the older "classical music" audience. I also have heard
many times that in general audiences in all new-music concerts are much
younger. This has been confirmed by my own concert experience: For
example, a concert in Cambridge Mass., attended by about 600 people,
had an enthusiastic, for the most part younger, audience; so had a
sold-out concert with exclusively music by Boulez in Carnegie Hall, New
York, in March 2003, and so had a sold-out all-Xenakis (who is more
radical than Xenakis?) concert in the Miller Theater in the same city.
-- And in Europe there seems to be even more interest in New Music by
young (and older) audiences.

In fact, the audiences in those all-new-music concerts are usually much
"better" than the traditional concert audiences for modern music: very
attentive and extremely silent: no silly coughing, sneezing, no silly
dropping of program booklets. Just listening to the music. And the
enthusiasm becomes evident in the applause, after the music has ended.

It appears that significant parts of these young audiences have grown
up on rock music or other "non-classical" music, and from there have
developed their taste towards art music (I am one of them). Actually,
several people have said in internet discussions that, when they wanted
to introduce friends, who listened to "progressive" rock or
electronica, to classical music, they were more successful when they
had them listen to Varese, Schnittke or Xenakis, for example, than when
they had listen them to Beethoven, Brahms or Mozart. No surprises on my
part (even though I personally started with both old and newer masters
at age 19). A rock-musician friend of mine enthusiastically devoured
the Stockhausen and Rihm that I had him listen to, and made very
perceptive comments on the music, showing a natural affinity for it. He
also said something like: "I did not know that classical music was
alive -- I always thought of it as great 'dead man's music'. Now you
have shown me classical music of our time, music that lives." And he
was excited.

Indeed, these audiences, who have listened to current music, to music
"of their time", all their lives, also want to listen to art music that
is current (which -- in the long-term -- does not necessarily mean
negating the older masters, see below). The concept of great new music
thus is self-explanatory to these audiences, in stark contrast to the
traditional music audience that only embraces the old masters.
Furthermore, these listeners are not entangled in the expectations of
classical and romantic harmony, and from there apparently have no
problem embracing the harmonic language of the New Masters.

Another point: the state of the classical music scene cannot be
measured by "concert audiences" alone. In this day of recording medium
a lot of the audience for modern music gets their music from CD,
webcasts and others. In fact, they may not visit concerts often at all.
I myself certainly do not want to go anymore to concerts with "old"
music alone, since this provides me with the unwanted (but of course
unrealistic) emotion that classical music is "dead". I only go to
concerts anymore that feature old *and* new masters (then the old
masters are brought into a much more joyful perspective), or
all-new-music concerts. And several other people have expressed similar
views in internet discussions.

Since the traditional audience is dying out, this means that the future
of classical music, if there is any, can only lie with those new
"alternative" audiences. In fact, if there is not just any future for
new classical music, but any future of listening to the old masters, it
may also squarely rest upon these "alternative" audiences: once they
have embraced New Art Music, they may ask themselves: "Where does this
music come from?", and from there they may discover the great masters
of the past.

There is no unified "classical music audience" anymore. There are
several audiences for classical music. To still think of the future of
classical music exclusively from the view point and expectations of the
"traditional classical audience" squarely misses the realities of the
modern day.

(To clarify where I stand as a listener: I am a great fan of New Music,
but I also enthusiastically embrace the great masters from the past. I
am as huge a fan of Beethoven and Bruckner, for example, as anyone.
Therefore, I do not believe that my views and observations are biased
by a one-sided zeal for New Music only.)
Matthew Fields
2005-08-05 15:52:31 UTC
Permalink
If modernism achieved independence from commercialism and thus
may be accused of "ignoring the audience", this dates back at least to
Beethoven's 5th symphony.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
a***@cellsignal.com
2005-08-05 18:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@cellsignal.com
Since the traditional audience is dying out, this means that the future
of classical music, if there is any, can only lie with those new
"alternative" audiences. In fact, if there is not just any future for
new classical music, but any future of listening to the old masters, it
may also squarely rest upon these "alternative" audiences: once they
have embraced New Art Music, they may ask themselves: "Where does this
music come from?", and from there they may discover the great masters
of the past.
Of course, this a bit extremefied: "can only lie with those new
alternative audiences", "any future of listening to the old
masters"--reality is a bit less black-and-white. There will be a mix of
different audiences that will carry on classical music, of course. But
I do hope that my views provoke some thought.

Al Moritz
DZ
2005-08-05 22:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@cellsignal.com
Dr. Brandon,
Your article rehashes all the standard, often-heard arguments about and
against modern music. Certainly, modern music, even the most radical
one, is based on the "classical" tradition of art music composition and
therefore its continuation. However, the flawed premise derived from
this fact is that also the audiences for modern music should be the
same as for "traditional" classical music, or that modern music should
cater to audiences for "traditional" classical music and make these
"happy".
Ligeti fled from Hungary to get away from the idea that music needs to
be generally accessible, and later called his early style a form of
self deceit. I'm guessing most of us happy he didn't get stuck with
Socialist Realism.
Joachim Pense
2005-08-06 09:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by DZ
Ligeti fled from Hungary to get away from the idea that music needs to
be generally accessible, and later called his early style a form of
And yet, his "Atmospheres" to me sounds like one of the most accessible
pieces of western classical music.

Joachim
a***@cellsignal.com
2005-08-05 16:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Dr. Brandon,

the myth of "intellectualism" vs. emphasis of emotion in music does not
hold up under scrutiny. Modern music is far too diverse as to be all
boxed in under the label "intellectualism". Among others, two of the
most important, modern avantgarde composers, Luigi Nono and Wolfgang
Rihm, clearly have written "emotional" music. In fact, emotional
expression is a kind of manifesto for Rihm.

Furthermore, I am often surprised at the visceral, immediately powerful
impact that some (wrongly) so-called "intellectualistic", "academic"
music has made on me (and I am not alone). Music does not always have
to be "emotional" in order to be emotionally powerful.

See for example for one of my experiences:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/changeofopinion.htm

Al Moritz
Stanley Yates
2005-08-05 16:59:00 UTC
Permalink
It's the responsibility of all who enjoy art music to take the matter of
relevency into their own hands. As individuals - especially as performers -
we need to take our art into the community, in an approprite way, and make
ourselves relevent. We need to stop asking for handouts.

Stanley
www.StanleyYates.com
William Jennings
2005-08-05 17:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
It's the responsibility of all who enjoy art music to take the matter of
relevency into their own hands. As individuals - especially as
performers -
Post by Stanley Yates
we need to take our art into the community, in an approprite way, and make
ourselves relevent. We need to stop asking for handouts.
Stanley
www.StanleyYates.com<
And realize, the customer ( patron ) isn't always right, but he's
*always* the customer.

Che' de
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-05 23:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
It's the responsibility of all who enjoy art music to take the matter of
relevency into their own hands. As individuals - especially as performers -
we need to take our art into the community, in an approprite way, and make
ourselves relevent. We need to stop asking for handouts.
Why? For handouts, I need to go to the community as well.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Steven Bornfeld
2005-08-06 02:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
It's the responsibility of all who enjoy art music to take the matter of
relevency into their own hands. As individuals - especially as performers -
we need to take our art into the community, in an approprite way, and make
ourselves relevent. We need to stop asking for handouts.
Stanley
www.StanleyYates.com
Well, the handouts usually come at a price, of course. But there have
been plenty of times in history where society has felt it in the public
interest to actively support the arts. Frankly, I'd like to live in a
society that feels this is a worthy use for (yes) public money.

Steve
--
Cut the nonsense to reply
Stanley Yates
2005-08-06 03:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Stanley Yates
It's the responsibility of all who enjoy art music to take the matter of
relevency into their own hands. As individuals - especially as performers -
we need to take our art into the community, in an approprite way, and make
ourselves relevent. We need to stop asking for handouts.
Stanley
www.StanleyYates.com
Well, the handouts usually come at a price, of course. But there have
been plenty of times in history where society has felt it in the public
interest to actively support the arts. Frankly, I'd like to live in a
society that feels this is a worthy use for (yes) public money.
Steve
Relevency is the issue I think. If what we have to offer can be made more
relevent to the society in which we live , society will value it and pay for
it. Not quite the same as a handout. I don't subscribe to the notion of a
welfare state for the arts; putting a band-aid on it, etc...

SY

www.StanleyYates.com
Matthew Fields
2005-08-06 12:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Stanley Yates
It's the responsibility of all who enjoy art music to take the matter of
relevency into their own hands. As individuals - especially as
performers -
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Stanley Yates
we need to take our art into the community, in an approprite way, and
make
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Stanley Yates
ourselves relevent. We need to stop asking for handouts.
Stanley
www.StanleyYates.com
Well, the handouts usually come at a price, of course. But there have
been plenty of times in history where society has felt it in the public
interest to actively support the arts. Frankly, I'd like to live in a
society that feels this is a worthy use for (yes) public money.
Steve
Relevency is the issue I think. If what we have to offer can be made more
relevent to the society in which we live , society will value it and pay for
it. Not quite the same as a handout. I don't subscribe to the notion of a
welfare state for the arts; putting a band-aid on it, etc...
Why not eliminate all categories of welfare states? In particular, making
it illegal to classify a government contract as "top secret" would go a
long way towards encouraging market forces in places where they currently
do not operate. At what expense and for what benefit?
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
2005-08-06 13:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Relevency is the issue I think. If what we have to offer can be made more
relevent to the society in which we live , society will value it and pay for
it. Not quite the same as a handout. I don't subscribe to the notion of a
welfare state for the arts; putting a band-aid on it, etc...
SY
www.StanleyYates.com
Sure. I think that what our society considers relevant says something
pretty sad. I don't disagree that throwing money at the arts in the
hope that children will be enriched by it doesn't work.

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
ktaylor
2005-08-06 15:12:24 UTC
Permalink
I don't subscribe to the notion of a
welfare state for the arts; putting a band-aid on it, etc...

Although this "artistic tension" was first mentioned by Aristotle I see
that it is still unresolved in the minds of some. When this topic is
discussed it inevitably leads to issues of relevancy, so aptly put by
Stanley, the development or loss of audience, which could be the story
of 20th century music, the isolation of the artist and his/her
endeavors and the tensions inherent in, not only the creative process,
but craft in general. It is interesting to talk about, but for those
who cannot resolve this conflict it in their personal lives it
inevitably leads to attempts at political persuasion where
grantsmanship replaces craftsmanship and cultural bureaucracies define
personal relevancy.

Kevin Taylor
Matthew Fields
2005-08-06 17:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
I don't subscribe to the notion of a
welfare state for the arts; putting a band-aid on it, etc...
Although this "artistic tension" was first mentioned by Aristotle I see
that it is still unresolved in the minds of some. When this topic is
discussed it inevitably leads to issues of relevancy, so aptly put by
Stanley, the development or loss of audience, which could be the story
of 20th century music, the isolation of the artist and his/her
endeavors and the tensions inherent in, not only the creative process,
but craft in general. It is interesting to talk about, but for those
who cannot resolve this conflict it in their personal lives it
inevitably leads to attempts at political persuasion where
grantsmanship replaces craftsmanship and cultural bureaucracies define
personal relevancy.
Any living artists in mind?
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-06 15:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Relevency is the issue I think. If what we have to offer can be made more
relevent to the society in which we live , society will value it and pay for
it. Not quite the same as a handout.
The difference being?
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Stanley Yates
2005-08-06 15:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Relevency is the issue I think. If what we have to offer can be made more
relevent to the society in which we live , society will value it and pay for
it. Not quite the same as a handout.
The difference being?
Service.
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-06 16:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Relevency is the issue I think. If what we have to offer can be made
more
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
relevent to the society in which we live , society will value it and pay
for
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
it. Not quite the same as a handout.
The difference being?
Service.
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do. It's not
as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.

See my response to David Sherman.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Matanya Ophee
2005-08-06 16:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.
And in a totalitarian state subsidies will in the end be subject to
totalitarian control (already happened more than once), and foundation
subsidies will in the end be subject to foundation control, and when
arts are financed by private donations they are controlled by private
donors. Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the Gold, makes the
rules.


Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/
angelo gilardino
2005-08-07 06:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
And in a totalitarian state subsidies will in the end be subject to
totalitarian control (already happened more than once), and foundation
subsidies will in the end be subject to foundation control, and when
arts are financed by private donations they are controlled by private
donors. Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the Gold, makes the
rules.
These rules, as far as music is concerned, seem to imply that those who have
money will receive more money, and those who have little or no money, will
be deprived of what remains in their small pockets. I have never received
one penny from grants for my music, and I never asked for it. But I would
aim to receive my holy percentage of the money which my music produces in
form of royalties when performed and/or recorded. Impossible. Before
reaching my bank account, almost all of this money disappears in the various
passages among societies. I never see a dollar from performances of my music
in the USA - once somebody demonstrated me how this money flows in the
already fad pockets of rock stars. As for Europe, yes, I receive part of my
money, after robust shortages, with three, four years of delay, and after
incredible attempts not to pay it to me. It's enough a slight change of a
title - made by a performer - in one of my pieces to stop the payment of the
royalties.

I am afraid that the current rules are dictated by thiefs.

AG
William Jennings
2005-08-07 11:29:10 UTC
Permalink
I am afraid that the current rules are dictated by thiefs.<
AG<
So...what's new? Read Hans Christian Andersen's classic fairy tale, The
Emperor's New Clothes.

http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagartfut.htm

Che' de
angelo gilardino
2005-08-07 11:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Jennings
I am afraid that the current rules are dictated by thiefs.<
AG<
So...what's new? Read Hans Christian Andersen's classic fairy tale, The
Emperor's New Clothes.
http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagartfut.htm
Che' de
Yes, but allow me to complain myself just a bit .
It happens mainly because I have a dozen commissions and no ideas, otherwise
I would be hardly at work and not here piping about my sorrows.


AG
William Jennings
2005-08-07 12:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelo gilardino
Post by William Jennings
I am afraid that the current rules are dictated by thiefs.<
AG<
So...what's new? Read Hans Christian Andersen's classic fairy tale, The
Emperor's New Clothes.
http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagartfut.htm
Che' de
Yes, but allow me to complain myself just a bit .
It happens mainly because I have a dozen commissions and no ideas, otherwise
I would be hardly at work and not here piping about my sorrows.
AG <
An admitted Piper Pezzato:
http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~jonas/piedpiper.html There are plenty
of ideas there.

How about " The Piedmont Pezzato's Complaint" with an old fashion tonal
center.... that's new. :-) Who wants a Jackson Pollard in their living
room anyway?

Che' de
Miguel de Maria
2005-08-07 14:46:43 UTC
Permalink
A dozen commissions! What a good complaint to have!

You should hear the piece that Che composed this morning :)
angelo gilardino
2005-08-07 15:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miguel de Maria
A dozen commissions! What a good complaint to have!
Don't be unremitting to me. I said a dozen, but roughly. Better for me not
to check up how many actually they are - I am afraid they are several more
than 12.
And my ideas are many less than one, currently.
Post by Miguel de Maria
You should hear the piece that Che composed this morning :)
I know I am quite a sight reader, but I have yet to succeed in reading the
music before seeing it.

AG
William Jennings
2005-08-07 19:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelo gilardino
Post by Miguel de Maria
A dozen commissions! What a good complaint to have!
Don't be unremitting to me. I said a dozen, but roughly. Better for me not
to check up how many actually they are - I am afraid they are several more
than 12.
And my ideas are many less than one, currently.
Post by Miguel de Maria
You should hear the piece that Che composed this morning :)
I know I am quite a sight reader, but I have yet to succeed in reading the
music before seeing it.
AG<
I can not take credit for that music. That Mp3 was sent to me early
this morning by the composer. Btw, the title of that bleakness was "
Wal-Mart, The United States of Whatever."

The Rules of Art require "We go to our studio and make stuff." There's
nothing saying we have to share, sell or otherwise inflict our Art on
mankind......those are personal decisions. I think true Art is
something we are forced to do and it makes little difference if we are
comfortable or not. It is something inflicted on some.... like those
born with a handicap. I got over it and now live rather well. These
boys never got it right:
http://www.artic.edu/aic/exhibitions/vangogh/slide_intro.html

Che' de
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
2005-08-06 17:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Relevency is the issue I think. If what we have to offer can be made
more
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
relevent to the society in which we live , society will value it and pay
for
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
it. Not quite the same as a handout.
The difference being?
Service.
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do.
It's not as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a
democratic society state subsidies will in the end be subject to
democratic control.
See my response to David Sherman.
There was a controversy here at the Brooklyn Museum of Art several
years ago about an exhibition called "Sensation"--an exhibit that was
widely perceived to be offensive.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec99/art_10-8.html

Our mayor Giuliani threatened to withhold city funds from the museum in
retaliation (as I recall, he later relented).
One of the ironies is that many (not including myself) said they would
not have made a point of seeing the exhibit had Giuliani not threatened
the museum.
The concensus of the intelligent folk I had spoken to was that the
exhibit was (offensiveness aside) pretty much rubbish; the exhibit was
more about provoking notoriety rather than any particular feeling about
public funding.
Of course, the money has to come from somewhere. If it doesn't come
from the royal court, or from the city budget, or ticket sales, it may
still come from the Altria group. Whether this contributes to democracy
I'll leave to others.

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-06 23:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do.
It's not as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a
democratic society state subsidies will in the end be subject to
democratic control.
See my response to David Sherman.
There was a controversy here at the Brooklyn Museum of Art several
years ago about an exhibition called "Sensation"--an exhibit that was
widely perceived to be offensive.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec99/art_10-8.html
Our mayor Giuliani threatened to withhold city funds from the museum
in retaliation (as I recall, he later relented).
One of the ironies is that many (not including myself) said they
would not have made a point of seeing the exhibit had Giuliani not
threatened the museum.
The concensus of the intelligent folk I had spoken to was that the
exhibit was (offensiveness aside) pretty much rubbish; the exhibit was
more about provoking notoriety rather than any particular feeling about
public funding.
Of course, the money has to come from somewhere. If it doesn't come
from the royal court, or from the city budget, or ticket sales, it may
still come from the Altria group. Whether this contributes to democracy
I'll leave to others.
In America, there has been an unholy alliance between cultural conservatives and
fiscal conservatives. I think it was not Sensation looking for controversy, but
the Republican Party.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Steven Bornfeld
2005-08-07 16:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do.
It's not as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a
democratic society state subsidies will in the end be subject to
democratic control.
See my response to David Sherman.
There was a controversy here at the Brooklyn Museum of Art several
years ago about an exhibition called "Sensation"--an exhibit that was
widely perceived to be offensive.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec99/art_10-8.html
Our mayor Giuliani threatened to withhold city funds from the
museum in retaliation (as I recall, he later relented).
One of the ironies is that many (not including myself) said they
would not have made a point of seeing the exhibit had Giuliani not
threatened the museum.
The concensus of the intelligent folk I had spoken to was that the
exhibit was (offensiveness aside) pretty much rubbish; the exhibit was
more about provoking notoriety rather than any particular feeling
about public funding.
Of course, the money has to come from somewhere. If it doesn't
come from the royal court, or from the city budget, or ticket sales,
it may still come from the Altria group. Whether this contributes to
democracy I'll leave to others.
In America, there has been an unholy alliance between cultural
conservatives and fiscal conservatives. I think it was not Sensation
looking for controversy, but the Republican Party.
Well, not to excuse the Republican Party ;-)
The museum's goals were no secret--it's right there in the name of the
exhibit!
As a museum member, I'm not too happy with the renovation either, but
they're the artistes!

Steve
--
Cut the nonsense to reply
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-07 16:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Samuel Vriezen
In America, there has been an unholy alliance between cultural
conservatives and fiscal conservatives. I think it was not Sensation
looking for controversy, but the Republican Party.
Well, not to excuse the Republican Party ;-)
The museum's goals were no secret--it's right there in the name of
the exhibit!
Sensation is not Controversy.

But you know, good art will always have the possibility of being controversial.
Otherwise it will pass unnoticed. Which is fine by a lot of people.

Typically, what you get is exactly what started this thread: a complaint that
there is too much controversial art; but luckily there exists a lot of
non-controversial music; only somehow nobody seems to know about its existence.

Well duh.
Post by Steven Bornfeld
As a museum member, I'm not too happy with the renovation either,
but they're the artistes!
Steve
So Steve, what would you be interested in seeing? Something utterly
uncontroversial, I suppose? Wallpaper?
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Steven Bornfeld
2005-08-07 17:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Samuel Vriezen
In America, there has been an unholy alliance between cultural
conservatives and fiscal conservatives. I think it was not Sensation
looking for controversy, but the Republican Party.
Well, not to excuse the Republican Party ;-)
The museum's goals were no secret--it's right there in the name of
the exhibit!
Sensation is not Controversy.
But you know, good art will always have the possibility of being
controversial. Otherwise it will pass unnoticed. Which is fine by a lot
of people.
Typically, what you get is exactly what started this thread: a complaint
that there is too much controversial art; but luckily there exists a lot
of non-controversial music; only somehow nobody seems to know about its
existence.
Well duh.
Post by Steven Bornfeld
As a museum member, I'm not too happy with the renovation either,
but they're the artistes!
Steve
So Steve, what would you be interested in seeing? Something utterly
uncontroversial, I suppose? Wallpaper?
Not at all. But you'd have to be familiar with some of the background
politics surrounding this particular exhibit. Sensation was a
self-conscious ploy for publicity from the museum--there is really no
other way to look at it.
As far as the renovation, it has it's virtues. But compatibility with
the rest of the building is not one of them.
It's fairly new--there has been a lot of positive publicity, and I seem
to object more strongly than some others. It may take some years before
it's clear if there is a general concensus as to whether it was handled
poorly.

Steve
--
Cut the nonsense to reply
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-08 00:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Not at all. But you'd have to be familiar with some of the
background politics surrounding this particular exhibit. Sensation was
a self-conscious ploy for publicity from the museum--there is really no
other way to look at it.
Ah, well, as Satie said: Beethoven was a master of publicity, it was, I believe,
how he became known.

The Saatchi artists are almost about publicity. I mean he's an advertising guy.
I'm not a big fan of all that but I can hardly fault a museum for bringing you
things that are going to attract attention.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
2005-08-08 13:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Not at all. But you'd have to be familiar with some of the
background politics surrounding this particular exhibit. Sensation
was a self-conscious ploy for publicity from the museum--there is
really no other way to look at it.
Ah, well, as Satie said: Beethoven was a master of publicity, it was, I
believe, how he became known.
The Saatchi artists are almost about publicity. I mean he's an
advertising guy. I'm not a big fan of all that but I can hardly fault a
museum for bringing you things that are going to attract attention.
I don't fault them either. As I said, many of my friends went to see
it--more as a protest to Giuliani than anything else.
Sometimes though, shit is just...shit.

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-08 15:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Not at all. But you'd have to be familiar with some of the
background politics surrounding this particular exhibit. Sensation
was a self-conscious ploy for publicity from the museum--there is
really no other way to look at it.
Ah, well, as Satie said: Beethoven was a master of publicity, it was,
I believe, how he became known.
The Saatchi artists are almost about publicity. I mean he's an
advertising guy. I'm not a big fan of all that but I can hardly fault
a museum for bringing you things that are going to attract attention.
I don't fault them either. As I said, many of my friends went to
see it--more as a protest to Giuliani than anything else.
Sometimes though, shit is just...shit.
Well, if art is going to be risky it also will risk being shitty.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
2005-08-08 16:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Well, if art is going to be risky it also will risk being shitty.
I agree 100%. But my point is that arguably it is aspiring more to
shit than to risk.

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-09 00:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Well, if art is going to be risky it also will risk being shitty.
I agree 100%. But my point is that arguably it is aspiring more to
shit than to risk.
Every great artist has indeed been deemed shitty by somebody.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
2005-08-09 00:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Well, if art is going to be risky it also will risk being shitty.
I agree 100%. But my point is that arguably it is aspiring more
to shit than to risk.
Every great artist has indeed been deemed shitty by somebody.
Of course I presume to know the administration's motivation.
Obviously, I can't know for sure. I'm not talking about people
condemning this as crap. I'm assuming the administration put this out
as cynical, self-conscious crap.

Steve

http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Matthew Fields
2005-08-07 19:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
In America, there has been an unholy alliance between cultural conservatives and
fiscal conservatives.
Or more properly, fiscal radicals seeking not to conserve on money but
to throw it wildly to their friends among the old boy network while
financially hamstringing the government's ability to monitor said
network for abuses of the public trust.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jeffrey Quick
2005-08-08 20:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
In America, there has been an unholy alliance between cultural conservatives and
fiscal conservatives. I think it was not Sensation looking for controversy, but
the Republican Party.
That's true. the Duopoly has fractured so that cultural radicals have
gravitated toward fiscal liberalism/socialism, which meaves the other
pole of the Duopoly for both types of conservatives. Which is too bad
really; I think there's be a great market for a cultural liberal who was
parsimonious.
T***@hotmail.com
2005-08-06 17:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do. It's not
as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.
In theory, yes; in reality, no.

Both state subsidies and private foundation grants are awarded by
panels comprised of people with personal & cultural biases, and are
subject to internal and external political pressures.

The US is probably the closest thing there is to a true meritocracy,
but in addition to Matanya's "Golden Rule" comment, it's also all about
who ya know.

I don't dare be more specific, because I have grants pending.

tm
Matthew Fields
2005-08-06 18:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@hotmail.com
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do. It's not
as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.
In theory, yes; in reality, no.
Both state subsidies and private foundation grants are awarded by
panels comprised of people with personal & cultural biases, and are
subject to internal and external political pressures.
The US is probably the closest thing there is to a true meritocracy,
but in addition to Matanya's "Golden Rule" comment, it's also all about
who ya know.
I don't dare be more specific, because I have grants pending.
Ah, so it's YOURSELF that you're talking about here.

My art's pretty "accessible", but I don't have grants pending.

Working on it...
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Tony
2005-08-06 19:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by T***@hotmail.com
In theory, yes; in reality, no.
Both state subsidies and private foundation grants are awarded by
panels comprised of people with personal & cultural biases, and are
subject to internal and external political pressures.
The US is probably the closest thing there is to a true meritocracy,
but in addition to Matanya's "Golden Rule" comment, it's also all about
who ya know.
I don't dare be more specific, because I have grants pending.
Ah, so it's YOURSELF that you're talking about here.
My art's pretty "accessible", but I don't have grants pending.
Working on it...
--
Yep, I'm only talking about what I have learned from my own
experience.YMMV. I don't mean to disillusion anyone, but who wants
illusions?

I'm a lousy grant writer, but I have written over $130K in grants. But
I learned a lot more from the many more that were rejected. Nowadays, I
have a hired grant writer who is much better at it than I am.

Art can't always pay for itself. Art has always had patronage, and it
probably always will. The main instrument I play now is on lifetime
loan to me from a patron. My chamber music group's first performance at
the White House was paid for by a patron:
http://guitaralive.org/gallery_ewing.html

The violinist I play with now has a Baroque bow that was a gift to her
from an anonymous patron. And she has another patron who recently
started talking about buying a Stradivarius for her. And Stradivarius
himself had patrons, most notably the Medici family.

In the 1980s, a then-student composer friend-of-a-friend of mine from
Ohio was visiting Manhattan, and stopped in a restaurant. By chance, he
glanced across the room, and was amazed to see Leonard Bernstein having
lunch at a table surrounded by a group of well-to-do little old ladies.
He got a table nearby and shamelessly eavesdropped on the whole
conversation. He was stunned to hear Bernstein raising money for an
upcoming project. Bernstein was pouring on the charm, being his usual
animated self. This was when Bernstein was at the peak of his career,
with at least a 7-figure annual income, probably actually 8-figures.

At that moment, the composer friend of my friend had a shocked
realization- "It never ends." If Leonard Bernstein, who at that moment
was one of the most successful classical musicians in the world has to
schmooze and raise money, then what are the chances that rest of us
will escape having to do it?

tm
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-06 23:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@hotmail.com
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do. It's not
as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.
In theory, yes; in reality, no.
Both state subsidies and private foundation grants are awarded by
panels comprised of people with personal & cultural biases, and are
subject to internal and external political pressures.
The US is probably the closest thing there is to a true meritocracy,
but in addition to Matanya's "Golden Rule" comment, it's also all about
who ya know.
I don't dare be more specific, because I have grants pending.
Well, as you might have gathered from my other posts, I do acknowledge than some
degree of prejudice is always going to be there. However, in the democratic
system, there's always in the end some responsibility mechanism. In my country
this is quite elaborate. We have continuous checks of all sorts of agencies that
in the end answer to the ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences, which
answers to the minister, who answers to parliament.

Of course, in ALL systems your interests will be furthered if you know the right
people. I mean like duh. If only the artistic leader of the orchestra: if he
doesn't like the look on your face, slim chance of a performance, yes? But in
the totalitarian system, it depends on who is more connected to the party chief
or the emperor: they get to replace the other guy. In the democratic system, you
can always try to convince the political bodies.

For example. If the Fund for the Creation of New Music decides not to grant me a
commission, first I can object, and my objection will be studied by a panel,
which may have to hear me present my objections. If they still won't give me the
grants and if I think I can make a strong case they should on the basis of their
statutes (which are part of the arts policy), I can sue. This is, in fact, a
viable strategy, sometimes leading to results.

In the worst case, I can try to mobilize public opinion in favor of a policy
change. In the Netherlands, we do now have a small group of neo-conservative
composers who feel neglected, and who are trying to do just that.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Stanley Yates
2005-08-06 20:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Relevency is the issue I think. If what we have to offer can be made
more
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
relevent to the society in which we live , society will value it and pay
for
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
it. Not quite the same as a handout.
The difference being?
Service.
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do. It's not
as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.
See my response to David Sherman.
I don't think this has anything to do with politics. It's about creating
genuine demand rather than asking for help. So long as we need grants to
finance what we do we're playing on a very sticky wicket. It's up to us to
go out and create our audience(s). No extra help needed.

SY
www.StanleyYates.com
Nightingale
2005-08-06 20:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
I don't think this has anything to do with politics. It's about creating
genuine demand rather than asking for help. So long as we need grants to
finance what we do we're playing on a very sticky wicket. It's up to us to
go out and create our audience(s). No extra help needed.
So if you're somebody like Sousa, great, but what about the rest that
are also worth hearing? I don't think it's right to hold music to that
standard when things like sports and industry get lots of help.
--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspire:
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-07 00:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do. It's not
as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.
See my response to David Sherman.
I don't think this has anything to do with politics.
Riiiiiiiight....... it's just about who gets to have the possibility of doing
music. No politics involved, none at all!
Post by Stanley Yates
It's about creating
genuine demand rather than asking for help. So long as we need grants to
finance what we do we're playing on a very sticky wicket. It's up to us to
go out and create our audience(s). No extra help needed.
You seem to think that there is such a thing as a fake demand for art, and that
grants are there to promote art for which no 'genuine' demand exists.

I've never seen a grant that stipulates it must be used to create art in which
nobody is interested.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Stanley Yates
2005-08-07 04:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do. It's not
as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.
See my response to David Sherman.
I don't think this has anything to do with politics.
Riiiiiiiight....... it's just about who gets to have the possibility of doing
music. No politics involved, none at all!
This sounds a bit naive to me. The cream does tend to rise to the top,
funding or no.
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
It's about creating
genuine demand rather than asking for help. So long as we need grants to
finance what we do we're playing on a very sticky wicket. It's up to us to
go out and create our audience(s). No extra help needed.
You seem to think that there is such a thing as a fake demand for art, and that
grants are there to promote art for which no 'genuine' demand exists.
Correct.
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I've never seen a grant that stipulates it must be used to create art in which
nobody is interested.
Of course no grant would actually make such a stipulation. That would be
ridiculous. However, grant-writing skills win grants, not (necessarily)
artistic merit. Grant-writing and other "welfare" funding - it's all very
short-sighted and propogates the seperation between between the general
culture and the ivory tower. Have you read Polisi's (Dean of Julliard)
recent "The Artist as Citizen" (amadeus Press, 2005)? It's a good
introduction to the issues facing the arts today, from someone who knows
probably more than anyone about art funding (though he doesn't go quite far
enough in my view).

SY
www.StanleyYates.com
t***@jhu.edu
2005-08-07 05:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Riiiiiiiight....... it's just about who gets to have the possibility of
doing
Post by Samuel Vriezen
music. No politics involved, none at all!
This sounds a bit naive to me. The cream does tend to rise to the top,
funding or no.
If cream always rose to the top, you wouldn't be living in Clarksville.
William Jennings
2005-08-07 10:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@jhu.edu
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Riiiiiiiight....... it's just about who gets to have the
possibility of
Post by t***@jhu.edu
Post by Stanley Yates
doing
Post by Samuel Vriezen
music. No politics involved, none at all!
This sounds a bit naive to me. The cream does tend to rise to the top,
funding or no.
If cream always rose to the top, you wouldn't be living in
Clarksville.<

Yes, Sharon Isbin is proof of this. Stanley has gone from Devonshire
cream and scones to buttermilk and biscuits.

I just listened to an Mp3 of Classical Guitar Art Music fresh off the
press from a member here.... maybe your next great guitar composer. I
will forward it to you for your review. The composers name must be lept
secret at this time.

Che' de Guy
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-07 13:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do.
It's not
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a democratic
society
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.
See my response to David Sherman.
I don't think this has anything to do with politics.
Riiiiiiiight....... it's just about who gets to have the possibility of
doing
Post by Samuel Vriezen
music. No politics involved, none at all!
This sounds a bit naive to me. The cream does tend to rise to the top,
funding or no.
Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!

It's just that you sometimes have to be dead for a century or so...

But you're right. I can't think of a counterexample of a long-dead composer who
wrote great music and who is not known right now. If I could, he wouldn't be
unknown.

No politics involved whatsoever. If Hitler had won the war they'd realise after
a while that Schoenberg was a great composer after all. The CIA never supported
abstract expressionism. You didn't hear this.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-07 13:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
You seem to think that there is such a thing as a fake demand for art, and that
grants are there to promote art for which no 'genuine' demand exists.
Correct.
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I've never seen a grant that stipulates it must be used to create art in which
nobody is interested.
Of course no grant would actually make such a stipulation. That would be
ridiculous. However, grant-writing skills win grants, not (necessarily)
artistic merit.
It's not that simple. Yes, writing a good letter helps. No, you can't sell utter
trash forever merely on writers skills.
Post by Stanley Yates
Grant-writing and other "welfare" funding - it's all very
short-sighted and propogates the seperation between between the general
culture and the ivory tower.
I think this whole notion of a 'general culture' is utterly wrong. There is no
such thing, even though the mass-market populists will try to tell you that
they're going to please everybody. 'General culture' is a repressive abstraction.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Matanya Ophee
2005-08-07 14:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Riiiiiiiight....... it's just about who gets to have the possibility of
doing
Post by Samuel Vriezen
music. No politics involved, none at all!
This sounds a bit naive to me. The cream does tend to rise to the top,
funding or no.
The cream _tends_ to rise to the top, but in point of fact, does not
always get there. OTH, it is a known physical fact that horse dung,
human feces and other unsavoury byproducts of digestion by various
living things _always_, and I mean always without exception, rises to
the top instantly. That fact has given rise (oops...) to this old
Hebrew proverb (probably a translation from Russian):

Khara tsaf al ha'maim. (shit floats on water).




Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/
YourAssIsMineMyAssIsFine
2005-08-07 15:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Riiiiiiiight....... it's just about who gets to have the possibility of
doing
Post by Samuel Vriezen
music. No politics involved, none at all!
This sounds a bit naive to me. The cream does tend to rise to the top,
funding or no.
The cream _tends_ to rise to the top, but in point of fact, does not
always get there. OTH, it is a known physical fact that horse dung,
human feces and other unsavoury byproducts of digestion by various
living things _always_, and I mean always without exception, rises to
the top instantly. That fact has given rise (oops...) to this old
Khara tsaf al ha'maim. (shit floats on water).
confushus say 'dive deep to find mo' treasure'

myassiswise
Post by Matanya Ophee
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/
Larry Deack
2005-08-07 17:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Of course no grant would actually make such a stipulation. That would be
ridiculous. However, grant-writing skills win grants, not (necessarily)
artistic merit. Grant-writing and other "welfare" funding - it's all very
short-sighted and propogates the seperation between between the general
culture and the ivory tower.
Hi Stanley.

As current president of the Orange County Guitar Circle (www.ocgc.org)
I'd like to address grant funding as it relates to your specific case as
a performing artist.

The OCGC gets some of its money from grants but none of it is from the
government. We don't have to pay taxes on the money we paid you to play
for us but I really don't think that makes you a 'welfare' recipient nor
does that make us part of the government.

We continue to apply for grants but as far as I know they are all from
private organizations and not government funded (though most are tax
free). We are not a government group but we will continue to fund
artists like you using money from grants because we think you deserve to
be paid for what you do and we think that what you do is important to
our lives.

I doubt that we are unusual in how we get money. In Thomas L.
Friedman's new book "The World is Flat" he tells of an artist friend who
sees Leonard Bernstein in a restaurant schmoozing some rich folks for
money and realizes that there is no end to the fund raising one must do
to survive as an artist even if you are a rich and famous artist.
Stanley Yates
2005-08-07 18:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Larry,

I do understand the financial realities that currently face presenting
organizations. And I certainly don't want to appear unappreciative of the
fund-raising efforts that currently have to happen in order for a person
such as myself to get a concert fee. Still, wouldn't it be healthier for
OCGC to be a financially independent presenter, supported by the
ticket-buying patrons of the Orange County community? That may well not be
possible at the moment, but it can and should become a reality. At the every
least, we should strive toward it.

One could perhaps argue that there will always be a need for sponsorship of
relatively esoteric yet hiqh quality artistic endeavours (I wouldn't expect
the general audience to turn out in sufficent numbers to hear Petrassi and
Berio!), but in the general field of art music I believe this doesn't have
to be the case. Art music is appreciable by the "average person" (a terrible
term, I know), if only that person is given a chance to realize it. Surely,
every performer/artist owes it to themselves, and the field in general, to
develop the audience and the culture within their sphere of influence, their
community. We all need to be in the schools sharing our art in an
appropriate way with those who will become the audience of the future; in
other words, take matters into our own hands instead of simply relying on
(and bemoaning the lack of) sources of external funding (which inadvertantly
propogates an insular or ivory tower artisitic culture) or bemoaing the
curent lack of arts educatio nin the schools. Surely, none of us here can
imagine a life without art. Let's put our money where our mouth is. It's a
process...

SY
www.StanleyYates.com
Post by Larry Deack
Post by Stanley Yates
Of course no grant would actually make such a stipulation. That would be
ridiculous. However, grant-writing skills win grants, not (necessarily)
artistic merit. Grant-writing and other "welfare" funding - it's all very
short-sighted and propogates the seperation between between the general
culture and the ivory tower.
Hi Stanley.
As current president of the Orange County Guitar Circle (www.ocgc.org)
I'd like to address grant funding as it relates to your specific case as
a performing artist.
The OCGC gets some of its money from grants but none of it is from the
government. We don't have to pay taxes on the money we paid you to play
for us but I really don't think that makes you a 'welfare' recipient nor
does that make us part of the government.
We continue to apply for grants but as far as I know they are all from
private organizations and not government funded (though most are tax
free). We are not a government group but we will continue to fund
artists like you using money from grants because we think you deserve to
be paid for what you do and we think that what you do is important to
our lives.
I doubt that we are unusual in how we get money. In Thomas L.
Friedman's new book "The World is Flat" he tells of an artist friend who
sees Leonard Bernstein in a restaurant schmoozing some rich folks for
money and realizes that there is no end to the fund raising one must do
to survive as an artist even if you are a rich and famous artist.
Stanley Yates
2005-08-07 04:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do. It's not
as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.
Is there actually any such thing as democracy? It's an ideal isn't it?
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-07 13:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Samuel Vriezen
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do.
It's not
Post by Samuel Vriezen
as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a democratic
society
Post by Samuel Vriezen
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.
Is there actually any such thing as democracy? It's an ideal isn't it?
I think democracy exists, but I don't think of it as an ideal but as a practical
solution: you know, representation and all that, it works reasonably well - in
some democratic countries more than others, admittedly. Democracy is not an
abstraction: it's a system of administration set up to deal efficiently with
frictions between different social groups and individuals. It's a wholly
practical thing in the end.

Something I am totally convinced does not exist is the free market. The free
market is not something in reality but an abstraction from economic science,
useful for partly explaining certain phenomena of, say, price development. It
does not exist in reality just as you won't find perfect straight lines in nature.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Matthew Fields
2005-08-07 19:20:36 UTC
Permalink
I wouldn't say a free market can't exist, just that it has a half life
less than a mu-meson, after which a monopolist market run almost entirely
by the prior most-powerful few guys takes over.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jeffrey Quick
2005-08-08 20:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fields
I wouldn't say a free market can't exist, just that it has a half life
less than a mu-meson, after which a monopolist market run almost entirely
by the prior most-powerful few guys takes over.
Interesting idea, Matt. Do you have experimental data to back up that
theory?
Matthew Fields
2005-08-08 22:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Quick
Post by Matthew Fields
I wouldn't say a free market can't exist, just that it has a half life
less than a mu-meson, after which a monopolist market run almost entirely
by the prior most-powerful few guys takes over.
Interesting idea, Matt. Do you have experimental data to back up that
theory?
Historical data, the same kind of data you use in geology, archaeology,
and astronomy.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jeffrey Quick
2005-08-08 20:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Something I am totally convinced does not exist is the free market. The free
market is not something in reality but an abstraction from economic science,
useful for partly explaining certain phenomena of, say, price development. It
does not exist in reality just as you won't find perfect straight lines in nature.
It's definitely true that there has never been a perfectly free market,
at least in historical times. But some markets have approximated a free
market better than others, and these have tended to be more successful
at meeting human needs than those which are a less-good approximation of
the ideal.
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-08 23:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Quick
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Something I am totally convinced does not exist is the free market. The free
market is not something in reality but an abstraction from economic science,
useful for partly explaining certain phenomena of, say, price development. It
does not exist in reality just as you won't find perfect straight lines in nature.
It's definitely true that there has never been a perfectly free market,
at least in historical times. But some markets have approximated a free
market better than others, and these have tended to be more successful
at meeting human needs than those which are a less-good approximation of
the ideal.
I don't even think the free market is an ideal. I think it's a theoretical
construct.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Jeffrey Quick
2005-08-08 20:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Is there actually any such thing as democracy?
Sure there is. Just find a mob.
Post by Stanley Yates
It's an ideal isn't it?
It's the contemporary version of the Divine Right of Kings, wherein God
grants your neighbors the right to rule over you, and to speak against
it is heresy.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
2005-08-08 20:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Quick
Post by Stanley Yates
Is there actually any such thing as democracy?
Sure there is. Just find a mob.
Post by Stanley Yates
It's an ideal isn't it?
It's the contemporary version of the Divine Right of Kings, wherein God
grants your neighbors the right to rule over you, and to speak against
it is heresy.
I love it!

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Matthew Fields
2005-08-07 19:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Relevency is the issue I think. If what we have to offer can be made
more
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
relevent to the society in which we live , society will value it and
pay
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
for
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
it. Not quite the same as a handout.
The difference being?
Service.
I just think you have too basic an idea of what art subsidies can do. It's
not
Post by Samuel Vriezen
as if I can say, hey, I'm a composer so give me money. In a democratic
society
Post by Samuel Vriezen
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control.
See my response to David Sherman.
I don't think this has anything to do with politics. It's about creating
genuine demand rather than asking for help. So long as we need grants to
finance what we do we're playing on a very sticky wicket. It's up to us to
go out and create our audience(s). No extra help needed.
SY
www.StanleyYates.com
Even genuine public demand won't pay the bills.
There's genuine public demand for all the music that gets pirated.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
ktaylor
2005-08-07 03:03:48 UTC
Permalink
"In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control"

"Democratic control" means little else than a euphemism for an artistic
priesthood. Does a free society in the 21 century need a priesthood
between the art and the audience? Consumers make bad choices all the
time, but they assume the risk. It is not the consumers who are calling
for subsidies, it is the so-called artists, who seek validation
economic and otherwise from the body politic. Stanley is seeing what
has been apparent since the birth of the NEA - that a discussion of
public art funding inevitably leads to a discussion of welfare.

Kevin Taylor
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-07 13:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ktaylor
"In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control"
"Democratic control" means little else than a euphemism for an artistic
priesthood.
Well, let's say you think fast.
Post by ktaylor
Does a free society in the 21 century need a priesthood
between the art and the audience? Consumers make bad choices all the
time, but they assume the risk. It is not the consumers who are calling
for subsidies,
This is not true. I think I can easily find consumers of art music who are not
producers and who are happy to see art subsidies.
Post by ktaylor
it is the so-called artists, who seek validation
economic and otherwise from the body politic. Stanley is seeing what
has been apparent since the birth of the NEA - that a discussion of
public art funding inevitably leads to a discussion of welfare.
Oh, you americans! You hardly have any art funding to speak of, you practically
don't know what it is, and already you're whining.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Steven Bornfeld
2005-08-07 16:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Oh, you americans! You hardly have any art funding to speak of, you
practically don't know what it is, and already you're whining.
True, we're good at whining. But I'm more likely to whine about just
what funding is considered politically acceptable these days and what is
not.

Steve
--
Cut the nonsense to reply
William Jennings
2005-08-07 19:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Oh, you americans! You hardly have any art funding to speak of, you practically
don't know what it is, and already you're whining.<
Yeah....but we do have Wal-Mart and we're talking over the world.....
until the Chinese come, so there!

Che' de Petadoggy
Post by Samuel Vriezen
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html
Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.
- Charles Bernstein
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-08 00:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Oh, you americans! You hardly have any art funding to speak of, you
practically
Post by Samuel Vriezen
don't know what it is, and already you're whining.<
Yeah....but we do have Wal-Mart and we're talking over the world.....
until the Chinese come, so there!
Hey, the country I live in is the third biggest investor in yours, so you better
watch your language!
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Matthew Fields
2005-08-07 19:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by ktaylor
"In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control"
"Democratic control" means little else than a euphemism for an artistic
priesthood. Does a free society in the 21 century need a priesthood
between the art and the audience? Consumers make bad choices all the
time, but they assume the risk. It is not the consumers who are calling
for subsidies, it is the so-called artists, who seek validation
economic and otherwise from the body politic. Stanley is seeing what
has been apparent since the birth of the NEA - that a discussion of
public art funding inevitably leads to a discussion of welfare.
Kevin Taylor
Actually, in e.g. the USA, the biggest consumers of subsidy are
oil companies and large general manufacturers.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jeffrey Quick
2005-08-08 19:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ktaylor
"In a democratic society
state subsidies will in the end be subject to democratic control"
"Democratic control" means little else than a euphemism for an artistic
priesthood. Does a free society in the 21 century need a priesthood
between the art and the audience? Consumers make bad choices all the
time, but they assume the risk. It is not the consumers who are calling
for subsidies, it is the so-called artists, who seek validation
economic and otherwise from the body politic. Stanley is seeing what
has been apparent since the birth of the NEA - that a discussion of
public art funding inevitably leads to a discussion of welfare.
Kevin Taylor
Bingo! the only reason we've managed to have as much subsidy as we've
had in the US is because it's a small enough amount that it's fallen
under the radar. When it HAS appeared on the radar (Mapplethorpe,
Serrano etc.), results have not been good for art. Under normal
circumstances, people can't be bothered to take a position; it costs
more to mail the congressman than they'd save in taxes. So the
representatives fund, and the artistic priesthood distributes. If you
actually asked people what art they would fund, it would be the same art
they're funding now through the market. So the whole point of subsidy is
to keep it anti-democratic; otherwise, what's the point, as you'd be
duplicating market decisions?
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-09 00:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fields
If you
actually asked people what art they would fund, it would be the same art
they're funding now through the market.
Of course not. I might want a certain museum just to be there even if I don't go
to it. Now if only I'd be rich enough to give out donations - I'm not.

'Voting through the market' simply means the rich get a say and the poor don't.
Post by Matthew Fields
So the whole point of subsidy is
to keep it anti-democratic; otherwise, what's the point, as you'd be
duplicating market decisions?
In other words, for you democracy means the rule of the rich.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Matthew Fields
2005-08-06 17:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
Relevency is the issue I think. If what we have to offer can be made
more
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
relevent to the society in which we live , society will value it and pay
for
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Stanley Yates
it. Not quite the same as a handout.
The difference being?
Service.
So it's service if you grub for tips and not if you get paid?
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Nightingale
2005-08-06 16:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley Yates
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Stanley Yates
It's the responsibility of all who enjoy art music to take the matter of
relevency into their own hands. As individuals - especially as
performers -
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Stanley Yates
we need to take our art into the community, in an approprite way, and
make
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Stanley Yates
ourselves relevent. We need to stop asking for handouts.
Stanley
www.StanleyYates.com
Well, the handouts usually come at a price, of course. But there have
been plenty of times in history where society has felt it in the public
interest to actively support the arts. Frankly, I'd like to live in a
society that feels this is a worthy use for (yes) public money.
Steve
Relevency is the issue I think. If what we have to offer can be made more
relevent to the society in which we live , society will value it and pay for
it. Not quite the same as a handout. I don't subscribe to the notion of a
welfare state for the arts; putting a band-aid on it, etc...
Other things, like sports & certain business interests, get financial
help of various kinds (welfare, although not usually called that), but
music has to pay it's own way? Doesn't seem fair to me.
--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspire:
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.
jeff carter
2005-08-07 03:32:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightingale
Other things, like sports & certain business interests, get financial
help of various kinds (welfare, although not usually called that...)
In fact, it's often referred to as "corporate welfare". As if a
corporation like McDonald's, for example (if I remember correctly),
needs govt. assistance to the tune of $40 million to help open the
Chinese market.

Here's a few more blatant examples: http://tinyurl.com/bj82a
Nick Roche
2005-08-06 07:48:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:20:02 GMT, Steven Bornfeld
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Frankly, I'd like to live in a
society that feels this is a worthy use for (yes) public money.
You could always come and live in the UK! We are short on dentists but
long on Arts Administrators.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
2005-08-06 13:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Roche
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:20:02 GMT, Steven Bornfeld
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Frankly, I'd like to live in a
society that feels this is a worthy use for (yes) public money.
You could always come and live in the UK! We are short on dentists but
long on Arts Administrators.
Well, from what I've heard, the NHS could be Exhibit A for how NOT to
do things, at least as far as dentistry is concerned.

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Nick Roche
2005-08-06 15:22:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:09:12 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<***@dentaltwins.com> wrote:

->Nick Roche wrote:
->
->> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:20:02 GMT, Steven Bornfeld
->> <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
->>
->>
->>>Frankly, I'd like to live in a
->>>society that feels this is a worthy use for (yes) public money.
->>
->>
->> You could always come and live in the UK! We are short on dentists
but
->> long on Arts Administrators.
->
-> Well, from what I've heard, the NHS could be Exhibit A for how
NOT to
->do things, at least as far as dentistry is concerned.
->
->Steve

Too right. My wife's saxophone pupil and (profoundly deaf) dentist is
seriously considering emigrating to Scotland!

IMHO our extensive public support for the arts is run to roughly the
same standard.
Steve Latham
2005-08-05 17:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Two things for sure

There will be future (unless of course those theories about the universe
collapsing on itself and succumbing to another Big Bang to start the entire
process again occurs, in which case time as we know may give way to another
dimensional aspect, but I'm not going to worry about that).
Music will continue (whether it's "art" or not may or may not be an
important distinction, for some people anyway).

Steve
Post by c***@suscom.net
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.
Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music
to be equated with art music.
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.
Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."
Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.
Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania
Alex
2005-08-05 22:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@suscom.net
The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement
Source please.
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-05 23:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@suscom.net
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music.
Ah, great, a banter thread.

May I suggest you, as a composer, performer and educator, should rather be
concerned with the present of art music?
Post by c***@suscom.net
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
That's true. Too many composers have refused to write interesting, exciting new
music and have chosen to write hackneyed sonatinas instead.
Post by c***@suscom.net
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century.
Know what?

Every performer personally knows composers who have written a sonatina in f with
a middle movement called fantasy for his or her instrument. These pieces have
been written and played by the thousands.

Now where's the money?
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
angelo gilardino
2005-08-07 11:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by c***@suscom.net
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
That's true. Too many composers have refused to write interesting,
exciting new music and have chosen to write hackneyed sonatinas instead.
Composers who wrote hackneyed Sonatinas, if "choosing" to write "new music",
would have produced nothing exciting, and only hackneyed "new" music.
The idea that novelty and excitement in composing may come only from the
refusal of classical forms is one of the most trite commonplace of the
grandsons of Darmstadt band.
The times of the music police which judged compositions according to the
basic materials and forms by which they have been built , and not according
to how they had been built, has gone to an end 35 years ago, thank Godness.
To rescue its clichés is for sure the less new - let alone exciting - way of
discussing about the present state of art music. And also the least pleasant
way of recalling its recent past.
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Every performer personally knows composers who have written a sonatina in
f with a middle movement called fantasy for his or her instrument. These
pieces have been written and played by the thousands.
Now where's the money?
After your statements, one might expect it should be your wisdom to indicate
to all of us where money is, goes and comes from. Please, do it.

AG
David Raleigh Arnold
2005-08-07 14:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by angelo gilardino
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by c***@suscom.net
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
That's true. Too many composers have refused to write interesting,
exciting new music and have chosen to write hackneyed sonatinas instead.
Composers who wrote hackneyed Sonatinas, if "choosing" to write "new
music", would have produced nothing exciting, and only hackneyed "new"
music. The idea that novelty and excitement in composing may come only
from the refusal of classical forms is one of the most trite commonplace
of the grandsons of Darmstadt band.
The times of the music police which judged compositions according to the
basic materials and forms by which they have been built , and not
according to how they had been built, has gone to an end 35 years ago,
thank Godness. To rescue its clichés is for sure the less new - let alone
exciting - way of discussing about the present state of art music. And
also the least pleasant way of recalling its recent past.
I don't think there has ever been a time when there were no
music police such as you describe, and I have been ignoring
that issue for too long too add anything meaningful to your
recap of recent history. In school I remember talk of "the
music of our time". I got my degree, but I didn't last long
after that. There is a difference between defining art and
trying to build a wall around pieces of it.
Post by angelo gilardino
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Every performer personally knows composers who have written a sonatina
in f with a middle movement called fantasy for his or her instrument.
These pieces have been written and played by the thousands.
Now where's the money?
The money is in a hole in the wall. A niche. Something that
no one else has written yet, or sold yet. daveA
--
The only technical exercises for all guitarists worth a lifetime
of practice: "Dynamic Guitar Technique". Nothing else is close.
Free download: http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
daveA David Raleigh Arnold dra..at..openguitar.com
ktaylor
2005-08-07 17:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
"Oh, you americans! You hardly have any art funding to speak of, you
practically
don't know what it is, and already you're whining. "

I suppose if I were dependant upon a parental government body for my
livelihood and the determination of my aesthetic I, too, would be
threatened by an argument for a freer environment and be tempted to
characterize the proponent of it in an adolescent manner in an attempt
to denigrate the argument. But I'm not.

There is more funding for the arts in the US than one might think
(likely more than in Europe). The largest part of it is through the
market mechanism - free buyers and free sellers - which seems to be
ignored in these discussions. The potential for additional funding is
enormous. The other large mechanisms are voluntary foundation grants
and a smaller amount distributed by local, state and federal
governments. The arts in the U.S. are terrifically vital and the market
environment allows both a wellspring for innovation and a support for
tradition.

Artists (like everyone else) wish to be insulated from market
mechanisms: the free artistic purchasing choices of others. But those
who understand service - even in the arts - will survive and can even
thrive in such an environment. I believe that is the point SY was
making and to which I concur. Stanley used exactly the correct words
for the consideration of anyone wishing to pursue a career in the arts:
"relevancy" and "service". I would like to add, "education", especially
in a freer, multi-cultural market, where there are large differences in
audience backgrounds and sensibilities.

Here is another relevant observation about arts funding in general by
Lord Lionel Robbins (1971), an economist and a longtime trustee of the
Tate and National Galleries (taken from the book: "The Democratic
Muse", R. Banfield).

"In the United States you see great galleries and museums, splendid
libraries
and research centers, all springing from private donations induced by
tax
incentives. Here [in Britain] you see the springs of private
benefactions
virtually dried up by the incidence of penal taxation and all cultural
institutions more or less dependant upon the state initiatives which
more often
than not are too little and too late...can there be any serious doubt
as to
which system is preferable?"

Kevin Taylor
Samuel Vriezen
2005-08-08 00:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ktaylor
"Oh, you americans! You hardly have any art funding to speak of, you
practically
don't know what it is, and already you're whining. "
I suppose if I were dependant upon a parental government body for my
livelihood and the determination of my aesthetic I, too, would be
threatened by an argument for a freer environment and be tempted to
characterize the proponent of it in an adolescent manner in an attempt
to denigrate the argument. But I'm not.
You're quoting out of context.
--
samuel
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm

Every Now and Then, MP3s available at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/vriezen_mp3.html

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein
Lookingglass
2005-08-06 13:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@suscom.net
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.
(snip)
Post by c***@suscom.net
Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania
I was drawn to "art" music at a very early age. I don't know why... while
all the other kids were listening to Elvis, I was listening to Swan Lake (I
decided I wanted to be Margot Fonteyn when I grew up!)... you know which
excerpt...! (While visions of Sugarplums danced in me head!) I remember
hearing it played on the radio and just liking it. Later at grammar school I
was exposed to other things... Light Calvary... the "Lone Ranger"... Peer
Gynt, etc. I then began to search these out at the local library... much to
the chagrin of the Librarian whom I pestered frequently.

At that same time I became fascinated by puppet theatre... I began making my
own and using different pieces of music to accompany my "performances"...
the music painted very animated "pictures" in my imagination. To this day, I
still use no dialog in my performances... relying only on movement and music
to "tell a story".

I now write music... nothing spectacular, but I write for puppet theatre...
some of it very Petrushka like... (thank you Igor!)

I think (IMHO) a youngster FIRST needs the curiosity and desire to seek out
"art" music... it doesn't seem to me to be something that can be "forced"
into their little craniums. Certainly exposure to "good" music is necessary.
So many kids just "follow the pack"... and that is necessary, to an extent,
but a child needs to learn to be independent in his (or her) thinking, and
be comfortable enough to explore outside the "pack"... and that takes a bit
of courage... and ambition. I myself was not fond of "pop" music until the
Beatles made their appearance... but that's another story.

There's my "2 cents".................... (now, where's my change???).


dave.......... www.Shemakhan.com
I want to be common... just like everyone else. (anonymous)
Nightingale
2005-08-06 16:58:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lookingglass
I think (IMHO) a youngster FIRST needs the curiosity and desire to seek out
"art" music... it doesn't seem to me to be something that can be "forced"
into their little craniums.
I think they are born with curiosity - the thing is to make sure that
they find lots of quality, and little (or no) junk food when they are
first exploring.
Post by Lookingglass
Certainly exposure to "good" music is necessary.
So many kids just "follow the pack"... and that is necessary, to an extent,
but a child needs to learn to be independent in his (or her) thinking, and
be comfortable enough to explore outside the "pack"... and that takes a bit
of courage... and ambition. I myself was not fond of "pop" music until the
Beatles made their appearance... but that's another story.
There's good pop music too. I ignored most of it, but some of what the
Beatles did was interesting, and there are a few other groups that I like.
Post by Lookingglass
There's my "2 cents".................... (now, where's my change???).
dave.......... www.Shemakhan.com
I want to be common... just like everyone else. (anonymous)
--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspire:
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.
Tim Panting
2005-08-06 23:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Art Music?

Easy to walk away from a painting...harder (more embarrassing) to walk out
of a recital?

Who knows.

Music, somehow, is moving, in a physical way,
...errr...gulp...shite....ummm.....art?..let's not go there....just
yet.....again....

IMHO......if you find the music of Egberto Gismonti...in any way jarring or
upsetting,.....then..where indeed is contemporary acoustic music headed?


Begoraghh(chokes)

TP
Post by Lookingglass
I think (IMHO) a youngster FIRST needs the curiosity and desire to seek
out "art" music... it doesn't seem to me to be something that can be
"forced" into their little craniums.
I think they are born with curiosity - the thing is to make sure that they
find lots of quality, and little (or no) junk food when they are first
exploring.
Post by Lookingglass
Certainly exposure to "good" music is necessary. So many kids just
"follow the pack"... and that is necessary, to an extent, but a child
needs to learn to be independent in his (or her) thinking, and be
comfortable enough to explore outside the "pack"... and that takes a bit
of courage... and ambition. I myself was not fond of "pop" music until
the Beatles made their appearance... but that's another story.
There's good pop music too. I ignored most of it, but some of what the
Beatles did was interesting, and there are a few other groups that I like.
Post by Lookingglass
There's my "2 cents".................... (now, where's my change???).
dave.......... www.Shemakhan.com
I want to be common... just like everyone else. (anonymous)
--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.
Lookingglass
2005-08-07 06:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightingale
There's good pop music too. I ignored most of it, but some of what the
Beatles did was interesting, and there are a few other groups that I like.
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.
Absolutely...! It was just that the Beatles (IMHO) gave it "class"... and
the WHO made it classical. I live the Kinks... particularly their "English
music hall" period... Face to Face... Village Green... Arthur. Simon &
Garfunkel.

Plus the odd song or two by otherwise mostly forgettable groups.

dave.......... www.Shemakhan.com
"Wild thing... you make my heart sing... you make everything groovy!"
Jerry Hunt
2005-08-07 17:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lookingglass
Post by Nightingale
There's good pop music too. I ignored most of it, but some of what the
Beatles did was interesting, and there are a few other groups that I like.
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.
Absolutely...! It was just that the Beatles (IMHO) gave it "class"... and
the WHO made it classical. I live the Kinks... particularly their "English
music hall" period... Face to Face... Village Green... Arthur. Simon &
Garfunkel.
Plus the odd song or two by otherwise mostly forgettable groups.
dave.......... www.Shemakhan.com
"Wild thing... you make my heart sing... you make everything groovy!"
While not of the "pop" genre, my favortie groups in the late 60's/early 70's
were the art rock groups, like Yes; Emerson, Lake & Palmer; and King Crimson
(yes, I listened to the Electric Prunes, too. Pink Floyd remains my all-time
favorite group). I think this may be due in large part to the fact that
around the age of 11 or 12, I began to frequently listen to some classical
records that my parents had - one of which was a late 50's recording of
Leopold Stokowski with his orchestral versions of Tocatto and Fugue in
D-minor and Debussy's Claire de Lune).

Being very much a lover of classical music, with a bias of course to
classical guitar, I am loathe to see the waning interest in "real" music
(most of what I hear on the radio today is mere rhythmic noise, decidedly
NOT music, IMHO). I for one, very much enjoy listening to anyone playing the
classical guitar, no matter how good or bad, I'm just happy to see someone
else with an interest in perpetuating what may be a dying art.

So with that, let me just say I salute everone on this list, no matter what
your opinions may be on any particular subject.

Keep the faith and keep on playing.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...