Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

theamericanscholar.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

#51

Post by dsrftyjdrtyn »

Is anyone else surprised by the high proportion of dismissive comments here? Of all Reich's work, this is one of my least favourite, but it is certainly music; not noise, not a joke, and not intended as lazy provocation. Reich himself has notoriously conservative views on music, and here he is repeatedly framed as a charlatan!

I often wonder how society will make progress on truly divisive issues when moderately deviant works like this one remain controversial 45 years onward. How will we embrace the proverbial other, and react to difference with compassion when we can't even exercise these principles through our reception of art?

Re: Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

#52

Post by phlakaton »

jackhack wrote: post #30
scarecrowbob wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. Like, there are plenty of musical pieces I can play; that doesn't make them not art. I enjoy drawing though I am not great at it; that doesn't make my drawing not art... that just makes my drawings mediocre art. So, at the very least, I don't think that's a sustainable definition of art. For what it's worth,…

But you're making the argument. You have skills and training and surely thousands of hours of practice, of course you can play plenty of pieces. Limbaugh's point was that he is utterly without art and music talent/training yet can re-create some of these highly praised "works of art." Of course it was hyperbolic, and it's not a rock-solid scientific definition of art -- perhaps no such thing can ever exist -- but it'…

I welcome Limbaugh's attempt to pull this piece off! I'm a semiprofessional musician and organist, generally willing to get way in over my head on pieces, but trying to perform this would terrify me. How would you ever get back on track if you lost the meter?...

Re: Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

#53

Post by phlakaton »

teilo wrote: post #43

Organ grinding indeed. I love electronic music and the history of electronic music. But as I was delving into that history, particularly its early history when it was known as tape music or avante garde, I discovered that the rift between east and west coast synthesis goes back much further than I realized. I am unabashedly turned off by west-coast/avante garde/tape music. When I tried to enjoy, for example, the semi…

I don't think that's the right definition of avant garde. Though there's no unified language between _all_ of the works of art collected under this banner, that's not to say that there aren't working dialects that help to shape the exploration. Otherwise, your distinction between east-coast and west-coast synthesis would be meaningless, after all!

Recall that serialism, which is practically the first thing that comes to mind for many people when they think of avant-garde music, was essentially a _structuralist_, not a deconstructionist, movement. The deconstruction of the tonic system was what came before, in the music of the late 19th and early 20th century. Serialism encompasses various attempts to build a new musical language from the remains.

So it is with Steve Reich. Rather than focusing purely on what Reich's music takes away, you will get more from his work if you look at what he is trying to _build._

Re: Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

#54

Post by ciconia »

The biggest turnoff about classical music is how so-called connoisseurs will dissect and analyse a piece of music ad nauseum, in order to provide legitimacy and authority to their aesthetic judgement of a piece of music.

You like the music? Fine. You don't? That's also fine. But personally, reading stuff like "the final resolution of the cadence sounds like nothing less than a great Amen" reminds me why I don't go to classical music concert anymore.

Re: Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

#55

Post by scarecrowbob »

will4274 wrote: post #29
scarecrowbob wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. Like, there are plenty of musical pieces I can play; that doesn't make them not art. I enjoy drawing though I am not great at it; that doesn't make my drawing not art... that just makes my drawings mediocre art. So, at the very least, I don't think that's a sustainable definition of art. For what it's worth,…

> As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. I think you've misunderstood, on two fronts. First, the definition given was "what Rush Limbaugh can't do." More generally, it's what laypeople, those untrained in art, can't do. If you're a "semi-professional musician," then your ability to perform a work of music is a non-factor. Second, I read Limbaugh a…

Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood.

Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star...

It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best.

And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like.

Re: Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

#56

Post by scarecrowbob »

phlakaton wrote: post #52
jackhack wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're making the argument. You have skills and training and surely thousands of hours of practice, of course you can play plenty of pieces. Limbaugh's point was that he is utterly without art and music talent/training yet can re-create some of these highly praised "works of art." Of course it was hyperbolic, and it's not a rock-solid scientific definition of art -- perhaps no such thing can ever exist -- but it'…

I welcome Limbaugh's attempt to pull this piece off! I'm a semiprofessional musician and organist, generally willing to get way in over my head on pieces, but trying to perform this would terrify me. How would you ever get back on track if you lost the meter?...

It's only Limbaugh's ignorance of the context of the piece that makes him think it's random.

If I didn't know how to read, I'd say that the squiggles on a page are just squiggles that anyone with a piece of charcoal could make.

Re: Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

#57

Post by scarecrowbob »

dwc wrote: post #32
scarecrowbob wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. Like, there are plenty of musical pieces I can play; that doesn't make them not art. I enjoy drawing though I am not great at it; that doesn't make my drawing not art... that just makes my drawings mediocre art. So, at the very least, I don't think that's a sustainable definition of art. For what it's worth,…

My reading of that definition is that it depends on not being or claiming to have any skill at art whatsoever. Limbaugh can't see the distinction that makes those things art and suspects that nobody else can either; that it's only art because it was produced by an artist. Of course this is a facile take on art, but there's a nugget of a question in there... if exhibits were anonymous and selected by lottery, how many…

Well, I posted this down thread, but I have the same response:

Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star...

It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best.

And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like.

-=-=-=-=

But here's a response to the question you ask:

So the question begged by your question: given the importance of context, why does the provenance of a piece of art matter outside of that context?

For instance, s there a difference between the mona lisa "original" and a copy you hang on your wall?

If there is a difference, then the who produced it and the context does matter regardless of who can tell a "fake".

If there is no difference, why would your hypothetical lottery be relavent to the status of art as art... wouldn't the art be in the eye of whoever is trying to judge the work?

Re: Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

#58

Post by melq »

mannykannot wrote: post #13
eadmund wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The boorish, self-centered behavior of certain audience members would have made it very difficult to appreciate anything of the work at its premiere. Is it the audiences or the composers & performers who are boorish & self-centred? This quote from the article is a bit revealing: ‘For sure, by tomorrow, everyone in the world is going to know about you and your music.’ Good music isn’t about being known; it’s about g…

If the intent was to provoke a hostile reaction, then I would tend to agree, but I think it was a good-faith attempt to make enjoyable music that was not immediately successful, but which had a silver lining for the apparently dejected composer. If you go to a concert of new works, I think you have a obligation to not interfere with the rest of the audience's attempt to appreciate it, even if you do not. It seems tha…

Not that I condone the audience's behavior, but this was not the premiere. They mention having played it in Boston before taking it to NY.

Re: Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

#59

Post by phlakaton »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #56
phlakaton wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I welcome Limbaugh's attempt to pull this piece off! I'm a semiprofessional musician and organist, generally willing to get way in over my head on pieces, but trying to perform this would terrify me. How would you ever get back on track if you lost the meter?...

It's only Limbaugh's ignorance of the context of the piece that makes him think it's random. If I didn't know how to read, I'd say that the squiggles on a page are just squiggles that anyone with a piece of charcoal could make.

For sure. And yet, it's easy to fall into this trap in modern art. :-)

I remember a particular work of art in MOCA in Los Angeles once upon a time that was a strip of fur on the wall that extended from eye level down to the ground, then ran out along the floor for a short distance. My friend and I were simultaneously amused and outraged by that little work! Surely a nine-year-old could have done that!...

Re: Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

#60

Post by dwc »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #57
dwc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reading of that definition is that it depends on not being or claiming to have any skill at art whatsoever. Limbaugh can't see the distinction that makes those things art and suspects that nobody else can either; that it's only art because it was produced by an artist. Of course this is a facile take on art, but there's a nugget of a question in there... if exhibits were anonymous and selected by lottery, how many…

Well, I posted this down thread, but I have the same response: Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star... It isn…

I find your response interesting. Thank you.

I think that the nature of the context can vary a lot. Some art speaks to people on a primal level, and the context is shared human experience. Other art needs more shared cultural context. Then there's art that requires the context of the artist's life to really move you.

In short, I concede your point that context matters. I think it can and does vary quite a bit.

I still don't want to conflate works requiring the context of knowing and understanding the artist with thinking a work is deep because the artist is well regarded.

Post reply on HN