A Musical Poll

[EJA_2]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>The underlying lesson from that is that we enjoy more freedom as human beings now that we ever have. For anyone to judge our time as declining is most certainly blind for freedom bears more fruit than any other human construct. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I would strongly diagree with the first quoted sentence, and mildly agree with the second. It is my opinion that, in the United States at least, we have far less freedom at the dawn of this century than we had at the dawn of the last. Would anyone take exception to that opinion? I find my freedoms being encroached upon more and more by Big Brothers who know better than I what is good for me. What is perhaps more alarming is how willingly people accept these encroachments. <P>BTW, Darren, I like your music. [img]/ubb/wink.gif[/img]<P> -- EJA

[audiogirl]

I think it can be argued that nowadays (in the information age) with incredible technology, that we all may be exposed to more art than ever before. It could be that art that lots of folks don't care for has always existed, but it just didn't get much exposure. <P>Brahms bros:<BR>I sometimes wonder if some things are posted for the sole purpose of making you mad and seeing if you'll take the bait. I understand the need to stick up for your buddies, but the best way to make a fight-picker happy is to fight with him.<P>Oh, Barfle.....<BR>You have touched a theory that's been brewing inside my little head. I see a lot of people who have an attachment to the music that was popular in the period in which they grew up. I'm the same way. Pop music in the 80's was not anything wonderful to most people, but I find myself buying CD sets called "Totally 80's" because I'm attached to the stuff that was played in my formative years.<p>[This message has been edited by audiogirl (edited 04-10-2001).]

[Luegwig]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nicole Marie:<BR><B>I don't think art is on a decline more than it's changing. It's taking on new forms. This does not mean that art is becoming worse or bad. <P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It all comes down to defining good or bad. It means different things to all of us. <P>I'm asking everyone 'cause I'm curious. How does modern art affect you? How should it affect you? Until these questions are answered, how can we evaluate whether it's good or not?<P>Personally, I listen to music to be praise God, to be moved emotionally, to be inspired, to add to my enjoyment of the occasion. In this regard, I feel that at least in the area of music and static visual arts, art has failed me almost utterly this past century. Some interesting things happened, but it didn't meet my requirements.<P>I think the one art form that has flourished of late is motion pictures. It's a new form like NM suggested and it meets a lot of my needs. <P>I'd like to hear. Maybe this should be a new topic.<P>-Bill<BR>

[Nicole Marie]

Modern art effects me in many ways. The first is from a performers stand point. The ideas contemporary composers are coming out with, on how they want their works displayed are extremely interesting to me. Multi-media, dance, music, film...it's all very exciting.<P>What also moves me is the way music is finding new audiences. It used to be you sat and watched the performance. Now in many new works audiences are being asked to join in! Perfect.<P>And last, for the reason that I am interested in seeing something I have never seen before. To be part of a new idea that no one has ever thought of before.

[Luegwig]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barfle:<BR><B>If you want music or other arts to "improve," make some music or other arts that you believe to be better.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If only I could!<P>You make some good points.<P>I like 70s and 80s rock. While it's not completely nostalgic, the quality of enjoyment is different than the classical music I still enjoy from my younger days. It has a timeless quality in my life.<P>I like some of the newer pop music, but it for the most part leaves no lasting impression at all. <P>To digress: Lest y'all think I'm an 18th and 19th century biggot, Aaron Copland is one of my all time favorites. Appalachian Spring just blows me away.

[Luegwig]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>And last, for the reason that I am interested in seeing something I have never seen before. To be part of a new idea that no one has ever thought of before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Nicole Marie, I thought your performance responses were very interesting. I feel like I've missed SO much in not pursuing a performance endeavor. When I watch a performer, say a pianist playing Beethoven, I can see how (s)he is so transfixed by the music as to understand it at a whole different level. For that, I envy you.<P>As to the above, do all things new excite you or do some things turn you off? This is just sort of a yes/no question, but delve if you like!<P>Regards,<BR>Bill

[Nicole Marie]

Not much turns me off in the world of music. The only thing that does is when you perform a piece, contemporary or classical, you should study what the composer wanted from that piece. The music is someones idea, as a performer it is your duty to make sure that idea is projected correctly. I do not mean putting a contemporary flair on a classical piece, there are ways to do that, and still hold true the meaning of the piece. <P>Oh yeah and leaving the seat up...my two turn offs. [img]/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

[EJA_2]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nicole Marie:<BR><B>Oh yeah and leaving the seat up...my two turn offs. [img]/ubb/wink.gif[/img]</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yeah, but some of those auditorium seats don't give you much choice.<P> -- EJA<BR>

[EJA_2]

Audiogirl and Barfle, I think you're on to something. I think every generation views theirr childrens music as rebellious, probably because to a great degree it is. Young people often have difficuly drawing the line between innovation and rebellion. Nevertheless, there is a great difference. <P>On a related theme, I would like to say that in the modern era there has been a backlash against beauty and order that has resulted in much great talent being put to waste. This was Pablo's Picasso's conclusion at the end of his life concerning his art. By no means is this a universal malady, but I thinks it is a malady of modern music nontheless. For all I know, Baroque music may have had the same problems, but has been weeded out by the passage of time. <P> -- EJA

[audiogirl]

Hey, EJA.<P>It's been a long time since I had any art history, but I thought that in the beginning of his career, Pablo Picasso pretty much followed the standard techniques, that his paintings looked pretty much like what he was looking at. If I remember correctly, it was later on his career that he found the artistic freedom to do such works as "Guernica," and to render in the style for which he is famous. I could be totally misinformed. One of you art history people out there-------maybe you can clear this up.<P>I'm at audiogirl@beethoven.com, EJA. I probably wouldn't always agree with you, but I'm interested in your views on spiritual matters.

[Luegwig]

I'm no art history major, but what you say matches up with what I remember. I don't know anything about what he confessed late in life, but it seemed that his work only got...umm...more abstract as he got older.

[audiogirl]

A general point on this discussion: All music was "new" at one point in time. What if Ludwig himself had been too afraid to think outside the box?<P>I don't especially like modern visual art,<BR>but plenty of art forms are recognized not because they are beautiful, but because it hasn't been done that way before. <P>Maybe there's a difference in what we prefer, and what is done expertly.<P>Was it Shelley who wrote "beauty is truth, truth, beauty?" Excuse me...... I'd better let go of this limb before it breaks.

[shostakovich]

Yes, indeed, Picasso was very talented at "normal" art, but he was only one of many who could do what was already done. The 20th C in art is about being DIFFERENT. The conductor, Lukas Foss, once defined "charisma" as "believing your own bullshit". Using this definition, Picasso's charisma carried him to being called by many "the greatest artist of the 20th C".<P>Picasso himself said "My mother once said of me, If you go into the army you will become a general. If you join the priesthood, you will become the pope. Well, I decided to take up painting, and I became Picasso".<BR>Shos

[EJA_2]

Perhaps I shall have to look up that Picasso quote. I believe it was on his death bed. He more or less said that he wasted his talent. <P>Yes, Beehoven did something new, but it was beautiful. The same is true of Bach, and many others. Innovation is wonderful, but only if it is serviceable. My appraisal of much of modern art, audio or visual, is that it is comparable to inventing a square wheel and expecting everyone to like it or appreciate it because it is different. That wheel doesn't roll, folks. It's innovative, but not serviceable. By the same token, much of the balance of modern art is both innovative and serviceable. <P>In summary, I think we have to a great degree sought "new" at the expense of "good." This is part of the process of finding the balance, something that man must always be doing because of his finitude. Certainly, one could -- and I've seen this too -- never do anything new through fear of compromising good. However I think it is counterproductive to start moving the standards in lieu of trying to conform to them, and I think that is what many are doing on the presumption that "new" equals good. Remember, Naziism was new once. Presumably common sense will eventually start to swing the pendulum back again; the only question is will there be anything left of our culture by that time. There wasn't anything left of the culture of the Roman Empire when it fell, but I don't think we have quite reached that level of decadence. <P> -- EJA