----- "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com a écrit :
There are "naughty" pieces by Mozart that have survived the ages, regardless of past Mozart scholars who have excluded them from their catalogues of the "complete" works of Mozart. It may have been ignored for a bit, but the cult of genius generally trumps the opportunistic desire to destroy art.
We know Mozart because he has his pretty face on candy boxes, like F.Z. used to joke.
Anyway, your point that "it's not art anymore, art IS killed" is clearly false. Imagine a tyrant who declares that the only suitable music is a) by Beethoven and b) in C minor. It's certainly a travesty that anything by Haydn or David Bowie would be banned, as well as Beethoven's 6th Symphony, but it surely remains a fact that Beethoven's 5th is still a great symphony, regardless of the tyrant's endorsement.
There are plenty of pieces of music that sell very well in times of nationalist fervor, or in general. But it's sheer confusion to say that these pieces _aren't_ art for that reason. That's misdirected anger; the real problem is that other pieces are excluded because they either don't fit easily into a category, or they present an alternative viewpoint that sits uncomfortably with general opinion (i.e., dissident music).
-Jonathan
The problem is really actual, because it's related with this post-industrial period, where almost anything could falsified, or duplicated, where the main concept is about brain eating with a perpetual flow of those (duplicated&falsified) informations through almost all media, also used by "dissident people", who actually would be represented by rappers, or DJ's.
Here we have a kind of example of the musical continuity imaginated by E. Varese where the musicians are removed to give the auditor always the same product.
It's just a matter of time for anything individually created to be completely removed from the mainstream, and replaced by a logo, a lobby, a brain firmware.
Kokorokara
Patrice Colet
From: patko colet.patrice@free.fr To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Sent: Sun, June 13, 2010 10:33:59 AM Subject: Re: [PD] plugin~ external
----- "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com a écrit :
There are "naughty" pieces by Mozart that have survived the ages, regardless of past Mozart scholars who have excluded them from their catalogues of the "complete" works of Mozart. It may have been ignored for a bit, but the cult of genius generally trumps the opportunistic desire to destroy art.
We know Mozart because he has his pretty face on candy boxes, like F.Z. used to joke.
Who is F.Z.?
What you're saying is nonsense-- I know who C.P.E. Bach is, and there are no chocolates that bear his name. And I wouldn't talk about his music any differently or play it less if someone commercialized his persona.
Anyway, your point that "it's not art anymore, art IS killed" is clearly false. Imagine a tyrant who declares that the only suitable music is a) by Beethoven and b) in C minor. It's certainly a travesty that anything by Haydn or David Bowie would be banned, as well as Beethoven's 6th Symphony, but it surely remains a fact that Beethoven's 5th is still a great symphony, regardless of the tyrant's endorsement.
There are plenty of pieces of music that sell very well in times of nationalist fervor, or in general. But it's sheer confusion to say that these pieces _aren't_ art for that reason. That's misdirected anger; the real problem is that other pieces are excluded because they either don't fit easily into a category, or they present an alternative viewpoint that sits uncomfortably with general opinion (i.e., dissident music).
-Jonathan
The problem is really actual, because it's related with this post-industrial period, where almost anything could falsified, or duplicated, where the main concept is about brain eating with a perpetual flow of those (duplicated&falsified) informations through almost all media, also used by "dissident people", who actually would be represented by rappers, or DJ's.
I don't know why all rappers/DJs would be dissidents. I mean dissidents in a more specific sense-- people whose music is excluded from discourse because of political/commercial/cultural pressure. Say, Rage Against the Machine after 9-11, when Clear Channel stopped playing their music, as well as any other artists who were considered anti-establishment (there's probably a list somewhere on the web of these artists).
Here we have a kind of example of the musical continuity imaginated by E. Varese where the musicians are removed to give the auditor always the same product.
It's just a matter of time for anything individually created to be completely removed from the mainstream, and replaced by a logo, a lobby, a brain firmware.
That's a sweeping statement. What does is mean? Are all the Mozart scores in the IMSLP going to be replaced by logos?
Btw- logos are typically created individually by a graphic artist taking direction from people who generally know very little about how to make a logo. Probably not so different from the people who paid Mozart to write a divertimento. :)
-Jonathan
F.Z.? Could it be Zappa? He joked with almost everything :D
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
*From:* patko colet.patrice@free.fr *To:* Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
*Cc:* pd-list pd-list@iem.at *Sent:* Sun, June 13, 2010 10:33:59 AM
*Subject:* Re: [PD] plugin~ external
----- "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com a écrit :
There are "naughty" pieces by Mozart that have survived the ages, regardless of past Mozart scholars who have excluded them from their catalogues of the "complete" works of Mozart. It may have been ignored for a bit, but the cult of genius generally trumps the opportunistic desire to destroy art.
We know Mozart because he has his pretty face on candy boxes, like F.Z.
used to joke.
Who is F.Z.?
What you're saying is nonsense-- I know who C.P.E. Bach is, and there are no chocolates that bear his name. And I wouldn't talk about his music any differently or play it less if someone commercialized his persona.
Anyway, your point that "it's not art anymore, art IS killed" is clearly false. Imagine a tyrant who declares that the only suitable music is a) by Beethoven and b) in C minor. It's certainly a travesty that anything by Haydn or David Bowie would be banned, as well as Beethoven's 6th Symphony, but it surely remains a fact that Beethoven's 5th is still a great symphony, regardless of the tyrant's endorsement.
There are plenty of pieces of music that sell very well in times of nationalist fervor, or in general. But it's sheer confusion to say that these pieces _aren't_ art for that reason. That's misdirected anger; the real problem is that other pieces are excluded because they either don't fit easily into a category, or they present an alternative viewpoint that sits uncomfortably with general opinion (i.e., dissident music).
-Jonathan
The problem is really actual, because it's related with this
post-industrial period,
where almost anything could falsified, or duplicated, where the main
concept
is about brain eating with a perpetual flow of those
(duplicated&falsified)
informations through almost all media, also used by "dissident people", who actually would be represented by rappers, or DJ's.
I don't know why all rappers/DJs would be dissidents. I mean dissidents in a more specific sense-- people whose music is excluded from discourse because of political/commercial/cultural pressure. Say, Rage Against the Machine after 9-11, when Clear Channel stopped playing their music, as well as any other artists who were considered anti-establishment (there's probably a list somewhere on the web of these artists).
Here we have a kind of example of the musical continuity imaginated by E.
Varese
where the musicians are removed to give the auditor always the same
product.
It's just a matter of time for anything individually created to be
completely removed
from the mainstream, and replaced by a logo, a lobby, a brain firmware.
That's a sweeping statement. What does is mean? Are all the Mozart scores in the IMSLP going to be replaced by logos?
Btw- logos are typically created individually by a graphic artist taking direction from people who generally know very little about how to make a logo. Probably not so different from the people who paid Mozart to write a divertimento. :)
-Jonathan
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010, patko wrote:
The problem is really actual, because it's related with this post-industrial period, where almost anything could falsified, or duplicated, where the main concept is about brain eating with a perpetual flow of those (duplicated&falsified) informations through almost all media, also used by "dissident people", who actually would be represented by rappers, or DJ's.
The concept of professionalism you talked about is just as made up by marketing departments as anything else that is.
The perpetual flow of advertisement does have a lasting impression on people's impression of what should be called professional. And you can bet that this impression doesn't favour equipment not promoted by a marketing department.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
-
Jonathan Wilkes -
Mathieu Bouchard -
patko -
Pedro Lopes