Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 7:37:48 GMT -5
A truly great creative artist needs to have more than technical proficiency. Recently I looked at a horrid "opera" called "Punch and Judy" written by a fellow from somewhere north of Watford, called I think Harbison Entwhistle. He confesses in a recent TLS that he suffers from "dyslexia" whatever that is and can hardly read or write. Anyway that does not excuse him. He may have a technical proficiency in music, but - judging by what I saw of the action of his truly horrid and unwatchable "opera" - he is not a nice person and is therefore a failure as a creator. A great man must be a nice person who writes about nice subjects must he not? As always Brahms is our model. This Harbison is by no means alone; I would say the same of Richard Strauss - with whom the horrid trend perhaps began - and many others. Thankfully the composers on this forum are all nice persons with cultivated taste. I hope no one will come back and say that the meaning of "nice" is relative and varies from person to person. That way leads straight back to the jungle does it not!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 2, 2014 8:13:08 GMT -5
A truly great creative artist needs to have more than technical proficiency. Of that there can be little doubt... Recently I looked at a horrid "opera" called "Punch and Judy" written by a fellow from somewhere north of Watford, called I think Harbison Entwhistle. You don't think; you know perfectly well the real neme of the knight of the realm concerned and that, of all the places north of Watford, Accrington is the only one that's relevant here. He confesses in a recent TLS that he suffers from "dyslexia" whatever that is I'm sure that you know not only what that condition is but also how and where to look up reliable information on it had you been in any doubt. and can hardly read or write. It's not stopped him from writing a very considerable amount of music for well over half a century (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Harrison_Birtwistle). Anyway that does not excuse him. From what? He may have a technical proficiency in music, but - judging by what I saw of the action of his truly horrid and unwatchable "opera" - he is not a nice person and is therefore a failure as a creator. But that's just your own personal opinion which you should have, but omitted to, clarify as such (and in the expression of which you unnecessarily repeated the word "horrid"); furthermore, if you have never met him (and I assume that you have not), how can you possibly know whether or not he is a "nice person"? A great man must be a nice person who writes about nice subjects must he not? Must he? Would you have said as much about Wagner? As always Brahms is our model. What?! Why so? "our" meaning "whose"? A "model" for what? Why "always"? And (as if these were not enough questions for a mere six-word sentence), last but by no means least, why Brahms, of all people in the context of a medium - opera - to which he contributed nothing? This Harbison is by no means alone; Now you've also repeated "Harbison" without there having even been a reason to mention him in the first place here. John Harbison (1938- ) is an American composer who hails from somewhere several thousand miles west, not north, of Watford and, since he is not the composer of Punch and Judy, I see no point in the reference to him. I would say the same of Richard Strauss - with whom the horrid trend perhaps began - and many others. What "trend"? And why "Richard Strauss" (apart from the fact that he was a formidable opera composer)? Is your view of him as a person influenced by your having known him personally? If so, you must be quite a few years older than most us here probably imagined! Thankfully the composers on this forum are all nice persons with cultivated taste. I hope no one will come back and say that the meaning of "nice" is relative and varies from person to person. That way leads straight back to the jungle does it not! Which side of Watford is the jungle that you had in mind? And in that reference were you implicitly and obliquely alluding to Robert B. Sherman, the American composer who wrote the music for the Walt Disney Jungle Book (after Kipling)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 1:33:18 GMT -5
Mr. H has broken his own record there! But seriously, do you not Mr. H agree that a truly great man, a man of good character as well as technical adeptness, does not set out to create works full of unpleasantness? Was it the Accringtonian's plan to horrify and disgust us as I believe? And was that not simply bad behaviour on his part? Not nice, as I put it in the original post.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 4, 2014 1:54:17 GMT -5
Mr. H has broken his own record there! What "record" might that be? But seriously, do you not Mr. H agree that a truly great man, a man of good character as well as technical adeptness, does not set out to create works full of unpleasantness? Was it the Accringtonian's plan to horrify and disgust us as I believe? And was that not simply bad behaviour on his part? Not nice, as I put it in the original post. It's not for me to speculate on what Sir Harrison set out to do (not that he was "Sir" Harrison at the time when he did so), as I have not discussed this with him personally, but it is worth remembering that the Punch and Judy show long pre-existed his work with it (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy) and would have been a part of British culture with or without it. More importantly, perhaps, some might say similar things about Salome, Elektra, Wozzeck, Lulu, Die Soldaten et al to the extent that life for many is far from being a bed of roses and a fine creative artist will know this as well as any and in some cases perhaps better than most; it would be both futile and dishonest to seek always to draw a veil over such things. Think about the impression of "nice" Mr Mendelssohn, Queen Victoria's favourite and all that; how "amused" do you suppose that she might have been by his angst-ridden and at times violent final quartet, the F minor op. 80 (which I believe happens to be one of his finest works of all?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 11:55:35 GMT -5
I think that you are winding ahinton up, Sydney. Your assertion that a true genius needs to be a nice person depends, I suppose, on your definition of genius and nice. I don't know Sir Harrison Birtwistle, but he may well be a genius and/or nice. What I love about Birtwistle is he doesn’t give a damn about what we think. He doesn’t sidle up to us and press our musical pleasure buttons. Telegraph - Last NIght of the Proms: Genius is a secular sainthoodLord Clark of Civilisation commented on Michelangelo's David that it is the enemy of happiness! And yet we recognise that to despise material obstacles, and even to defy the blind forces of fate, is man's supreme achievement ... I suppose that this is what ahinton is trying to get at with Mendelssohn's angst-ridden and at times violent final quartet, the F minor op. 80. Genius is not really about being nice, Sydney?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 12, 2014 13:22:37 GMT -5
I think that you are winding ahinton up, Sydney. Let me hasten to assure you that he had done nothing of the kind, whatever his intentions or otherwise in that regard might have been!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 18:52:26 GMT -5
I think that you are winding ahinton up, Sydney. Your assertion that a true genius needs to be a nice person depends, I suppose, on your definition of genius and nice. I don't know Sir Harrison Birtwistle, but he may well be a genius and/or nice. What I love about Birtwistle is he doesn’t give a damn about what we think. He doesn’t sidle up to us and press our musical pleasure buttons. Telegraph - Last NIght of the Proms: Genius is a secular sainthoodLord Clark of Civilisation commented on Michelangelo's David that it is the enemy of happiness! And yet we recognise that to despise material obstacles, and even to defy the blind forces of fate, is man's supreme achievement ... I suppose that this is what ahinton is trying to get at with Mendelssohn's angst-ridden and at times violent final quartet, the F minor op. 80. Genius is not really about being nice, Sydney? I don't know that quartette, and Mr. H has inspired me to look for it. The point about "defining nice" has been covered earlier in the thread. It has already been defined by civilized people. Those who attempt to redefine it are on the way back to the jungle. It's not just Britfangle; it's also Shakespere: Macbeth and Lear are not works of Art because they too were written (in part) to gratify the mob. Shakespere "sidled up to the mob and pressed their pleasure buttons", and for that reason Shakespere is very much overrated. Good in parts does not do where genius is concerned. Shaw was a much nicer man and a greater genius. Britfangle may not have sidled but his mind is full of nasty ideas.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 13, 2014 12:31:18 GMT -5
I think that you are winding ahinton up, Sydney. Your assertion that a true genius needs to be a nice person depends, I suppose, on your definition of genius and nice. I don't know Sir Harrison Birtwistle, but he may well be a genius and/or nice. What I love about Birtwistle is he doesn’t give a damn about what we think. He doesn’t sidle up to us and press our musical pleasure buttons. Telegraph - Last NIght of the Proms: Genius is a secular sainthoodLord Clark of Civilisation commented on Michelangelo's David that it is the enemy of happiness! And yet we recognise that to despise material obstacles, and even to defy the blind forces of fate, is man's supreme achievement ... I suppose that this is what ahinton is trying to get at with Mendelssohn's angst-ridden and at times violent final quartet, the F minor op. 80. Genius is not really about being nice, Sydney? I don't know that quartette, and Mr. H has inspired me to look for it. I imagine that you will be far from disappointed; whilst recognisable the work of its composer, never anywhere else in his output did he explore what he did in this his final string quartet (without the "te" at the end, thank you!); arguably having at least some part of its origins in Beethoven's Op. 95 quartet in the same key, Mendelssohn goes considerably farther in his exploration of dark, bleak and agry emotions and, whereas Beethoven's work finally attains a sense of optimism in its F major finale, Mendelssohn's pursues its pessimistic F minor journey with increasing relentlessness in its finale and comes almost to tear itself apart by the time of its desperate close. The point about "defining nice" has been covered earlier in the thread. It has already been defined by civilized people. Those who attempt to redefine it are on the way back to the jungle. It's not just Britfangle; it's also Shakespere: Macbeth and Lear are not works of Art because they too were written (in part) to gratify the mob. Shakespere "sidled up to the mob and pressed their pleasure buttons", and for that reason Shakespere is very much overrated. Good in parts does not do where genius is concerned. Shaw was a much nicer man and a greater genius. Britfangle may not have sidled but his mind is full of nasty ideas. I have to confess to not understanding of what you write here and the references to Britfangle are about as gratuitous as they are supererogatorily unillumining. One might argue that Mendelssohn often seemed to set out to "gratify the mob" (albeit with questionable justification) but he was the same composer as wrote that F minor quartet. "The mob" of Vienna were all over Schönberg's Gurrelieder when it was introduced to them by Schrecker (although Schönberg did the very opposite of taking notice of this), but was it written consciously and deliberately to please "the mob"? During Mahler's lifetime, his only real success (and a very large one it was) was his Eighth Symphony - but was that written any more to press the pleasure buttons of "the mob" than any of his other symphonies? Methinks that too much in the way of overly simplistic answers are sought here by some...
|
|