Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 5:32:37 GMT -5
What - as a man of some culture and discernment - was Sorabji's view of this "jazz" stuff Mr. H.?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 8, 2013 9:39:24 GMT -5
What - as a man of some culture and discernment - was Sorabji's view of this "jazz" stuff Mr. H.? Sorabji did not like jazz.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 11:32:42 GMT -5
Thanks Mr. H - reinforces my own views rather. Did he write anything about the subject?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 12:37:25 GMT -5
"At the jazz house tonight conversation litters the music, the struggling horse of mutually deaf communication coagulating into sprinklers of spit and teeth. Voices rise above the music which returns to itself in the imagined rewards of strangers.
The years pass like strangers, just like every human being. Only the days remain the same. The weeks, the months, the self-distracted chatter between a jazzless future and the ever-changing past which we feed, we feed the dead to spite and boo the living."[/i] Sorabji - At the Jazz House
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 8, 2013 15:33:43 GMT -5
"At the jazz house tonight conversation litters the music, the struggling horse of mutually deaf communication coagulating into sprinklers of spit and teeth. Voices rise above the music which returns to itself in the imagined rewards of strangers.
The years pass like strangers, just like every human being. Only the days remain the same. The weeks, the months, the self-distracted chatter between a jazzless future and the ever-changing past which we feed, we feed the dead to spite and boo the living." [/i] Sorabji - At the Jazz House[/quote] In case anyone might wonder, the above has nothing whatsoever to do with Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji and was most certainly not written by him.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 8, 2013 15:35:04 GMT -5
Thanks Mr. H - reinforces my own views rather. Did he write anything about the subject? Very little that's actually specific to jazz. That said, his views on what he saw as "popular music" in general serve to "reinforce" no one's standpoint but his own; you should have your views (and you do) and he had his, each based on personal preferences and evaluations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 0:20:22 GMT -5
. . . you should have your views (and you do) and he had his, each based on personal preferences and evaluations. Surely attitudes to Art cannot rest upon "personal preferences"! Were that so there would be no need of institutes of education. Serious youths cry out for guidance. They want and need to be TOLD how to respond. They want and need to be told FACTS. By leaders! By their betters! By mature and trusted arbiters of taste, who are the only ones entitled to, and in a position to, "evaluate"!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 9, 2013 2:02:03 GMT -5
. . . you should have your views (and you do) and he had his, each based on personal preferences and evaluations. Surely attitudes to Art cannot rest upon "personal preferences"! Were that so there would be no need of institutes of education. Serious youths cry out for guidance. They want and need to be TOLD how to respond. They want and need to be told FACTS. By leaders! By their betters! By mature and trusted arbiters of taste, who are the only ones entitled to, and in a position to, "evaluate"! Who is to decide who shall be charged with telling such young people how to respond and how not to respond to what? Who is to decide what are FACTS and what are not? Which "leaders" - and of what? - politics and government? Who is to decide and on what grounds who is "better" than whom"? Who shall determine what constitutes maturity and how shall such trust be developed by whom? Who shall decide and on what grounds who is to be deemed an "arbiter of taste" and on what specific grounds would they be expected to "evaluate" what?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 2:40:24 GMT -5
So many questions! Too many. Beware, Mr. H - that way leads to anarchy! Turn back before it is too late!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 9, 2013 3:57:25 GMT -5
So many questions! Too many. Beware, Mr. H - that way leads to anarchy! Turn back before it is too late! I am, of course, aware that there are quite a few questions in my response to you - around eleven in total, in fact - but (a) they are all perfectly resonable and were raised solely by what you had written, (b) if there really are too many of them for you, you must have written too much, (c) there is not a shred of evidence that putting to you the questions that I did "leads to anarchy" (indeed, how could it do so?), especially when you have yet to answer any of them and (d) you have yet to answer any of them. I have no idea from what you seek to counsel me to "turn back" and why, or indeed what might determine when a decision on my part to decline to do this would become "too late" for what. Time for some answers from you, then, otherwise what you have written will continue to make sense to no one besides yourself; this invitation is not by way of an interrogation for its own sake but merely to elicit some responses that might contribute at least to some understanding of what it is that you're writing about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 8:30:27 GMT -5
. . . what you have written will continue to make sense to no one besides yourself . . . Is not some one who questions everything as you do - especially the foundations of civilization and culture - an anarchist? Like those amercians who put ping-pong balls inside their piano-fortes. An unwise path to follow since it is bound to lead to some unforseen sort of slippery slope. So - turn back now - hold passionately to what we have - trust the authorities and educationalists. They are the guardians of knowledge. It all seems perfectly clear to me - is further explanation really required?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 9, 2013 8:51:22 GMT -5
. . . what you have written will continue to make sense to no one besides yourself . . . Is not some one who questions everything as you do - especially the foundations of civilization and culture - an anarchist? Not necessarily, but I do not in any case question "everything"; I merely questioned a number of remarks that you made and sought your answers to those questions - no more, no less. Like those amercians who put ping-pong balls inside their piano-fortes. Since neither you nor I have inserted such devices into pianos and since you had not previously mentioned Americans who might do so or have done so, I do not see the pertinence of this in the context of the issues that you raised and which I questioned. An unwise path to follow since it is bound to lead to some unforseen sort of slippery slope. So - turn back now - hold passionately to what we have - trust the authorities and educationalists. They are the guardians of knowledge. It all seems perfectly clear to me - is further explanation really required? What is required is straightforward answers to the questions that I put to you, in order that members here may at least hacve som opportunity to try to understand what you're writing about, as I wrote earlier. Why trust an "authority" simply because he/she is in a position to exercise such authority whether or not that privilege is deserved? I cited before the Prime Minister of Britain who, when asked recently who composed Rule, Britannia!, he answered "not sure - Elgar, was it?"; is that the kind of "authority" of whom you write? If not, what sort? (giving some examples).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 0:04:53 GMT -5
. . . Why trust an "authority" simply because he/she is in a position to exercise such authority whether or not that privilege is deserved? I cited before the Prime Minister of Britain who, when asked recently who composed Rule, Britannia!, he answered "not sure - Elgar, was it?"; is that the kind of "authority" of whom you write? If not, what sort? (giving some examples). Prime Ministers are - regrettably - chosen by the mob; authorities and arbiters of taste are chosen by way of examination. Could the distinction be clearer? (And, to forestall any further anarchical enquiries, I would also point out that the examinations are set by earlier authorities and arbiters of taste, who have devoted a lifetime to the preparation thereof.)
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 11, 2013 0:14:36 GMT -5
. . . Why trust an "authority" simply because he/she is in a position to exercise such authority whether or not that privilege is deserved? I cited before the Prime Minister of Britain who, when asked recently who composed Rule, Britannia!, he answered "not sure - Elgar, was it?"; is that the kind of "authority" of whom you write? If not, what sort? (giving some examples). Prime Ministers are - regrettably - chosen by the mob; authorities and arbiters of taste are chosen by way of examination. Could the distinction be clearer? (And, to forestall any further anarchical enquiries, I would also point out that the examinations are set by earlier authorities and arbiters of taste, who have devoted a lifetime to the preparation thereof.) 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".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2013 23:25:13 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. 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/home2) 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?
|
|