Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 0:56:41 GMT -5
Good morning, Sydney. I trust that all is well with you. If I may address your final question directly: " ... Can Kant be wrong?" Kant be wrong? Immanuel Kant can be wrong, although as Kant himself admitted, only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness. BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time - Greatest Philosopher - Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)As far as BBC Radio 3 and Jazz are concerned, I suppose that what happened over the course of the twentieth century was that jazz, as a genre of music, moved from popular entertainment to a serious artform in its own right. Thus, jazz has taken its place alongside classical music on the BBC's only 'serious' music radio station, Radio 3! Of course, we all have different preferences, and most people do not really appreciate either genre of music. In the eighteenth century, Kant stressed the absence of desire in aesthetic contemplation as a way of explaining how aesthetic judgements could be universal, Sydney, but in the twenty-first century, I would add that it is not always that easy to separate thought from feeling. What tends to happen, at least with kleines c, is that I make some subjective judgement about something, for example, a piece of music I hear for the first time on the radio, and then when asked why I like it, I find ways to justify my preferences. So the thought, or the rationalisation of the music, actually comes after the feeling or desire. Thus, Kant rationalised that music was intrinsically better with words. I would beg to differ. What matters to me is the sound of the music rather than the ideas it seeks to convey. In the same way, if I look at an abstract work of visual art, perhaps I have to descend into the hell of self-knowledge to appreciate it. The art becomes me?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 18, 2013 10:04:55 GMT -5
You seem to make this sound as though it belongs somewhere within academia, with people presumably setting examinations and others taking and, on occasion, passing them but, on that basis, who do you believe are the "arbiters of taste" and who the "authorities" in present-day Britain? - and what are these "examinations", who sets them and who takes them today? My Prime Ministerial example was merely cited as an instance of someone of questionable ability to fulfil either category, but he is chosen for his rôle by his political party and elected as an MP by his constituents, not by some arbitrary "mob" in any case but, leaving Prime Ministers aside, what you write here still leaves questions unanswered, in this case the identities of these "authorities" and the setters and takers of "examinations". Well quite! Mr. H is still laudably anxious to learn how to avoid anarchy on the issue of critical authority. That was not what I wrote or meant; indeed, I made no reference to "anarchy" on any issue, let alone that of "critical authority". Two approaches may be especially recommended: 1) Find a London tele-phone directory. Look up "Schools of Music" therein. Many will be listed; the best known are the Royal College of Music and the Royal Academy of Ditto. So if the weather is fine, toddle along to the Royal College of Music on Prince Consort Road. The building was designed by Sir Arthur Blomfield in Flemish Mannerist style in red brick dressed with buff-coloured Welden stone. Construction began in 1892 and the building opened in May 1894. It was largely paid for by two large donations from Samson Fox, a Yorkshire industrialist, whose statue, along with that of the Prince of Wales, stands in the entrance hall. Simply ask to speak to the Director, Professor Lawson. He will assuredly be able to point you in the right direction. www.rcm.ac.uk/Alternatively, and it may be even more conveniently, there is the Royal Academy of Music, on Marylebone Road. This time ask for the Principal, Professor Freeman-Attwood. (The Patron is H.M. The Queen but She is unlikely to be available to assist.) The Academy was established as long ago as 1822, and given such a long history the staff are certain to be in possession of all requisite information. www.ram.ac.uk/homeI do not see what you're trying to get at here. Firstly, one does not need a London telphone directory, hyphenated or otherwise, to find the contact details for either of these august institutions at the former of which I studied full time, at the latter of which I was once a junior student and both of which I attended regardless of the clemency of the weather. Secondly - and more importantly in this context - what makes you imply (as I take your references to RCM and RAM to be intended to do) that jazz is not taught at either or is somehow sidelined by them? 2) Now for the second approach, which is, simply to turn to Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, wherein may be read: "Music criticism presupposes cultural competence, or what one can call an insider role. Someone who makes critical judgements about music, whether as a professional critic or not, must think about music as a member of some community to which the music belongs, a community in which the music is important. Critical judgements of music originate in experiences. They depend upon experience of the object of criticism, whether a composition, a performance, or some broader phenomenon such as a style. Accounts of critical authority, from the Enlightenment on, focus on the disinterested quality of aesthetic experience: aesthetic experiences can lead to normative judgements because no personal, contingent, variable traits of the critic have affected the judgement. Someone who makes a critical judgement can act as a good representative of a larger audience, able to articulate judgements for them by eliminating the distinctive feelings that separate the critic from others. Immanuel Kant, in the best-regarded account of this type, stressed the absence of desire in aesthetic contemplation as a way of explaining how aesthetic judgements could be universal. Kant emphasized the contrast between a mere report of personal pleasure and a judgement of beauty, the latter being free from desire and therefore deriving from shared, non-contingent human nature. Although experiences of pleasure and beauty are both subjective, only the judgement of beauty, because of its freedom from individual idiosyncrasy, carries the implication that others should reach the same conclusion. Eduard Hanslick followed this tradition in his arguments that emotional and bodily responses to music, since they vary with different individuals, cannot contribute to musical beauty. Another approach focusses on the special knowledge and training that support a critical judgement, as when knowledge of music theory and music history are said to be essential qualifications, for a professional music critic. The music critic, so conceived, becomes a representative of experienced or cultivated musicians, and can act as an educator in relation to a larger, diverse audience." Thus Grove's Dictionary; we trust this will once and for all clarify the question! Can Kant be wrong? As has subsequently been pointed out, Kant could indeed have been wrong but, in any case, given that he has been dead for more than two centuries, his ideas could not be expected to embrace and pronounce upon much more recent phenomena any more than the teachings of Marx (Karl, not Joseph!) could all necessarily hold as good today as they might be thought to have done in their own time. Hanslick died about a century after Kant, so much the same applies to him and, like Kant, he can be wrong. You quote that "although experiences of pleasure and beauty are both subjective, only the judgement of beauty, because of its freedom from individual idiosyncrasy, carries the implication that others should reach the same conclusion" (and the spelling of "idiosyncrasy" might give away something here but I'll return to that in a monent) and follow this but quoting from the same source that "Hanslick followed this tradition in his arguments that emotional and bodily responses to music, since they vary with different individuals, cannot contribute to musical beauty". Now the first of these covers itself in its own woolly vagueness, seeing fit as it does not to bother to define "beauty"; it is correct in concluding that experiences of it are subjective, but it omits to define "judgement" thereof (including parameters for such "judgement"). Hanslick's is correct that "emotional and bodily responses to music...vary with different individuals" but to state that they "cannot contribute to musical beauty" is a nonsense in that no one would expect a "response" to music to "contribute" to it when it's already there to be responded to in as many ways as there are listeners to it (and he, likewise, makes no effort to define" musical beauty" or how it can be judged and by whom). This subjectivity is indeed pertinent, whereas the rest of it's quite unscientific and unamenable to intelligent scrutiny. What I'm now coming back to, as I said that I would do, is to question the publication date of the edition of Grove to which you refer here although, whatever its date, the extent to which it can, let alone should, be taken as gospel word for word is and indeed has to be open to question, particularly in the light of Hanslick's somewhat specious observation quoted above. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Hanslick states: "Hanslick's tastes were conservative; in his memoirs he said that for him musical history really began with Mozart and culminated in Beethoven, Schumann and Brahms. He is best remembered today for his critical advocacy of Brahms as against the school of Wagner, an episode in 19th century music history sometimes called the War of the Romantics... ...Hanslick was an outspoken opponent of the music of Liszt and Wagner, which broke down traditional musical forms as a means of communicating something extra-musical. His opposition to "the music of the future" is congruent with his aesthetics of music: the meaning of music is the form of music. It is along these lines that Hanslick became one of Brahms’s champions and often pitted him against Wagner. For this reason, Brahms is often mistakenly positioned as being anti-Wagnerian himself, a historical interpretation that disregards Brahms's and Wagner's mutual admiration for each other[sic]." Notwithsanding his talent, his self-evidently intransigent fuddy-duddy attitudes did him and his deserved reputation no favours at all and what he opines in various places, not least what you have quoted, must accordingly be read cum rather more than grano salis - and I write this notwithstanding my immense admiration for Brahms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 13:34:03 GMT -5
Art becomes you too, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 19, 2013 3:09:03 GMT -5
Art becomes you too, ahinton? Sorry, but once again I don't understand your intended meaning here...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 3:54:38 GMT -5
Ask not for meaning, ahinton; ask for use! I suppose that the use of art is ultimately to express ourselves. Art expresses you too, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 19, 2013 4:59:10 GMT -5
Ask not for meaning, ahinton; ask for use! I suppose that the use of art is ultimately to express ourselves. I "asked" for nothing; I merely stated that I did not understand your meaning. Art expresses you too, ahinton? I could not say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 6:39:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 19, 2013 6:43:01 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 8:35:35 GMT -5
. . . what makes you imply (as I take your references to RCM and RAM to be intended to do) that jazz is not taught at either or is somehow sidelined by them? Admittedly I did notice on the web-site of the Royal College a reference to "two jazz bands"; I decided not to mention it at the time, for fear of distressing the more sensitive among our membership. I do not think that these disgraceful "bands" can have anything to do with the academic teaching conducted in the College; indeed the concept of "teaching" or "education" as applied to "jazz" must be a logical impossibility must it not. But I suppose some of the students in these permissive times have rather too much spare time and not enough academic work, and so they have formed these "bands" and as youngsters will do world-wide take a perverse pride in their endeavour, unaware in their callowness that it is utterly deviant and all wrong! . . . given that he [ Kant] has been dead for more than two centuries, his ideas could not be expected to embrace and pronounce upon much more recent phenomena . . . I do not see the logic of this at all. You could toddle along to-day to see the Archbishop of Canterbury - another authority - and see whether he can put you right on that question. . . . he [Hanslick], likewise, makes no effort to define" musical beauty" or how it can be judged and by whom). As for Hanslick, his well-put-together book is available here: archive.org/details/beautifulinmusic00hansialaThe title page of the English translation runs: "The Beautiful in Music A CONTRIBUTION TO THE REVISAL OF MUSICAL AESTHETICS DR. EDUARD HANSLICK Professor at the Vienna University. SEVENTH EDITION, ENLARGED AND REVISED (LEIPZIG, 1885). Translated by GUSTAV COHEN" and here are the headings of his seven chapters: "CHAPTER I. AEsthetics as founded on Feelings CHAPTER II. The representation of Feelings is not the Subject of Music CHAPTER III. The Beautiful in Music CHAPTER IV. Analysis of the subjective Impression of Music CHAPTER V. An AEsthetic Hearing as distinguished from a Pathological Hearing of Music CHAPTER VI. Music in its relation to Nature CHAPTER VII. Form and Substance (Subject) as applied to Music" To say, as it appears you have, that "jolly old Hanslick makes no effort to define 'musical beauty' or how it can be judged and by whom" simply does not chime with the title and contents of his book! Here, as a further indication of his drift, are his first three paragraphs: "The course hitherto pursued in musical aesthetics has nearly always been hampered by the false assumption that the object was not so much to enquire into what is beautiful in music, as to describe the feelings which music awakens. This view entirely coincides with that of the older systems of aesthetics, which considered the beautiful solely in reference to the sensations aroused, and the philosophy of beauty as the offspring of sensation ( aἴσθησις). "Such systems of aesthetics are not only unphilosophical, but they assume an almost sentimental character when applied to the most ethereal of all arts, and though no doubt pleasing to a certain class of enthusiasts, they afford but little enlightenment to a thoughtful student, who, in order to learn something about the real nature of music, will, above all, remain deaf to the fitful promptings of passion, and not, as most manuals on music direct, turn to the emotions as a source of knowledge. "The tendency in science to study, as far as possible, the objective aspect of things could not but affect researches into the nature of beauty. A satisfactory result, however, is to be attained only by relinquishing a method which starts from subjective sensation, only to bring us face to face with it once more, after taking us for a poetic ramble over the surface of the subject. Any such investigation will prove utterly futile, unless the method obtaining in natural science be followed at least in the sense of dealing with the things themselves, in order to determine what is permanent and objective in them, when dissociated from the ever-varying impressions which they produce." Let us all therefore strive to remain deaf to the fitful promptings of passion! By the way, the edition of Grove's I have comes from about fifteen years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 8:56:14 GMT -5
How so, Sydney? If I may nevertheless address your final question directly, ahinton: Why not, ahinton? Out of interest, what would you all like to see in this weekend's schedule? BBC Radio 3 - Schedule
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 19, 2013 9:01:11 GMT -5
. . . what makes you imply (as I take your references to RCM and RAM to be intended to do) that jazz is not taught at either or is somehow sidelined by them? Admittedly I did notice on the web-site of the Royal College a reference to "two jazz bands"; I decided not to mention it at the time, for fear of distressing the more sensitive among our membership. "Sensitive" to what, exactly? I do not think that these disgraceful "bands" can have anything to do with the academic teaching conducted in the College If you have neither heard them play nor consulted the college for details about the scope of its syllabi, how can you be cetain either that the bands are "disgraceful" or that the college does not include anything related to jazz in its academic teaching? indeed the concept of "teaching" or "education" as applied to "jazz" must be a logical impossibility must it not. Muss es not sein? Es muss not sein! But I suppose some of the students in these permissive times have rather too much spare time and not enough academic work, and so they have formed these "bands" and as youngsters will do world-wide take a perverse pride in their endeavour, unaware in their callowness that it is utterly deviant and all wrong! According to you, perhaps, but clearly not to the authorities at RCM, otherwise the latter would frown upon and discourage such activity rather than treating it as part of the availabile curriculum. How do you know what spare time any RCM students have or how they might care to spend it, or indeed how much academic work they have to do? Your accusation of insufficient academic work would not in any case hold water to the extent that jazz might form one part of that work just as much as it might constitute a part of students' performance studies. I do not see the logic of this at all. That's plainly obvious, as indeed is the reason why (namely your self-imposed blinkers)! You could toddle along to-day to see the Archbishop of Canterbury - another authority - and see whether he can put you right on that question. I couldn't, actually, but what, in any case, might Justin Welby's views about jazz or any other music - whatever they may or may not be - do to establish him as any kind of specialist "authority" on the subject? . . . he [Hanslick], likewise, makes no effort to define" musical beauty" or how it can be judged and by whom). As for Hanslick, his well-put-together book is available here: archive.org/details/beautifulinmusic00hansialaThe title page of the English translation runs: "The Beautiful in Music A CONTRIBUTION TO THE REVISAL OF MUSICAL AESTHETICS DR. EDUARD HANSLICK Professor at the Vienna University. SEVENTH EDITION, ENLARGED AND REVISED (LEIPZIG, 1885). Translated by GUSTAV COHEN" and here are the headings of his seven chapters: "CHAPTER I. AEsthetics as founded on Feelings CHAPTER II. The representation of Feelings is not the Subject of Music CHAPTER III. The Beautiful in Music CHAPTER IV. Analysis of the subjective Impression of Music CHAPTER V. An AEsthetic Hearing as distinguished from a Pathological Hearing of Music CHAPTER VI. Music in its relation to Nature CHAPTER VII. Form and Substance (Subject) as applied to Music" To say, as it appears you have, that "jolly old Hanslick makes no effort to define 'musical beauty' or how it can be judged and by whom" simply does not chime with the title and contents of his book! Here, as a further indication of his drift, are his first three paragraphs: "The course hitherto pursued in musical aesthetics has nearly always been hampered by the false assumption that the object was not so much to enquire into what is beautiful in music, as to describe the feelings which music awakens. This view entirely coincides with that of the older systems of aesthetics, which considered the beautiful solely in reference to the sensations aroused, and the philosophy of beauty as the offspring of sensation ( aἴσθησις). "Such systems of aesthetics are not only unphilosophical, but they assume an almost sentimental character when applied to the most ethereal of all arts, and though no doubt pleasing to a certain class of enthusiasts, they afford but little enlightenment to a thoughtful student, who, in order to learn something about the real nature of music, will, above all, remain deaf to the fitful promptings of passion, and not, as most manuals on music direct, turn to the emotions as a source of knowledge. "The tendency in science to study, as far as possible, the objective aspect of things could not but affect researches into the nature of beauty. A satisfactory result, however, is to be attained only by relinquishing a method which starts from subjective sensation, only to bring us face to face with it once more, after taking us for a poetic ramble over the surface of the subject. Any such investigation will prove utterly futile, unless the method obtaining in natural science be followed at least in the sense of dealing with the things themselves, in order to determine what is permanent and objective in them, when dissociated from the ever-varying impressions which they produce." So where in all of this is a reliable definition of beauty in music that could be widely recognised by people of many different persuasions, backgrounds and listening experience? It's all far too woolly and rests too firmly (or tries to do so) on the notion that some nebulous and undefined aspects of "natural science" as applied to musical creation and performance ought somehow to take the place of human emotional responses without revealing what particular kinds of responses to music should, in his view, take their place. You resort to Brahmsian references often and, of course, Hanslick, though in his youth a proponent of Wagner, came to turn towards Brahms and against Wagner in his maturity and this, whilst in no sense demeaning Brahms, illustrates the sheer narrow-mindedness that he developed as he aged; in fact, this context for his advocacy of Brahms did Brahms himself no favours, for Hanslick becamne far more opposed to Wagner than Brahms appeared to do. OK, Brahms had some problems in accepting Liszt, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky et al (as did Hanslick in his later years), but these are all vital figures in the European music of the latter half of the 19th century and Hanslick's attempts at formulating a credible critical apparatus that sought to ignore or sideline such composers not unsurprisingly fell flat at the first fence. Let us all therefore strive to remain deaf to the fitful promptings of passion! So no composer, conductor, instrumentalist, singer or even musicologist should ever embrace "passion" of any kind? Ye gods! Whatever kind of musical demi-monde do you appear to prefer to inhabit? Not one recognised by me, that's for sure, nor one that would have any use for my work! By the way, the edition of Grove's I have comes from about fifteen years ago. Thank you for that information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2013 4:22:15 GMT -5
Kant - a clarification. 1) A Mr. Maus, writing in Grove's Dictionary under the heading "Criticism," says that . . . well! Let us pause there for sufficient time to say that this Mr. Maus - the author of " Queer Listening" - turns out not to be a serious person. In other words, I was wrong to trust Grove's Dictionary; and later I will be obliged to devote one new thread to a dissection of Mr. Maus and another new thread to an investigation of what other more reliable writers have said about musical æsthetics. Anyway, Mr. Maus says that: 2) "Immanuel Kant, in the best-regarded account of this type, stressed the absence of desire in æsthetic contemplation as a way of explaining how æsthetic judgements could be universal." 3) To which Mr. H responded: "Given that he [ Kant] has been dead for more than two centuries, his ideas could not be expected to embrace and pronounce upon much more recent phenomena." 4) Whereupon Mr. Grew remarked that "I do not see the logic of this at all. You could toddle along . . . to see the Archbishop of Canterbury - another authority - and see whether he can put you right on that question." 5) And Mr. H took us aback with the response "I couldn't, actually, but what, in any case, might Justin Welby's views about jazz or any other music - whatever they may or may not be - do to establish him as any kind of specialist "authority" on the subject?" And at that point with a great lurch the discussion really came off the rails. So permit me to assist by restating my point 4 a little more elaborately. Kant has been dead for more than two centuries - yes that is true. "His ideas could not be expected to embrace and pronounce upon much more recent phenomena." Why ever not! Does not a counter-example spring at once into one's mind? Some one who has been dead - sort of - for more than twenty centuries yet whose ideas continue to influence so much that goes on in the current world. Some one upon whom the Archbishop is an authority and a specialist. Of course I am glad to say - indeed I rejoice in the fact - that neither Kant nor the Archbishop knew or knows anything about "jazz"; but there is no reason at all why contemporary phenomena should not be interpreted and understood in terms of either Kant's or the Archbishop's general principles or standards of behaviour. So Mr. H still needs to tell us does he not exactly why he asserts that Kant's ideas should not be expected to be relevant to much more recent phenomena.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2013 5:11:49 GMT -5
I suppose that in a profound sense, technology changes everything, Sydney?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 20, 2013 10:11:22 GMT -5
Kant - a clarification. 1) A Mr. Maus, writing in Grove's Dictionary under the heading "Criticism," says that . . . well! Let us pause there for sufficient time to say that this Mr. Maus - the author of " Queer Listening" - turns out not to be a serious person. In other words, I was wrong to trust Grove's Dictionary; and later I will be obliged to devote one new thread to a dissection of Mr. Maus and another new thread to an investigation of what other more reliable writers have said about musical æsthetics. Anyway, Mr. Maus says that: 2) "Immanuel Kant, in the best-regarded account of this type, stressed the absence of desire in æsthetic contemplation as a way of explaining how æsthetic judgements could be universal." 3) To which Mr. H responded: "Given that he [ Kant] has been dead for more than two centuries, his ideas could not be expected to embrace and pronounce upon much more recent phenomena." 4) Whereupon Mr. Grew remarked that "I do not see the logic of this at all. You could toddle along . . . to see the Archbishop of Canterbury - another authority - and see whether he can put you right on that question." 5) And Mr. H took us aback with the response "I couldn't, actually, but what, in any case, might Justin Welby's views about jazz or any other music - whatever they may or may not be - do to establish him as any kind of specialist "authority" on the subject?" And at that point with a great lurch the discussion really came off the rails. So permit me to assist by restating my point 4 a little more elaborately. Kant has been dead for more than two centuries - yes that is true. "His ideas could not be expected to embrace and pronounce upon much more recent phenomena." Why ever not! Does not a counter-example spring at once into one's mind? Some one who has been dead - sort of - for more than twenty centuries yet whose ideas continue to influence so much that goes on in the current world. Some one upon whom the Archbishop is an authority and a specialist. Of course I am glad to say - indeed I rejoice in the fact - that neither Kant nor the Archbishop knew or knows anything about "jazz"; but there is no reason at all why contemporary phenomena should not be interpreted and understood in terms of either Kant's or the Archbishop's general principles or standards of behaviour. So Mr. H still needs to tell us does he not exactly why he asserts that Kant's ideas should not be expected to be relevant to much more recent phenomena. I did not say that they (Kant's observations) shouldn't; I merely observed that they are open to question in a present-day context (if not also arguably in one closer to their own time), which indeed they are. Your oblique reference to Christ is likewise pertinent here; how could Christ have been expected to know all about and understand and respond directly to a contemporary audience on societal, technological, transportational, political and all other phenomena which were unknown to Him and to those of his time? It would indeed be insulting and disrespectful, in my view, to criticise Christ, His manifold virtues notwithstanding, for "failure" to do this when failure to achieve the impossible and unpredictable is hardly something for which anyone could realistically, let alone justifably, be accused by people just because they happen to have available to them the benefit of many centuries' hindsight. I also did not say that the current Archbishop of Canterbury (or indeed any of his recent predecessors) knows/knew nothing about jazz, although I did point out the obvious in that Kant did not do so because he could not have done, given the time during which he was alive. I do not know what the present and recent Archbishops of Canterbury know or think about jazz of any kind but, in so saying, I did not suggest that any of them are/were either ignorant or dismissive of it in any of its guises.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2013 7:25:06 GMT -5
For the record, Justin Welby has no particular interest in jazz, Sydney, and his hobbies include "most things French and sailing". Wikipedia - Justin Welby - Personal lifeI can confirm that Justin is a remarkably good sailor, particularly up the sleeve, so to speak. He almost overtook kleines c, ahinton!
|
|