Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by YaxelPerez » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 4:17 PM UTC

scarecrowbob wrote: post #26

jackhack wrote: post #20

I have only limited formal music education, but I am an ardent amateur performer and listener. But I agree with the person who ran down the aisle at the 1970 performance, yelling "Stop! I will confess!" Western music requires rhythm, melody, harmony. (though rhythm may stand nearly on its own.) Beauty can be subjective to a degree (some non-Western cultures do not find dissonant notes to be objectionable in an otherw…

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,…

I guess "what Rush Limbaugh can't do" is a better baseline in your case.

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

#32

Post by dwc » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 4:21 PM UTC

scarecrowbob wrote: post #26

jackhack wrote: post #20

I have only limited formal music education, but I am an ardent amateur performer and listener. But I agree with the person who ran down the aisle at the 1970 performance, yelling "Stop! I will confess!" Western music requires rhythm, melody, harmony. (though rhythm may stand nearly on its own.) Beauty can be subjective to a degree (some non-Western cultures do not find dissonant notes to be objectionable in an otherw…

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 famous artists who got the space would be recognized as genius vs. unknown artists vs. cranks out to show that art appreciation is a joke?

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

#33

Post by trhway » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 4:25 PM UTC

jackhack wrote: post #20

I have only limited formal music education, but I am an ardent amateur performer and listener. But I agree with the person who ran down the aisle at the 1970 performance, yelling "Stop! I will confess!" Western music requires rhythm, melody, harmony. (though rhythm may stand nearly on its own.) Beauty can be subjective to a degree (some non-Western cultures do not find dissonant notes to be objectionable in an otherw…

That is the definition of craft, not of art.

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

#34

Post by apocolyps6 » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 4:47 PM UTC

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'…

So Limbaugh measures art for how hard it is to make. Peeling potatoes is hard (I've been told). I would not claim that peeling potatoes is an art. Same with painting a house, or mining coal.

I disagree that the only thing we get from experiencing art is "oh wow, that look hard". IMO the appeal of art is that it either makes you feel or think in a certain way. This "definition" feel closer to the reasons one would want to experience the creations of others, it also gives some explanation for why one would enjoy the oft ridiculed avant-garde stuff.

Plus every designer I've listened to has told me that the "weird stuff" eventually feeds into and enhances the "normal stuff".

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

#35

Post by clappski » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 4:52 PM UTC

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 think muddying the definition of art and the mechanics with which art is created doesn't do either justice. Art is simply creative expression - that Limbaugh quote could be seen as a form of art (although it's a very contrived example for me to make).

Really (in my opinion) everything we do to express ourselves is some form of art, and the works that we consider 'great art' is that something that represents a combination of something humans can do (draw, write, sing, design, ...) and something that contains a meaning found within the content of the physical application that draws a reaction from either the artist or audience.

The real beauty of art is that everything can be art to someone, no matter how bad technically or lacking in content it can be. My favourite example of a great piece of art that has no content (and is fully participatory!) is Cage's 4'33" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAbXwr3qkg). To people who aren't interested in experimental music or musique concréte, a pre-warning, there's 0 technique or musical skills required to play the piece.

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

#36

Post by squeaky-clean » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 4:58 PM UTC

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'…

> 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."

Recreating something is worthless. Who cares if you can recreate something. He can splatter paint on canvas, but never thought to do it until he saw other people get popular from it. So sure, he can splash some paint on canvas, but he can't think of doing it, and that part is the art. A painting is more than just the paint on the canvas.

If I buy a machine-cut perfect 1:1 replica of the statue of David, does that make my statue as much a masterpiece as the original? What if I pay a human to make it instead of a machine?

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

#37

Post by tzs » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 4:59 PM UTC

I didn't notice the YouTube link at the bottom of that article, so went searching myself, and found a different recording of it [1]. That's the 2002 remastered version. It's longer than the one linked in the article--I don't know if the tempo is just slower or if the remastered version has more material.

Then I saw a comment mentioning the link in the article. I stopped the playback of the remastered version, and started the video from the article.

Then I switched from watched the embedded video in the article to watching that video on YouTube itself.

It turns out that I botched stopping the playback of the remastered version, and botched the switch to the YouTube page, so I actually had three copies of the piece playing, at different places within the piece (and possibly one going at a different tempo).

It took me something like a minute with all three going to realize that something was wrong. I only noticed because I rewound the one I was actually watching back to the start, and the intro sounded wrong, prompting me to check the other tabs.

I think it says something (not sure what) about this work that I could have three copies at different points within it playing simultaneously and not quickly notice.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5BSt3oKpWk

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

#38

Post by clappski » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 5:00 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #16

nugi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue you are woefully wrong. Much great music is made of sounds only fleetingly able to be considered 'intentional'. A noise that conveys a feeling, no matter that feeling, is music. Sure, I don't sit around jamming to John Cage, but I similarly feel vaugely ambivilant about much pop music. Is it any different? Much good hiphop is atonal, much jazz does not repeat, and much popular techno has but a faint hin…

It’s certainly true you can find musical qualities in almost any noise, but “music” by definition is a purposeful structure or arrangement of sounds to convey an idea or emotion. That is not to say that all music must follow some prescribed form or another, but the distinction between sound and music is, at a minimum, structure and intent. And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to…

Is Cage's 4'33" unmusic? Are the birds, tweeting birds songs, unmusic? I think you're confusing only musical styles that you recognize as music for the whole world of music we are surrounded by.

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

#39

Post by Retric » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

squeaky-clean wrote: post #36

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'…

> 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." Recreating something is worthless. Who cares if you can recreate something. He can splatter paint on canvas, but never thought to do it until he saw other people get popular from it. So sure, he can splash some paint on canvas, but he can't think of doing it, and that part is…

Tell that to any classical orchestra.

Kids will sometimes fling pant on canvas as fun, but it's not art.

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

#40

Post by zaroth » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

jedimastert wrote: post #15

zaroth wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no bone to pick with Reich, but I do think to call something music, the bar is higher than ‘sound made intentionally’.

> I do think to call something music, the bar is higher than ‘sound made intentionally’ That's exactly the kind of questions and feeling people like Steve Reich and John Cage were trying to explore with their music. What would you say the bar is?

I don’t know enough about them but, if you’re right about that, then I’d say it’s the best support for my comment possible.

If they are intentionally exploring the line between noise and music, then clearly there is one, and it is up to each of us to decide where to draw it.

I would say, from the 60 odd seconds of track I listened to, they are asymptotically approaching noise from the musical side of the equation. Which is probably why the audience had such a negative reaction.