|
Post by ahinton on Sept 18, 2013 9:03:45 GMT -5
. . . Tunbridge Wells style of observations . . . Not a million miles from Sissinghurst, Tunbridge Wells . . . Sorry, but I don't get the connection that prompts your reference here. . . . if the spectre of education must be raised, what of all the academic work on jazz and other musics that has been undertaken and disseminated by musicologists the world over? Be on your guard Mr. H! Constantly and everywhere! Persons of that type are not at all beyond attempting a surreptitious "brain-washing." What, if anything, might this be supposed to mean? I asked you a question which the above remark about alleged possible cerebral laundering attempts makes no attempt to answer. Actually, I asked you quite a few questions but you've answered none of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 11:25:37 GMT -5
To be honest, I am not sure what music should be taught and studied at school and university. Most of what I know about music has been picked up outside school, as I dropped music well before GCSEs.
I have learned quite a lot from BBC Radio 3 and the Proms, for example, not to mention various musical friends who have explained things to me. I think that everyone should have a go at singing at school, and at least have the opportunity to play a musical instrument.
Musical intelligence is often distinct from other forms of intelligence. I don't think that we need to learn classical music, however. If the music teacher specialises in jazz, for example, let it be jazz. If it be pop, Sydney, why ever not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 6:35:17 GMT -5
Be on your guard Mr. H! Constantly and everywhere! Persons of that type are not at all beyond attempting a surreptitious "brain-washing." What, if anything, might this be supposed to mean? I asked you a question which the above remark about alleged possible cerebral laundering attempts makes no attempt to answer. Actually, I asked you quite a few questions but you've answered none of them. Now at last I have the opportunity to respond to Mr. H's. query. There is in fact nothing that can be added to the first half: the words "Be on your guard Mr. H! Constantly and everywhere!" require no explication. But what about "the academic work on jazz . . ."? The phrase is an absurdity and in fact an impossibility. "Work on jazz" cannot in the nature of things be "academic"; nor can an "academy" work on "jazz" and remain an academy. That is the first way in which the accepted significance of the words is irrecoverably twisted. The second irrecoverable corruption comes with the phrase "and other musics." "Other than what music" we cry! Referring to the O.E.D. we find that "The word is African in origin. It is common on the Gold Coast of Africa and in the hinterland of Cape Coast Castle." All things considered, would it not be best to leave it there? If in doubt, consider what Brahms's view would be. It should be clear after a moment's reflection upon these facts that anything pretending to be "academic work" undertaken and disseminated by self-styled "musicologists" must by definition be fraudulent. All empty puff. But "persons of that type" - as I said - will go to enormous lengths, say anything, and even do anything, in their attempts to persuade you of their legitimacy. Thus my opening admonition and counsel. Do you get my meaning now Mr. H?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 24, 2013 7:16:35 GMT -5
What, if anything, might this be supposed to mean? I asked you a question which the above remark about alleged possible cerebral laundering attempts makes no attempt to answer. Actually, I asked you quite a few questions but you've answered none of them. Now at last I have the opportunity to respond to Mr. H's. query. There is in fact nothing that can be added to the first half: the words "Be on your guard Mr. H! Constantly and everywhere!" require no explication. But what about "the academic work on jazz . . ."? The phrase is an absurdity and in fact an impossibility. "Work on jazz" cannot in the nature of things be "academic"; nor can an "academy" work on "jazz" and remain an academy. That is the first way in which the accepted significance of the words is irrecoverably twisted. The second irrecoverable corruption comes with the phrase "and other musics." "Other than what music" we cry! Referring to the O.E.D. we find that "The word is African in origin. It is common on the Gold Coast of Africa and in the hinterland of Cape Coast Castle." All things considered, would it not be best to leave it there? If in doubt, consider what Brahms's view would be. It should be clear after a moment's reflection upon these facts that anything pretending to be "academic work" undertaken and disseminated by self-styled "musicologists" must by definition be fraudulent. All empty puff. But "persons of that type" - as I said - will go to enormous lengths, say anything, and even do anything, in their attempts to persuade you of their legitimacy. Thus my opening admonition and counsel. Do you get my meaning now Mr. H? No - but, since it would be both rude and lazy of me merely to state that as a fact without explanation - as you seem content to do - I will endeavour to provide one in appropriate detail by examining and commenting upon what you've written. Your uninvited and supererogatory admonition "Be on your guard Mr. H! Constantly and everywhere!" indeed requires no "explication" in terms of its meaning; the explanation that I have so far vainly sought is of why you bothered to utter it in the present context, since it has no bearing upon the subject at hand. To my question about academic work on the subject of jazz, you merely wrote that "the phrase is an absurdity and in fact an impossibility", that it "cannot in the nature of things be academic" and that "an academy [cannot] work on jazz and remain an academy" (by the last of which I assume you to mean an "academic" rather than an "academy" in each instance, since only academics and not academies can do work); you then conclude that said phrase "is the first way in which the accepted significance of the words is irrecoverably twisted". Once again, however, you simply state this as though a bald and inalienable fact and omit so much as a scintilla of supportive explanation as to why you believe this to be the case; you also do so in ignorance and any and all academic work on jazz that has been published (and by "ignorance" here I mean not that you are "ignorant" of such work but that you choose to "ignore" it). You next opine that "the second irrecoverable corruption comes with the phrase 'and other musics'. 'Other than what music'; we cry!" In noting once again that you provide no explanation for your allegation of "corruption" in my English usage, I should have thought that the answer to your question was pretty obvious, really but, as this has turned out to be a false assumption on my part, I will confirm that it was intended to mean any and all musics other than what is loosely (though well less than helpfully) described as "Western European classical music", including but by no means limited to the indigenous musics of many lands including Western European ones. You follow this by observing that "The word [jazz] is African in origin. It is common on the Gold Coast of Africa and in the hinterland of Cape Coast Castle. All things considered, would it not be best to leave it there?" To leave what there? The word and its origins or the music to which it refers? In either case, however, it is clearly impossible to do anything of the kind, since the word jazz and the music that it covers has long since become part of most people's experience throughout the world. As to the most speciously absurd of all that you write here, to ask "what Brahms's view would be" is clearly to pose a question that's not only unanswerable but also not even worth asking. Why Brahms in particular, anyway? You might as well have asked what Chopin would have thought of a Fender Rhodes electric piano or a modern Bösendorfer 290 piano, or what Couperin would have thought of YouTube or what even Brahms himself would have thought of MIDI audio clips! In your closing salvo you note that "It should be clear after a moment's reflection upon these facts that anything pretending to be 'academic work' undertaken and disseminated by self-styled 'musicologists' must by definition be fraudulent. All empty puff. But 'persons of that type' - as I said - will go to enormous lengths, say anything, and even do anything, in their attempts to persuade you of their legitimacy". The only grain of truth here is there is indeed some suspect stuff around that is paraded as musicology but what characterises it as such is usually the lack of factul evidence to back it up; here, however, we are addressing the quite different circumstance of academic studies on the phenomenon of jazz which exists, has a history and can be written about without constant recourse to speculative thought. From this, only one conclusion can be made - which is that your remarks about musicologists who write on jazz are not worth of serious consideration simply and solely because you, Sydney Grew, happen to disapprove of the subject. I note that you have still omitted to answer my questions about a number of distinguished musicians who have performed and/or composed in the field of jazz; I named them. I'm still awaiting your response.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 7:21:14 GMT -5
jazz fm + classic fm = slightly radio 3 ish
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 10:22:59 GMT -5
I suppose that when I was at secondary school, I was taught that classical music and jazz were pretty highbrow, which made them serious music, whereas pop' tended to be rather more ephemeral, a bit like the latest fashions, and did not merit serious study. BBC Radio 3 certainly takes the view that classical, jazz and world music are worthy of serious consideration, whereas crossover and more popular music can generally be left to other radio stations. These days, of course, things have changed, and I suspect that the popular music of the latter half of the twentieth century would be accorded rather more respect, even by my old music teachers, if they are still alive. I suppose that there is a sense in which age tends to give music credibility, so if people are still listening to music decades, centuries or even millennia after it was first composed, it probably has some merit. It is, of course, very difficult to work out what contemporary music, art and our wider culture will stand the test of time. Jazz has certainly done so, and I suspect that many twentieth century musicals will eventually enter the operatic repertoire. Film music, too, is proving increasingly popular at the Proms, and also on BBC Radio 3. I suppose that that is one of the strengths of a category like World Music. It is, effectively, a catch all for anything good, Jason?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 13:26:18 GMT -5
. . . These days, of course, things have changed . . . Do excuse me for saying so, but no; this is a good example of the "brain-washing" of which I wrote earlier. Things - essences - have not changed; how could they? Beware!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 13:35:15 GMT -5
A lot of musicians like jazz, I suspect that is why it is on radio 3 ?
Composers have gone into film music, cash works well.. as to pop music, well, other stations cover it, in the time of mozart one would often enter a tavern to hear people singing popular arias etc., that was part of the pop music of the time.
Lacking copyright laws, etc., Mozart was unable to cash in, he wrote the magic flute as a money spinner, in the end, is all just entertainment.
ker ching
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 13:36:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 24, 2013 15:28:12 GMT -5
. . . These days, of course, things have changed . . . Do excuse me for saying so, but no; this is a good example of the "brain-washing" of which I wrote earlier. Things - essences - have not changed; how could they? Beware! Just as there is indeed suspect musicology around (as I stated earlier), there's also "brainwashing" around, but you still refuse to detail why you write as you do here; likewise, you decline to make reference to, let alone discuss, those major names of musicians who involved themselves in jazz without being "brainwashed" into so doing...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2013 1:59:50 GMT -5
Perhaps we have all been brainwashed, not only by jazz, popular music and the BBC, but also by every aspect of contemporary culture?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 25, 2013 2:52:56 GMT -5
Perhaps we have all been brainwashed, not only by jazz, popular music and the BBC, but also by every aspect of contemporary culture? Some people might to some degree, but the singling out of jazz - a vast topic in itself - for such an accusation and the suggestion that it ought to be left in the parts of Africa where some seem to believe it has its sole origins seems rather like seeking to lock the stable door generations after the horse has bolted - and the prospect that anyone could possibly tell us with authority what Brahms would have thought about it is one whose pleonastic absurdity clearly remains undimmed. Anyway, enough of that; let us today celebrate the 113rd birthday of the composer of two so-called "jazz suites" ("so-called" because the only connection with jazz in these deliberately light-hearted works is to be found in their titles); I refer, of course, to Dmitry Dmitryevich Shostakovich.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2013 3:14:48 GMT -5
On the contrary, ahinton, yesterday I singled out classical, jazz and world music as worthy of serious consideration on BBC Radio 3. At the risk of repetition, if I may quote kleines c directly: You are of course all free to disagree!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 25, 2013 4:04:07 GMT -5
On the contrary, ahinton, yesterday I singled out classical, jazz and world music as worthy of serious consideration on BBC Radio 3. At the risk of repetition, if I may quote kleines c directly: You are of course all free to disagree! But I was not addressing my remarks to you for having done otherwise! It is surely clear to whom I did do so!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2013 4:38:01 GMT -5
Once again, I can only offer you, ahinton, and everyone reading 'The Third', my full and unreserved apologies.
|
|