TubeNet

bloke wrote: Do you have the courage - in this thread - to list composers and/or compositions in the "classical" genre that - to you - are obviously completely vacant? Yes, this takes courage. Increasingly over the last several decades, those who criticize that which is trivial or negative are often quickly labeled as "small-minded", "immature", "unenlightened", or "lacking in understanding".

I'll say this. This is exactly how one will likely be cast for making such a list. I will have think this one over. When it comes to the "classical" genre of the past approx. 50 years, I haven't been too impressed with much of it. So, go ahead, call me "small=minded," "immature," "unenlightened," etc. And I know some of you will. I haven't the courage, knowledge, or any of the other qualifications necessary to fully answer the challenge.

bloke wrote: Increasingly over the last several decades, those who criticize that which is trivial or negative are often quickly labeled as "small-minded", "immature", "unenlightened", or "lacking in understanding".

More people will see the art in question and more people will see your and others opinions. More will agree with, as well as disagree. Except for the pure volume of opinions, how is this any different than any other time in history. Artists, musicians, architects, writers, film makers, and anyone else in the creative arts have been mocked and lauded during the period when they were alive and creating. Time is the only arbiter on whether history will be kind or cruel to any art form.

On a side note, I happen to be one of the few people on the planet that have never tried an illegal drug . I grew up in a household where my step father (a Vietnam vet) came home with a major weed habit. The stuff was in the house all the time in large quantities. With that being said, I like some hip hop music. I look the art form as limericks with a good beat. The lyrics must be funny and make me laugh. They must be well crafted. If not, it goes into the same pile as I would put most Britney Spear's songs.

So, is Mr. Carter an example of "vacant artistry" simply because he is a rapper? That's a rather wide swath to make in the music downplaying area. Now, granted, some people might not think he is a very good rapper, (myself included,) but that doesn't mean that the genre as a whole is artistically vacant.

bloke wrote:The rise to fame of such vacant artistry is a sign of the times; Nearly all of this would be dismissed and virtually none would be embraced were it not for the wide epidemic of *cannabis use and cannabis-induced mental disorders which have overtaken a large portion of American and world culture.

Now this, I'm just going to have to argue. Cannabis, (or marijuana, or weed, what have you) has absolutely nothing to do with making the music industry "worse" or turning it into "garbage". Hell, half of all pop musicians, (if not all musicians,) from the first part of the last century smoked the stuff. And they had been for awhile, and will continue for a long time. It's just a plant that you can smoke, not an elixir of never-ending mediocrity. And, if it really does have these conspiracy theory psychological problems, is it anything compared to alcohol and tobacco?

But, back to music...

Given my own views on music, I guess anything that might seem "artistically vacant" to me would be anything that seems half-hearted, or things that just don't work. I think there's a lot of bland music out there, and this quality strikes me as fitting the vacant bill well. And, just to make people angry, I'm going to say that I find a lot of the music of the Classical era to be a little.....meh. True, it has some cool structures, and some neat chords, but it just doesn't do much, for me at least. I'm also averse to many of the ultra-sappy Romantic monstrosities. But, then again, I disagree with the notion of "artistic" music being the only kind out there. More on that later...


I think part of what informs this topic is the eternal "the generation below me is apathetic and full of garbage" line of thought. Just as with any generation, there are things which get the blame-for mine, examples include rap music, weed, video games, and iPods. So, does that mean that those who came before me were living saints who made music and art of the highest prestige and nobility? Maybe.

Another thing I want to take umbrage with is the idea that musicians must always strive to make "art." What is art? It's going to change from person to person, so why try to enforce an inclusive definition of such a thing? Was Mozart art? What about Wagner? Does this mean that old dead Europeans make art and young Americans don't? Or that violins speak the truth and tubas have nothing to say? This argument for always making "art" strikes me as heavy-handed and just a little bit facetious. It's just music, after all.

Whew....I'm done for now.

And, just for fun, here's a video that some of you might not like, some of you will hate. And something tells me the original poster might not be a fan...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpP-8tJ-9Js


Aaron H.

I suspect this new "art form" has its roots in "modern art." We've had a 'sign' up locally that says "respect all art." Well, I don't respect anything that has as its primary means of expression, the infringement of other people's rights to not have..."art"...spray painted on their buildings,signs, bus stop shelters, train cars etc. I am not musically astute enough to begin to list the musical composers that essentially do the same thing. I flat don't get rap, much as my Grandmother didn't get jazz or my Aunt didn't get rock and roll. (And I thought disco was going to be permitted to die away.)

I don't agree that this is a canibis evolution (or deevolution, if you prefer). There are other factors at play (NPI) societally overall, some of which I suspect are directly related to electronic entertainment (video/audio/text) that have changed the way our brains are wired to process information. The overwhelming use of both prescribed and non-prescribed medication in our kids in elementary school on up is, I suspect, more of a factor than just smokin' dope. Of course, the dope out there today is so much stronger than previous generations (the comparison I've seen, and maybe I should save this for the analog thread, is that today's marijuana = liquor with a 20% alcohol content while yesterdays = Coors Light.)

Ally"at the front of the small-minded, immature, and whatever else bloke said line"House

I'll be the first to "throw a name" out there. Last year, I spent a great deal of time working on a particular concerto with one of the better trombone students at OSU...he eventually won the concerto competition with it and was accepted to Yale using this piece as part of his audition. I found the piece to be exceptionally "random" as many modern works tend to be - the traditions of harmonic structure and any sort of tonality just aren't there. It quite literally reminds me of those paintings where the artist grabs a bucket of paint and flings it on to a canvas...whatever happens is the "art."

The piece...Trombone Concerto by Christopher Rouse...the 1993 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Music.

bloke wrote:
Wow! ...courage without apology, talking around the subject, nor an attack of the premise!

But... but.... that premise! Geez!


That said, John Williams can't write an original melody even if you tell him how it goes first.

bloke wrote:

ginnboonmiller wrote:
But... but.... that premise! Geez!


That said, John Williams can't write an original melody even if you tell him how it goes first.

Let me guess:

either employed by a college university, a present/former graduate student, or the holder of an advanced or terminal degree...

...??

Nope. Well, I've gone to grad school. But my education doesn't make your premise better or worse, nor does it make John Williams less than crap.

tubafatness wrote: Hell, half of all pop musicians, (if not all musicians,) from the first part of the last century smoked the stuff.

Louis Armstrong, for example. But then by the '40s he was dismissing the newer jazz as "Chinese music", so he's all right!

bloke wrote:.... nor an attack of the premise!

That's because exploring the premise is far more interesting than the question.

LJV wrote: It's easy to say something sucks. I say the real courage will be exhibited by someone who is willing to defend their choice of art and artist that they enjoy.

I'm on to your game bloke. You just created this topic because you wanted a laugh. Blaming the degeneration of modern society on marijuana? I don't buy it. You're just trying to mess with people!

Anyway....I don't really like Andrew Lloyd Webber.

bloke wrote:

ginnboonmiller wrote:
Nope. Well, I've gone to grad school. But my education doesn't make your premise better or worse, nor does it make John Williams less than crap.

How did "John Williams" enter the discussion...??

Is the statement (per my invitation) that his works are rubbish? OK then...

ya know, by most folks standards, there aren't many c.d.'s in this house. My wife has a pretty good stack - as does my son. My own stack of c.d.'s, though, is only about (at the very most) 2-1/2 to 3 ft. tall...and I don't recall a "John Williams" work in the lot...

...Further, whenever he and the-fat-broad-who-used-to-be-a-coloratura-soprano are blathering backstage just prior to some PBS-broadcast concert, I find myself flipping the channel.

Um... Wait, what? I thought you assumed that my dislike of John Williams had to do with my having an advanced degree, or something. I guess your first guess didn't make sense to me. Is some clarification in order on your part?

Never mind, I guess.

With regard to John Williams, let me say that, as with Li'l Wayne, my thoughts on whether his music is worth listening to have never once pivoted on whether you liked his music. That remains unchanged. I suppose it's interesting to you that you don't have any recordings of John Williams' music, but it's not to me. Lots of folks love his crap and I don't. Which was what I thought you were asking in the first place.

Premise 2: 90% of everything is crap

Premise 3: Premise 2 also applies to premises

sloan wrote:Premise 2: 90% of everything is crap

Premise 3: Premise 2 also applies to premises

Sturgeon's Law *is* universal, isn't it?

I hate ALL MUSIC.
ALL OF IT


flametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametrollflametroll

Tuba Guy wrote: ...and actually looking at it from a classical point of view, wasn't Berlioz on Opium when he wrote Symphonie Fantastique?

Alot of people were on Opium back then; they thought it was good for thier health.

k001k47 wrote:

Tuba Guy wrote: ...and actually looking at it from a classical point of view, wasn't Berlioz on Opium when he wrote Symphonie Fantastique?

Alot of people were on Opium back then; they thought it was good for thier health.

Well, health is relative. We're all gunna die someday,and if something like that could make Berlioz write a tuba part that good (...though it was for ophecleide, but ignoring that), then shouldn't we all be on stuff like that?

Tuba Guy wrote:A lot of this is operating under what could be a false pretense. From what I can see, it is implying that pot is bad, which just isn't the case. It's not nearly as dangerous as smoking cigs or drinking. In fact,I have a "friend" who is a tuba player and smokes pot regularly. It has increased his lungpower, made his sound a lot fuller, and increased his low range freedom and ability. It is actually kinda beneficial to tuba.

Ah, the joys of blind justification. Pot is beneficial to tuba playing? Makes your sound fuller? Increases your low range?

Thanks so much for the belly laugh. Enjoy your next bong hit, duuuuude. I especially liked the justification of bad (illegal) behavior (pot smoking) by describing worse (legal) behavior (smoking cigarettes and drinking). That's rich.

bloke wrote:

Dan Castillo wrote:...I don't really like Andrew Lloyd Webber.

bravo & 10-4...the "hip-hop" of musical theatre

ginnboonmiller wrote:Um... Wait, what? I thought you assumed that my dislike of John Williams had to do with my having an advanced degree, or something.

Admittedly, JTW tends to be a favorite whipping boy of musical-elite, and the choice (of all possible choices) seems somewhat trite.

Trite? I'd say "I don't like rap or country" is trite. I'd say "they don't make them like they used to, and my taste is based on objective, factual concepts of quality" is trite. I'd say trashing John Williams is more universal than trite.

You're right, Bob. I don't smoke pot to find out if it will be beneficial to my playing. I should try it before I dismiss the idea as silly.

The same way I should jump off a cliff to find out how much it hurts to hit the bottom before I tell someone else not to do it. Yeah, sure.

Anybody with a little bit of life experience who has seen the effects of frequent pot smoking by the people who do it knows enough to condemn it. I don't have to smoke it to realize that claiming it is "actually kinda beneficial to tuba" is sheer folly.

Back to the original topic ("vacant" classical composers)...I'll happily throw John Cage under the bus right next to Christopher Rouse as well. The 4'33" thing was bad enough, but his love-affair with "chance music" is mind-numbing and lacks a basis in musical art. Has anyone ever heard of "Imaginary Landscape No. 4" written for 12 radio receivers which are each manipulated by two players (one for frequency, one for volume)? The issue for me isn't the fact that "composers" like John Cage exist...it's the politically-correct praise that is attached to their "work" for no discernable reason save the reviewer's need to feel "hip" or "avant-garde" sensitive.