202,961 users have contributed to 43,314 threads and 259,546 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 3 new thread(s), 11 new post(s) and 43 new user(s).
No question of that. However, he who paid Bach was infinitely more cultivated than he who paid Hans. Let's do our utmost to rectify the situation by educating, being suggestive, etc., when the occasion permits; a step at a time. The world wasn't built in a day, but it can certainly be destroyed in one.
P.S.: Lest we forget, the piper could actually play in "the bad old days".
@Errikos said:
Has it ever occurred to you that throughout history the 'Zeitgeist' mostly sucked? And that it is the fate of the commoners to adapt and follow it, and the fate of the gifted to shape it or replace it?
There is an aspect to this part I strongly disagree with. In my opinion, there is no such thing as the "fate of the commoners" or the "fate of the gifted", and there is also no a priori given line dividing the "commoners" from the "gifted". Achievement in art has much less to do with any inborn "gift" then with the conscious development of one's artistic sensibilities, hard work, and, unfortunately, a considerable amount of luck and happy circumstances.
Secondly, if the achievement in art were merely a product of an inborn "gift", there would be no reason whatsoever to admire this product as an achievement of the artist: to say we should respect or admire somebody for his/hers artistic "gift" is the same as to say we shoud respect or admire them for inheriting a family fortune. In both cases, neither is something they have achieved; they were merely born into it.
As late George Carlin once aptly drove this point home on the issue of "being proud to be Irish" (or Greek, or German, or whatever else...) :
"Being Irish isn't a skill, it's a fucking genetic accident". (A sidenote: Carlin was of Irish descent on both sides).
Analogous to this, if writing great music were "a genetic accident", there would be no reason to either respect or admire those who write it for doing so.
Besides the fact that I certainly believe there is an a priori line dividing the 'commoners' from the 'gifted', it goes without saying that talent alone will get you nowhere in any field where practical physical application is necessary and prior collective achievement simply imposes itself. However, you're confusing 'admiration', with 'recognition' for someone's achievement (which in itself invites a different kind of admiration). Of course you admire a truly beautiful woman, even if she was born that way and all she had to do was maintain that genetic gift by some discipline regarding diet and exercise. However, you admire the beauty, not the woman as a person, whom you don't even know anyway. Of course Beethoven wouldn't have been Beethoven without hard work, but that is a distant secondary consideration. There are so many composers that worked their lower intestines off for decades, but they couldn't hold the relatively lazy Rossini's or the 16-year old Mozart's-Mendelssohn's-Chopin's-Prokofiev's hats. You admire sheer inspiration and talent because they are rare; not because they are the rewards of hard work. Of course talent is moulded into artistic product through discipline, but this is the means through which talent achieves expression worthy of the talent. And I would agree that true artistic beauty is the perfect marriage between talent and discipline. However, with talent you can possibly find discipline; the opposite is impossible: Really hard work has often led to very mediocre, down to pathetic results (as can be confirmed by the hundreds of lesser composers during the last 400 years).
I know of no one that claims that artistic achievement is the mere result of genetic predisposition. In addition to hard work, luck and circumstance play a great role as well. However, if that initial inherent essence is missing, what else is there to be communicated - through whatever disciplinary process and fortunate circumstance - other than empty artifice; hard earned grant you, but empty...
Everybody got the same instruction in orchestration at the Conservatoire de Paris in Ravel's time. However...
Finally, I don't admire Wagner because he worked hard. If that was all, I would admire my father or a conscientious labourer in the same manner. I admire Wagner because of his finished product, which of course also involved discipline and perseverance; but discipline and perseverance are not what I primarily hear during Die Meistersinger, and certainly not at all when I hear the otherwise - puzzlingly - "unlearned" main titles to Cinema Paradiso. Everyone is different of course, but I'd rather have composed that track than all the magically orchestrated animated films, all the fugati in Jaws, you get my drift...
Wow. I hadn't quited realized that composing film music in the style of Hans Zimmer where morally comparable to working as an assassin or exploiting third world countries, and that the current musical trends would lead to the utter annihilation of our civilization. This thread has been a real wake-up call.
More seriously, most of us (myself definitely) will never be "great". We simply do not exist on that level. Nonetheless, that does not mean we should stop pursuing excellence. Just because something is not "great" does not preclude it from being valuable, of real use, and thoroughly enjoyable.
What does seem viable to me is that by aiming "high" even if one falls short of the goal - sometimes far short of it - one is still better off than aiming low, or aiming aimlessly, or doing the "one-finger-sequence".
"There are so many composers that worked their lower intestines off for decades, but they couldn't hold the relatively lazy Rossini's or the 16-year old Mozart's-Mendelssohn's-Chopin's-Prokofiev's hats."
That is most certainly true, however, you left out the other two factors I have mentioned, and which I believe are as essential as hard work: cultivating and developing one's musical and general artistic sensibilities and, last but not least, fortunate circumstances. It is true one can work hard, but work hard on crap without even noticing and making no progress whatsoever, no matter how hard the work is. There probably would be plenty of examples to demonstrate that. However, I have all reasons to doubt that a composer who has constantly cultivated his/hers musical sensiblities and also had some additional luck to point his thinking and working procedures in the "right direction" won't, in combination with hard work, in the end produce results which will be both "inspired" and technically proficient beyond what I would call "very mediocre".
To sum the point up: your example above is certainly true in many cases. However, there are also innumerable cases where a long and hard road of development is seen before a composer reached and cultivated the sort of "inspiration" we admire in his music today. Among those who couldn't hold hats to 16-year old Mozart-Mendelssohn-Chopin-Prokofiev are, among others, 16-year old Beethoven, Schumann and Berlioz, or, for that matter, 30-year old Bruckner. However, all of the 16-year olds mentioned above combined together can't hold hats to 55-year old Berlioz of Les Troyens or 60-year old Bruckner of the 5th Symphony, or, for that matter, the 50-year old Draeseke of the 3rd Symphony or 55-year old Taneiev of the Piano Quintet. And that both in the "inspiration" as in the "technique" department. And that seems to me only possible if "talent" (which I grant probably exists variably in the sense of different "inborn" levels of a sort of elementary receptivness to music, both in the passive and in the active sense, but, and I would like to emphasise this, on a very elementary level) is not merely "moulded" by discipline and work, but actually developed and refined by all three factors (cultivating sensibilities, cultivating technique, and sometimes also having some luck). And this doesn't apply just to Bruckner, it applies, only on a different time scale, to Mozart as well. There is nothing in the works of 10-year or even 15-year old Mozart which necessarily suggests he will compose the A major Piano Concerto 15 or 10 years later.
"Everybody got the same instruction in orchestration at the Conservatoire de Paris in Ravel's time. However..."
However, not everybody developed and posessed the same amount of self-criticism, cultivated the same musical sensibilities, or worked on those as well on his technical proficiency with the same rigour and consistency.
"You admire sheer inspiration and talent because they are rare; not because they are the rewards of hard work."
I don't. Why should anything be admired merely because it is rare? Plague is fairly rare today, but I still have many inherent reasons not to find it to be a particularly admirable occurence. Rarity or abundance of something doesn't say anything about its inherent quality or worth. I suppose what you ment to say is that one admires sheer inspiration and talent because of they intrinsic qualities independent of hard work. On that I would agree in the same sense I would agree with your example of admiring the beauty of a woman (or, f.e. the beauty of nature) without necessarily having to admire her personal qualities and skills. However, I have no admiration or respect for either an artist for his "talent" or for a woman because of her beauty if all they had to do for it was to be born with it. Being born into something isn't either a skill or an achievement or a virtue. It is an accidental privilege (or accidental curse).
"Everyone is different of course, but I'd rather have composed that track than all the magically orchestrated animated films, all the fugati in Jaws, you get my drift..."
Ok, I suppose this example also sheds some light on our differences of opinion on this issue. I would, for all the reasons stated above, prefer to have composed the fugati in the Jaws...
@noldar12 said:
More seriously, most of us (myself definitely) will never be "great". We simply do not exist on that level. Nonetheless, that does not mean we should stop pursuing excellence. Just because something is not "great" does not preclude it from being valuable, of real use, and thoroughly enjoyable.
What does seem viable to me is that by aiming "high" even if one falls short of the goal - sometimes far short of it - one is still better off than aiming low, or aiming aimlessly, or doing the "one-finger-sequence".
To this I can fully subscribe. Words to live by.
Yes, it was a "joke" on one level, but, it was also intended as a pointed comment about some aspects of this thread...
Zemlinski seemed to take himself so seriously that nowhere in his compositions (at least the ones I have heard) was he ever anything other than extremely heavy and serious, to the point - IMO of course - that listening to his music becomes an endurance contest (that the listener will likely lose well before the piece has concluded).
Even the greats - at least in earlier times - knew to not always take life as being just heavy and serious: Mozart's Musical Joke and J. S. Bach's Coffee Cantata, to name two examples (though the Musical Joke unfortunately had a streak of cruelty in it). IMO one of the consequences we are still dealing with from the Romantic period is the notion that all "artists" function as cultural "prophets of truth" (and that the best artists are misunderstood).
Especially in the 20th century forward, if one did not demonstrate great "angst" and "despair" (though despair can indeed be valid), one - at least in the avant garde circles - was not taken seriously. For example Cage rejected Lou Harrison on the grounds that Harrison, while experimenting, remained tonal. Yet, prior to the Romantic era artists were first and foremost servants of others: life did not revolve around "them". One of the few composers who ultimately reversed his avant garde stance was Penderecki (curiously one of the few avant garde composers that IMO had real technique behind what he was doing).
I will admit to not being a fan of Zimmer, but at least he does recognize that the creative end result is not all about "him". As for the "creative value" of much of contemporary film - again IMO - I personally have little or no use for much of it from a creative standpoint, as much of it runs directly counter to the values I hold (though there is much to be gained from studying those one may not agree with-but that is another topic).
One wonders, could it be that ethical life lies somewhere other than being a "Romantic prophet of truth" or the modern pop-oriented "profit of 'truth'," (or taking into account the post-modern interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: "the profit of no-truth")? In their own way, both may be seen as caricature cutouts.
Those are some really good ideas of noldar and Errikos. I tend to agree with goran most of all. Actually this so-called "argument" is composed of many equally valid ideas.
One thing I would add is that I have always noticed in vastly different artistic contexts how it is DESIRE on the part of the artist that creates the best work. In other words, if you truly want to create something great, you have a chance no matter who you are. Some people like Mozart will be able to do it more easily, others with more difficulty or fewer successes, but this never-to-be- extinguished desire to create something fundamentally meaningful is the one essential element. You can learn or adapt techniques, and as goran pointed out, your studies can actually nurture your talent whatever it is.
An artist I really like is Yves Tanguy, and he is an example of someone who did not have the effortless talent of Picasso, but who nevertheless gradually found a style of his own and created some of the great masterworks of surreal painting because of his inspiration and desire. When he saw from a bus a de Chirico painting in a store window, he jumped off it and ran to the window to peer at the painting. That experience was one of the most formative in his artistic career. That sort of inspiration shows a great enthusiasm and love of the medium.
Contrast that to a commercial supplier of "product" who basically doesn't give a shit about creating something meaningful. There are so many taleneted commercial graphic artists who can effortlessly draw a perspective or paint a portrait, and yet they never do anything of lasting value. Why? The don't have the desire to do so. It was killed at some point in their lives.
William: really appreciate your comments about desire. Ultimately, we will do what we desire to do, perhaps either on a "graphic artist" level or "artistic painter". Yet, even a good graphic artist can serve a useful and valuable purpose.
Of course, what makes one a "good graphic artist" is open to wide ranging debate.
@William said:
Contrast that to a commercial supplier of "product" who basically doesn't give a *** about creating something meaningful. There are so many taleneted commercial graphic artists who can effortlessly draw a perspective or paint a portrait, and yet they never do anything of lasting value. Why? The don't have the desire to do so. It was killed at some point in their lives.
@William said:
So you're saying that everybody drops art as soon as they need some money.
Well that's not really what I said. I said that almost anybody will tend to drop art if you put them in constant financial distress long enough and hard enough. That's quite different from claiming that they do it "as soon as they need some money".
Even for those who don't drop art to produce crap instead, the very prospect of going through financial misery involving sufficiently high pain factor can be enough to put them off from even considering realizing a similar project again. Berlioz wrote about planning a fourth major symphony (after Romeo et Juliette), and about how he completely abandoned the project simply because he had all reasons to believe the financial strains would ruin him, a road he already went down once with Le Damnation de Faust, and he had no intention at all of repeating (for understandable reasons).
A fourth major symphony by Berlioz. I don't even want to think about what was lost to us by this one case alone.
I'm glad to encounter a fellow Berlioz enthusiast.
However, what you are saying is still a great excuse for total collapse of artistic principles, since the worst hackwork can be justified by a variation on your statement. I think one needs to uphold what may be only ideals, like van Gogh. Of course he went partly mad and committed suicide. But his unswerving dedication to pure creation without even a single thought of how to USE art for money making - something he showed as much as any artist in history - is an ideal to strive for. Also, I can't help thinking of statements like this from Tarkovsky who was not only unswervingly, absolutely idealistic concerning art over money, but even over the worst totalitarian government in history. He was talking about filmmaking but it applies equally to music:
"The man who has stolen in order never to thieve again remains a thief. Nobody who has ever betrayed his principles can have a pure relationship with life. Therefore when a film-maker says he will produce a pot-boiler in order to give himself the strength and means to make the film of his dreams - that is so much deception, or worse, self-deception. He will never now make HIS film."
In my 20s I was obsessed with artistic purity, against anything. I had a great time, met some interesting people, got a big record deal which I frittered away by upsetting everyone who had any power just for my own amusement.
Aged about 33, after a life of poverty, I decided for an experiment to see what would happen if I channeled my energy into making money from music instead seeking artistic nirvana.
Some important things happened:
1. I made money for the first time in my life, more than I ever expected to make (I had small ambitions, so I don't mean millions, I just mean I never expected to have the kind of money I have now; a real living, a nice house).
2. I did music which I found more interesting to make, which took a more open mind, which took more listening, learning and thinking than I ever did before.
3. I did music at a higher level of technical excellence.
4. When I did side projects for old times' sake, for the artistic fun of it, they were better on every level than the stuff I did when I thought I was a tortured artist, because I'd matured and developed while under commercial pressures.
So, in fact during my tortured artist years really I just had ambitions beyond my own ability. I got very closed minded about what I thought was good, I stopped listening to anyone except myself and I got stuck in a rut. I also ended up depressed and lost my enthusiasm for music. Ok, I also had some fun and I did make some important leaps of imagination, but I think I progressed further artistically when I stopped trying to be artistic and instead focused on money and the market. It made me work harder, I became happier, I listened more and developed an open mind.
So Tarkovsky's statement is fine for him and his life, but it's not my experience.
:)
to put it maybe more reasonably - I understand how you're saying be practical, etc. But your reduction of Van Gogh and Tarkovsky to the cliche of "tortured artist" is wrong. They are far more than that. Yes, I too went through the adolescent naivete you are talking about. But after awhile one starts to need some essential meaning instead of mere comfort. I'll leave it at that.
However, what you are saying is still a great excuse for total collapse of artistic principles, since the worst hackwork can be justified by a variation on your statement. I think one needs to uphold what may be only ideals, like van Gogh. Of course he went partly mad and committed suicide. But his unswerving dedication to pure creation without even a single thought of how to USE art for money making - something he showed as much as any artist in history - is an ideal to strive for. Also, I can't help thinking of statements like this from Tarkovsky who was not only unswervingly, absolutely idealistic concerning art over money, but even over the worst totalitarian government in history. He was talking about filmmaking but it applies equally to music:
"The man who has stolen in order never to thieve again remains a thief. Nobody who has ever betrayed his principles can have a pure relationship with life. Therefore when a film-maker says he will produce a pot-boiler in order to give himself the strength and means to make the film of his dreams - that is so much deception, or worse, self-deception. He will never now make HIS film."
I've had the same thought. Another example is Hitchcock, who did one of the all time great films Vertigo, and yet was one of the most commercial of all directors.
But Tarkovsky is somehow still right, because he is an example of uncompromising artistry that could not be conquered either by money or even the Soviet Union. With only seven films he become known all over the world not for mere popularity, but for his artistic accomplishment and originality. If you follow his example, you have no excuses. But if you follow the dagmarpiano philosophy, or the guy who said "to hell with art and society" - what a philosophy! - you have a beautiful excuse every day for total enslavement to money. It's called selling your soul to the devil and people do it every hour.