From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Feb 12 2004 - 14:40:51 GMT
Hi Poot,
> Hello Platt,
>
> You said: No one is writing classical music today? Check out:
>
> http://dir.yahoo.com/Entertainment/Music/Artists/By_Genre/Classical/Compose
> rs/20th_Century_and_Contemporary/
>
> I say: Well, I did not say that classical music is not being written.
Sorry, my mistake.
> What
> I said was that no one writes music like mozart today. Mozart was a
> musical genius, the likes I have not heard of in today's society.
Agree.
> You said: What emotions are you talking about? Have feelings of love and
> hate changed in the past 300 years?
>
> I say: Perhaps the emotions of love and hate have not changed. This does
> not mean that his music is solely a reflection of his emotions. Would not
> his surroundings, which give rise to the events of his life, which made him
> draw certain conclusions, which also made him feel a certain way after
> things happen to him. It is like saying if I had lived in the past, I
> would feel exactly the same emotions as I did then, in exactly the same
> way. Because our world is different, every aspect of his life would
> change. He would have to also manage modern elements of our current world,
> which did not exist in his time. Many principles are similar, but not the
> same. If Mozart was still a musical genius at some comparable level today,
> he would never have become so poor(unless he spent his money like michael
> jackson).
>
> Mozart lived in a world without technology. There are many, many,
> instruments that have been invented or discovered (eastern music) that
> would have a profound impact on his music. What if mozart had taken some
> trips to japan or india when he was touring the world? I could not see
> this as having any small affect on his music.
Well, I would say you are speculating a lot. I believe great art
transcends the world the artist lived in. Otherwise, it would have little
effect on us today. In art, the means of portraying Spirit is unimportant;
the meaning emanating from the the art is all.
> You said: In addition to emblazoning "Truth is a species of good" on every
> page of the MOQ syllabus I'd add "Some things are better than others." In
> other words, great art is drenched in Spirit while lesser art (like most
> art being created today) is as Spiritually dry as dust. What's more, I
> claim all of us can tell the difference! (Recall Pirsig's experiment with
> his students regarding their ability to discern quality writing.)
> I say: O.k. So there is a large quantity of crap being produced today,
> which is little more than a few notes jotted on paper, etc. In Mozarts
> time, was most of the music being produced good? I would say no. there
> were a small amount of composers/artists who were truly good. Spirit was
> in their music. How about the other 90% of the music? Most of it was folk
> music. All of the rest, was written by people trying to make money off of
> sounding like mozart, or whoever was good at the time. There is something
> to be said for originality.
I'm not arguing that Mozart's time produced better music than that being
produced today, although I think a case can be made for that. I am arguing
that Mozart stands head and shoulders above today's musical composers.
> You said: Many art authorities agree, so it's not ridiculous at all.
> Collective
> judgments of experts brings purely subjective opinions closer to
> objectivity.
>
> I say: Many authorities also rebuke pirsigs theories. Does that make them
> right, or closer to being right? It may seem so.
As you know, contemporary geniuses are often overlooked in their own
time,.Van Gogh for example. Allow Pirsig the fullness of time and he will
be embraced.
> You said: What are you talking about? Please give examples. Are you talking
> about Snoop Doggy Dog?.
> I say: Well, as I dont listen to Snoop Dogg, I couldn't say for sure. But
> looking at some of the artists, and the places they grew up in, how can you
> expect them to compose like Mozart? Illiteracy and ineducation are maing
> factors.
Again, Van Gogh transcended illiteracy and lack of education as have many
other great artists. Those cave men who painted animals demonstrate that
you don't have to have a PhD to create great art. In fact, education which
concentrates on inculcating static patterns is likely to stifle genius.
Your emphasis on the influence of culture may be true for mundane artists,
but not the great ones.
> However, I will give you a top pick list of artists I either listen to, or
> have listened to, which I consider to be good; (Current at top) King
> Crimson Yes Buck-65 ('rap') Pink Floyd RadioHead
Are these individuals or groups? How do you rate the Benny Goodman quartet
against these guys?
> It is the aim towards quality that makes a difference for me.
Aiming towards quality is fine, but for me attainment of quality is what
counts.
> Also, to say
> that these artists don't put their spirit fully into their music is a lie.
> Listen to 'The Wall' , by Roger Waters (and the rest of Pink Floyd) in its
> entirety ,. and tell me there is not great spirit in that.
As said, putting Spirit into art is not the issue; communicating Spirit
across the generations to millions is ultimately the standard..
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 12 2004 - 14:39:24 GMT