Re: [acid-jazz] Is true art dead?

From: Steven Catanzaro (stevencatanzaro@sprintmail.com)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 17:38:20 CEST

  • Next message: t-bird: "mozart, miles, herbie, etc. (Re: [acid-jazz] Is true art dead?)"

    t;

    i agree that mozart was ahead of the curve. but, i also think he had the
    ticket buyer in mind.

    after finishing one piano concerto, he wrote to his father, "i think i have
    found the perfect balance... a piece that on the surface is very attractive
    to the average listener, but from which the conessieur would derive much
    pleasure..."

    or words to that effect.

    but, let's take it back to jazz or nu-jazz. i do NOT like the equation

    people like it = it sucks.

    in fact, i'd say some of the greatest jazz albums of the last x years were
    also very popular...

    a) miles davis... kind of blue
    b) john coltrane... a love supreme
    c) herbie hancock... headhunters
    d) dave brubeck... take five

    of course, the great majority of music that "hits" doesn't stick for very
    long... that's what discount bins and used record stores are for.

    but just because lots of people like it, doesn't mean it sucks, and just
    'cuz no one buys it doesn't mean it's high art...

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t-bird" <djtbird1@yahoo.com>
    To: "Steven Catanzaro" <stevencatanzaro@sprintmail.com>;
    <acid-jazz@ucsd.edu>
    Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:00 PM
    Subject: Re: [acid-jazz] Is true art dead?

    >
    > --- Steven Catanzaro <stevencatanzaro@sprintmail.com>
    > wrote:
    > >
    > > the one and only dj tbird wrote
    > >
    > > > the whole point of doing "art music" is you're not
    > > > supposed to be fettered by popular taste. it
    > > should
    > > > be about moving the form forward.
    > >
    > > well, i think this is more of a 20th century notion
    > > than anything else. it
    > > never would've occurred to someone like mozart that
    > > they should compose
    > > music that people wouldn't like, because that's how
    > > he made his money,
    > > giving concerts to people. (and, contrary to
    > > generally held opinion, mozart
    > > made decent money... he just spent too much.)
    >
    > i just spoke to an expert on this subject--i was gonna
    > try and refute your argument using j.s. bach--and he
    > said (unprodded) some VERY INTERESTING things about
    > mozart. first off he says that the "art for art's
    > sake" thing started w/beethoven, but really the
    > foundation of is the work of mozart. mozart basically
    > went and rounded up commissions for work and then
    > essentially wrote what he wanted, and made people
    > think it was what they wanted... he wanted to be an
    > independent composer, free financially to write what
    > he wanted to work on, and found a way to make that
    > happen, even if the method was slightly underhanded.
    > although he was a popular composer, his pieces were
    > still considered quite avant-garde.
    >
    > see, i was never talking about "compose(ing)
    > music that people wouldn't like," per se, i was
    > thinking about writing things that might be a bit
    > ahead of the curve. just because you do something
    > people aren't ready for, doesn't mean they won't
    > *ever* be ready, just not now.
    >
    > > but in the 20th century, you had two significant
    > > things happen.
    > >
    > > a) popular songwriters started to make tons of
    > > money, with the inception of
    > > ascap (and later bmi) royalties. this royalty
    > > structure was not known to
    > > 18th and 19th century artists, who were limited to
    > > giving concerts, selling
    > > their music to a publisher (one time only) and
    > > perhaps having a patron.
    > >
    > > b) "art" composers started to depend on universities
    > > for their income. all
    > > but a handful of 20th century classical composers
    > > were teachers at a
    > > university someplace.
    > >
    > > now, people who are getting paid salaries in
    > > universities are expected to
    > > works, but they have the liberty of not caring
    > > whether or not anyone listens
    > > to them. in fact, it is much more prestigious, in
    > > university circles, for
    > > your work to be lauded by the cognescenti (i.e.,
    > > other professors of
    > > composition) than by the general public.
    > >
    > > but i CAN name you some 20th century composers who's
    > > work has endured the
    > > test of time and was popular in their day as well.
    > >
    > > Maurice Ravel
    > > Claude Debussy
    > > George Gershwin
    > > Edward Kennedy "Duke" Ellington
    > >
    > > and, in our day right now, you've got Henryk Gorecki
    > > and Arvo Paart selling
    > > lots of albums.
    > >
    > > NONE of those guys depend, or depended, primarily on
    > > university salaries for
    > > their income. and guess what? the hoi poloi, the
    > > bourgeoisie, or whatever
    > > other disparaging term is used for the ignorant
    > > masses... actually LIKED
    > > their music.
    > >
    > > imagine that....
    >
    > every one i know that likes and can name anyone you've
    > mentioned other than ellington or gershwin are MUSIC
    > HEADS! most of the people that own classical
    > records--that i know--know something about the music,
    > they're not just casual listeners...
    >
    > -t
    >
    > __________________________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
    > http://faith.yahoo.com
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 14 2002 - 17:40:05 CEST