From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #312 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, August 17 1999 Volume 08 : Number 312 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: houston press review [hal brandt ] "Art" [Charles Gillett ] Re: NMH [David Librik ] RE: Quail in a Cage [Stewart Russell 3295 Analyst_Programmer ] on the eve of my election ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] drools for sophia ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: RH in the Bigs ["Russ Reynolds" ] Re: arts and crafts redux. ["JH3" ] Re: arts and crafts redux. [Stephen Buckalew ] Please spare me more rejection! ["JH3" ] Re: arts and crafts redux. [Capuchin ] RE: Quail in a Cage ["Partridge, John" ] Re: arts and crafts redux. [The Great Quail ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:38:15 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: houston press review Robyn sez: > "I think the days of being a > young alien are gone," he says. "When you're younger, your material tends > to reflect how alienated you can be from everybody. But given that we're > living in a society where everybody is as alienated as possible from > everybody and that is the norm, really what are you expressing by saying, > 'I don't belong with any of you guys?' Nobody does. So what? I'm hoping > that my stuff is a bit warmer in that respect. I think [with] the new > record, my mental health seems good, listening to it. I listened to > Fegmania [from 1985] a couple of weeks ago; I didn't sound healthy. > > "It's that thing that you can be an angry young man, but a petulant, > middle-aged one doesn't look so good. I think there are certain poses > and things that you can't maintain. When you're younger, you don't > necessarily even realize that you're striking them. Especially in the rock > culture. They're just poses that you tend to strike, and they're befitting > to younger people. I don't think anyone over the age of 40 with an electric > guitar can possibly take themselves seriously. They certainly shouldn't." The above quotes are more examples why Robyn continues to be one of the few artists that are worthy of our patronage. Thank god someone in the music business has his priorities straight. Most bizkits these days are far too limp. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:21:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Charles Gillett Subject: "Art" These discussions have gotten me riled up, mildly, but I'm feeling incoherent tonight, and in any case if I started going I probably wouldn't know when to stop. I can't do those one-line zingers like Mr. Eb. I've always been a little envious of people who know what art is, or what music is--they always seem to move through life with a certain flowing confidence, whereas I always feel like I'm stumbling about in an uncertain stupor. I have a very broad conception of what art *could* be, but that doesn't help much. I still have a huge gray area between what seems like art (Beethoven's 5th, say) and what seems not to be art (dog shit fresh from the source, say). This gets further muddled by viewing things "artistically" (man, look at the way the tall weeds frame that dog shit--and the lighting!) and all that conceptual stuff, which I enjoy. I like a good idea, even if the tangible product of the idea isn't quite art. Maybe the idea itself is art, or art-like. On one hand, I'm impressed when someone has a clear definition of art that works for them, and when they're able to defend it in a way that makes sense. On the other hand, I often find those people insufferable, because they tend to argue from the position of *knowing*, and won't budge--I should say that I'm referring to my experiences in real life here. I don't know anyone on this list well enough to say one thing or another. CountV Now Playing: Gino Robair - Buddy Systems ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:57:23 -0500 From: David Librik Subject: Re: NMH >>It's only 35 minutes long, but >>whenever I play it, it seems like a journey of at least 50 minutes. > >1. Anything unpleasant will seem like it's going on way too long. >2. Anything truly pleasant will seem like it's over with too quickly. > >With that in mind I find it interesting that nobody has complained that >ITAOTS is too short, yet talk to people who were disapointed with "Respect" >and that seems to be one of the main negatives. ITAOTS is doesn't seem long because it's unpleasant. It seems long because it's so musically busy and varied and stuffed with words. For most of the 90s, Robyn has been pushing towards a simpler and sparser style both musically and lyrically. As a result, Respect is less rewarding listening, and its songs are more easily summarized mentally once they're finished. So when you're done listening the whole thing seems shorter. Very much my own opinions here about both albums -- I make no claims for universality. I like busy arrangements and wordy songs. I loved _Invisible Hitchcock_ and hated its companion _You & Oblivion_ (with a few exceptions). I cut my musical teeth on The Move and so have been a bit twisted ever since. - - D ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 08:34:08 +0100 (BST) From: Stewart Russell 3295 Analyst_Programmer Subject: RE: Quail in a Cage >>>>> "John" == Partridge, John writes: John> Look, I don't want to beat up on Rothko. I've seen his John> paintings in person and they are indeed amazing. As opposed to, say, seeing them on the radio, or getting someone else to see them by proxy? Put it down from residual feistiness levels from the Richard Thompson recording I attended last night. That, and insufficient coffee. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 08:46:25 +0100 (BST) From: Stewart Russell 3295 Analyst_Programmer Subject: Re: The Green Book >>>>> "Terrence" == Terrence M Marks writes: Terrence> What's D and V, if it's suitable for mention on list? Diarrhoea & Vomiting. A fine old family firm. Terrence> No, it wasn't in the Goon Show. There was a specific Terrence> rule in the Green Book against mentioning him or joking Terrence> about his name. The censors could have been worried that it might have been a gay slang term. Since homosexuality was illegal in the UK until the late 1960s, coded allusions were widespread. "Round The Horne" had Julian & Sandy, who talked in "omipalomi parlare", which now seems rather quaint, but back then would have been risque. - -- Stewart C. Russell Analyst Programmer, Dictionary Division stewart@ref.collins.co.uk HarperCollins Publishers use Disclaimer; my $opinion; Glasgow, Scotland ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 03:25:24 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: houston press review >"I've got a lot of opinions, socially and politically, which surface at >various times, but I can't seem to translate that into songs," says >Hitchcock. "If I do, it just comes out didactic. It's not very inspiring. >Songs really do seem to have a mind of their own or a will of their own. >All I can do is decide whether to be receptive to the stuff that's coming >through or not. The songs are all of me, but at times it seems as random to >me as if I were a medium." And you fools thought Hitchcock was detached. ;) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 07:39:14 -0400 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: on the eve of my election >From: Eb >Drew: > >>I'll chime in for a moment and repeat that Peter Murphy is an awful singer -- >>he's even more painful to watch than to listen to -- and note that >>Bauhaus are >>shite but a lot of fun if you enjoy that sort of thing. So yes, that's >>precisely >>the point -- it doesn't matter at all what Peter Murphy is singing, and it's >>crystal clear that that was often intentional > >Just because it was intentional doesn't make the music any more substantial. You could have left the part in where I basically agreed with that remark, but then you would have been left without a retort. [I also said:] >>No way, dude. > >General advice: When challenging one of Quail's librynthine dissertations, >it's not recommended to include the line "No way, dude" in one's response. >;) Thanks, dude! ;) >From: "JH3" > >>>Before: Shakespeare, Byron, Yeats. >>>After: Ashberry, Plath, Heaney. >>>Not dead, just convulsing. > >>That's a little unfair, don't you think? Your "Before" covers >>4 centuries or so, while your "After" is barely 4 score years. > >This is the third or fourth time someone has posted this sort of >counter-argument, so I hope Drew doesn't think I'm picking on >him in particular - but just think about it! How many books were >published during the 4 centuries prior to WW2 compared to >the 50 years after? How many people could afford to buy them? >Shit, how many people were *alive* during that time? And how >many of them were even literate, and could afford the leisure >time required to pursue a career as a poet, of all things? I don't think it necessarily follows that more publishing and more people must entail more geniuses. Consider for a start that this rampant capitalist publishing industry doesn't exactly encourage Literature with a capital L. As for songwriters -- who's more famous, Robyn Hitchcock or Limp Bizkit? I'm not comparing Hitchcock to Shakespeare so much as pointing out that a lot of brilliant poetry and such is probably going largely unnoticed. >From: Christopher Gross >Drew (according to Eb) wrote: > >>I'll chime in for a moment and repeat that Peter Murphy is an awful singer -- >>he's even more painful to watch than to listen to -- and note that >>Bauhaus are >>shite but a lot of fun if you enjoy that sort of thing. > >Are you basing that on his tour for _Cascade_? I saw Murphy and the boys >on last year's Bauhaus reunion tour and they fucking kicked ass, dude -- >er, I mean, they were accomplished and energetic entertainers. I'm sure, but yes, the tour for _Cascade_ was agonizing, and I enjoy that sort of thing, so I probably would have liked the Bauhaus reunion tour if I'd bothered. That doesn't make them a Quality Band. >Peter Murphy's voice >might not be technically great; I'm no judge. But in Bauhaus and at least >some of his solo work, that voice was used to great effect. He seems to sing from the throat an awful lot, and he really did look like he was in pain when I saw him (all the smoking?). And he drifted in and out of the right key for pretty much the whole show. Part of that might have been tech, but mostly I think he's a mediocre singer (at best) who -- I agree -- uses what he has for maximum effect. >From: "Partridge, John" >I didn't think this was as unfair as you and others clearly do >so I'm open to rethinking it. Do you really feel that the >fifty years preceding WWII were no better than the fifty >years since WWII. I sure don't. I don't think anyone's necessarily saying that. I think people are saying that geniuses are rare, and it takes time to produce them and -- importantly -- time to recognize them. >From: Eb >>"Conceptual". What a fig-leaf. What an apology. What a nudge-nudge >>wink-wink. The marketers really struggled with packaging that one: >>"No, really! It's *better* than art - it's... it's... it's *conceptual* >>art. Yeah that's the ticket!" > >Ugh. Kinda pushing the "obnoxiousness" envelope, there. Ugh. Kinda pushing the "pot and kettle" envelope, there. Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, wyrd@rochester.rr.com http://home.rochester.rr.com/wyrd/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 07:52:38 -0400 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: drools for sophia >From: Eb > >Capuchyon: >>The ONLY problem I have with Jewels For >>Sophia is the clarity of the instrumentation. It doesn't have a cohesive >>sound as much as it has lots of little instruments making their own >>sounds. > >Um, that's what music *is*, when more than one musician is playing. But if >you desire arrangements which sound like one seamless whooooosh, there's >always top 40. It's either "lots of little instruments making their own sounds" or it's "top 40"? You've got to be kidding. >From: "Partridge, John" >Whenever I hear that a piece of art works mainly on a conceptual level >it says to me that it has failed to work on any other: all that's left >is to provoke some thought about the act of artistic creation, abortive >or otherwise. I describe it as "embarassed" because the soup can says >to me, "I can't top what's come before, but I can ridicule its >conventions". Calling in to question our ideas about art itself is >*not* art, it's art crit. And while I believe there's a place in the >world for art crit (i.e., grad school), let's not confuse it with the >real deal. "The real deal" was very often inspired by radical shifts in assumptions about what "the real deal" actually was or should be. Were the Impressionists just art critics? Was Rimbaud just a snot-nosed South Park ancestor, and not a real poet? Was Matisse a cartoonist? >Let him explore to his heart's content but don't get all pretentious-like >and try to call it art. That's just so smugly self-congratulatory. No more so than getting all pretentious-like and trying to decree that it isn't art. >They might well have wanted me to think about that but I could give >a shit. All I get is a white canvas or random noise and think "these >guys have total contempt for me and they just mooned me, conceptually". I wouldn't get too offended unless you bought the piece. :) >You don't find Glass stagnant? I do. Good mood music though. I don't >know Steve Reich at all or Elliott Carter for that matter or Roger >Sessions. Any recommendations on specific compositions? I've forgotten the name offhand but I recently heard an *extraordinary* Reich piece. I would second the recommendation heartily. Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, wyrd@rochester.rr.com http://home.rochester.rr.com/wyrd/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 06:38:00 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: RH in the Bigs >oh, the other night i dreamed robyn was playing in his 1,900th major league >game, and alex rodriguez his 1,000th; and they both hit a home run in the >game, and i was trying to let everyone know. Which team was Robyn playing for? And what position? Did he bat left or right? What was his stance like? Didja catch his uni number? Did he wear his pants long or was he from the Marquis Grissom school? And how does a guy play until he's 46 and only get into 1,900 games? Unless maybe he spent his most of his career in the Eccentric Artist League... I could give a crap about 99% of the "Robyn Dreams" posted here but this one has my attention. - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 10:28:00 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. >...I would say that there are descriptive couplets in there that >are more or less unassailable... >I mean, I HATE trite, heavy-handed themes that go on >and on about personal bullshit... but I see the stories on In >The Aeroplane Over The Sea as more allegorical and not to >be taken so literally. Where it is not abstracted and vague, >it is meant to be almost mythological. Y'know, that movie "Beastmaster II" was allegorical *and* vague *and* meant to be almost mythological. Now, I'll admit that I didn't think very highly of BM2 when I first saw it, but now that I've read this statement of Jeme's, I realize how UTTERLY FANTASTIC it is! I'm going to run, not walk, to my local Blockbuster right now! Thanks, Capuchin, for once again Showing Me The Way! >The ONLY problem I have with Jewels For Sophia is the clarity >of the instrumentation. It doesn't have a cohesive sound as >much as it has lots of little instruments making their own >sounds. Sometimes (as in the title track) you get the sound of all >the instruments together making one noise, but too often you get >all these little noises that prevent you from hearing the whole >picture. Could it be that it just needs more... REVERB? [snickering uncontrollably] John "nothing is unassailable" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:43:10 -0400 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. This "discussion" about art is pretty intriguing. The foundation of my own ideas and opinions about anything of this sort are pretty slippery anymore, but I'm curious about the statement (to badly paraphrase) "art is the mastery of a craft in order to express". I'm not sure how I feel about this idea, but here's a question: What is the litmus test of "mastery". Who is a master craftsman of expression? How does one know when one has achieved "mastery"? I would posit ;-) that one simply becomes "practiced" or "skilled" at a particular ability to express in a certain way, whether it be technical skill, or perception of a way to express an elusive feeling that other people can relate to. Seems to me that art necessitates communication, not just expression. But then again, maybe that individual is just communicating with one's self (self indulgent as that may be), if you're just expressing for your own pleasure. Hmmmm...this is getting slippery again. How much skill in a method of expression is required before one or more people can agree that the person is an artist, or that what they have expressed is art? Ask many painters or musicians or writer's if they've "mastered" their craft. I wonder what their response would be? S.B. **************************************************************************** "...everythings all on...it's rosy...it's a beautiful day!"--Syd Barrett **************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:00:27 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Please spare me more rejection! Drewrites: >I don't think it necessarily follows that more publishing and more >people must entail more geniuses. I didn't say that. I said that the size of the potential talent pool is not as proportional to the number of years involved as one might think. >Consider for a start that this rampant capitalist publishing >industry doesn't exactly encourage Literature with a capital L. And that's precisely the point, isn't it? The commoditization and commercialization of culture has either discouraged many true geniuses from even entering the field, or has forced them to write pandering trash to make money. >As for songwriters -- who's more famous, Robyn Hitchcock or >Limp Bizkit? I thought we were talking about periods of time, not specific individuals? And just because Limp Bizkit is selling more records right now doesn't mean they'll be remembered to the same extent as Robyn will be 50 years from now. Personally, I've never even heard a Limp Bizkit tune... (I'm too busy listening to "The Angel Pool"!) >I'm not comparing Hitchcock to Shakespeare so much as pointing >out that a lot of brilliant poetry and such is probably going largely >unnoticed. Exactly, because of the massive volume, not to mention the general cynicism of modern society. But I put it to you all that if you take a *random* selection of a thousand writers who were born between 1550 and 1950, and a thousand writers who were born on Nov. 2, 1961, the number of geniuses in both groups is going to be roughly the same (though you'll be lucky if you get even one). If you can manage to put aside the usual critical preference for "the classic old stuff," then the date on which they were born doesn't matter; what matters is the degree to which they had (or have) the opportunity to pursue their genius. John "yes, that's my birthday" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:17:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Eb wrote: > Capuchyon: > >Art requires a craft perfected. > >Art is the expressive work of a master craftsman. > I couldn't disagree more. My point (and I presume John's) is that it doesn't MATTER if you agree. Main Entry: 2art Pronunciation: 'rt Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at ARM Date: 13th century 1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation 2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP 3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill 4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art 5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful 6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter All but the final sense of this word illustrate exactly my point. In short, Eb, you're wrong. On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Capitalism Blows wrote: > style in his mastery of the sub-machine gun: > The old man's still an artist with a Thompson.> > > i think this quote contradicts your argument, actually. terry wasn't > referring to any sort of "exspressive" machine-gunning style when he > called leo an artist. he was referring to his *mastery* of the > *instrument* for *purely utilitarian purposes*, viz., killing off all > the goons that had been sent to rub him out. (in other words, you > have differing definitions of art.) i see nothing artistic (in the > sense you use the term) in leo's gunning (though the coen's > representation of same is of course *quite* artistic in your sense of > the word). I'm saying that Terry's comment on Leo's use of the machine gun jibes with my point quite well. Leo is a skilled craftsman when it comes to killing people with a Tommy gun. In fact, Leo does it with such skill and finesse that it's inspiring and makes you feel good about yourself. That's what Terry's saying. From Eb again: > > The ONLY problem I have with Jewels For Sophia is the clarity of the > > instrumentation. It doesn't have a cohesive sound as much as it has > > lots of little instruments making their own sounds. > Um, that's what music *is*, when more than one musician is playing. But if > you desire arrangements which sound like one seamless whooooosh, there's > always top 40. Music made by more than one musician IS little instruments each making their own sounds, but arrangement is about making those sounds cohesive and blending them into a harmonious, layered, thematic sound. Sometimes it's important to have a counterpoint to draw attention now and again, but I find Jewels For Sophia to be segregated in a way that prevents the music from ever becoming whole. I can't explain it much better than that. On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, JH3 wrote: > Could it be that it just needs more... REVERB? > [snickering uncontrollably] I don't think reverb is what I'm talking about here (though I see where you're going since I did mention the one big reverb song as an exception). I'd also say Guildford is an exception and if that uses a ton of reverb, then I'm just handing you ammunition. But the fact is I don't think I'm talking about effects. I'm talking about arrangement and mixing. I'm not a big fan of what folks call Guitar Rock. I listen to a little of it here and there, but quite frankly it's very hard for something like that to be worthwhile to my ear. But if we listen to classical (and I do mean classical) music or folk bands or big band music or whatever, you can hear the whole song and then you can try to pick out one instrument and follow it through and try to understand how they all fit. With this record I find too often I'm hearing the individual instruments and I have to try to hear the overall sound because the sound of each is distracting from the whole. Again, I'm not explaining it well. If I knew exactly what was causing it, I'd have a better case. It's not an argument and I love the record heaps, it's just a complaint and a concern. I'd love to know what I'm talking about. > >...I would say that there are descriptive couplets in there that > >are more or less unassailable... > >I mean, I HATE trite, heavy-handed themes that go on > >and on about personal bullshit... but I see the stories on In > >The Aeroplane Over The Sea as more allegorical and not to > >be taken so literally. Where it is not abstracted and vague, > >it is meant to be almost mythological. > Y'know, that movie "Beastmaster II" was allegorical *and* vague > *and* meant to be almost mythological. Now, I'll admit that I didn't > think very highly of BM2 when I first saw it, but now that I've read > this statement of Jeme's, I realize how UTTERLY FANTASTIC it is! > I'm going to run, not walk, to my local Blockbuster right now! > Thanks, Capuchin, for once again Showing Me The Way! Sorry, John. I think you missed a big part of the point. There's a subtlety and depth to In The Aeroplane Over The Sea that is lacking in Beastmaster 2: Through The Portal Of Time. There's also a craft and artistry in the creative work of each individual involved that Marc Singer wouldn't know if he peeled the latex human skin off of its reptilian face. I'm saying that this Neutral Milk Hotel album is a matter of perspective; you get a different opinion depending on where you focus. If you're looking for lyrical themes, you get one opinion of the words. If you're looking for descriptive phrases, you get another opinion. If you're looking for original imagery in the playing out of the theme, you'll get still another. I would say that it's completely possible that there are points to be lost in a couple of those areas, but it's a matter of focus and priority. For me, the individual descriptive phrases make the lyrics fantastic. There are lines in those songs that express ideas that I clearly understand in an original and intriguing way and that draws me. I find other people fairly appalling much of the time, yes. So for the most part, I don't care to hear about other people's inner workings. But I don't listen to this record to get a better understanding of Jeff Mangum's hangups. I listen to hear the little nuggets that INSPIRE introspection (as opposed to the nuggets OF HIS introspection). And I think the music backing these ideas is always appropriate and inspiring thoughts and feelings consistent with the words. That makes it pretty great in my book. But Beastmaster 2 is really sloppy and lacks any of that consistency. Also, I think any allegorical allusion you made within Beastmaster 2 would be thinly stretched. Mostly, it was just bad. > John "nothing is unassailable" Hedges I respect the attitude of that sentiment and as a whole, I agree. I guess I should clarify and say that I meant that it would be a pretty long and difficult argument that makes me question my stance on some of those phrases and descriptions. That's all. J. - -- ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:24:01 -0700 From: "Partridge, John" Subject: RE: Quail in a Cage > > >>>>> "John" == Partridge, John writes: > > John> Look, I don't want to beat up on Rothko. I've seen his > John> paintings in person and they are indeed amazing. > > As opposed to, say, seeing them on the radio, or getting someone else > to see them by proxy? > uh no! what i meant was i saw the *original* paintings, not a reproduction or a postcard or whatever. oh never mind ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:02:45 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. First of all, I think Cappy has some really intriguing points about art vs craft vs expression, but I still feel queasy about the way he strings them together, as if he is defining things based on his personal taste and then pigeonholing the world far too neatly. Second of all, defining art is one of those Ancient Questions that won't get resolved here. I can personally say that I think John is way out in left field, and I've already stated what I think of Capuchin's ideas above . . . Obviuously "art" itself is very subjective; but on the other hand, good art, enduring art seems to have certain universal qualities. I think the tension between these zones is a mystery, one of those mysteries that is fun to explore but will never be truly defined. Also, art can work at different purposes . . . it can reach for the sublime, as Cappy, John, Tom Stoppard and myself certainly expect from Great Art. It can challenge us conceptually, which I seem more willing to accept than anyone else who has tangled themselves into this thread, except maybe Eb. And it can also stand as a expressive perfection of craft . . . the "art " of business, the iMac, or a cabinet so well made it appears in a museum. Let's face it, discussing "art" is a lot like that old blind men and the elephant metaphor. That being said. . . . Cappy says: >Art is about control and mastery. Well, I think that's far too sweeping a statement. But let's focus on your Rothko argument. Consider this -- in the case of Rothko, his control or mastery might work on a more abstract level than your personal taste, or your definition, may allow to exist. Staring at some of his works, being drawn into that radiant zone where two colors interact, having such feelings, such emotions and ideas come pouring into your soul. . . . and if that's not art, as it seems to be for millions of people, what is? Again, Cappy, I think you limit yourself by your own rigid demarcations. >Randomness and chaos are expressive, but they are not a medium for >expression. Tell that to John Cage, Jackson Pollack, Andy Warhol, Serra, Brian Eno, Robert Fripp, Hakim Bey, Robert Anton Wilson, Andre Breton, Richard Brautigan, Bryan Gyson, William S. Burroughs. . . . . >Personally, I think Warhol went back and forth, like Picasso. Some work >is artistcally valid and some is mere crap with a famous name on the side. I couldn't agree more. With that statement and all your insightful comments about my beloved Andy. >To me, people like Cage and Rauchenberg did some of the things they did to >show us the value of skill and craft. I think Cage's work is there to >show us what can be done with no skill. No skill?! You know, not all of Cage's works were just randomness or silence. He was quite talented and skilled, and produced a body of work that is quite significant based on its planned and formalized structures -- especially his songs. Of course, you may be referring to only 4'33", in which case, well, I have no argument about skill -- but to think that piece was solely "about what can be done with no skill" is to seriously limit and misunderstand it. >>he helped open that door for >> composers, and some of our most interesting composers today are still >> working out that legacy. Luciano Berio, George Crumb, Christopher >> Rouse, Sophia Gubaidulina, John Zorn, Tan Dun . . . . > >I'm not going to pick out each of these individually (and I'm not going to >claim I have anything reasonable to say about most of them), but from what >I've heard of some of those composers, they're like Rothko or Warhol. Hit >and miss artistry... sometimes exploring their craft and sometimes just >making noise. I am sorry, Capuchin, but with the exception of some of Zorn's work and a little Crumb, you couldn't be more wrong. Berio's sequenzas are considered some of the most virtuoso pieces written in this century, but each one takes the instrument to different levels of exploitation. Rouse can be loud, but every note is carefully planned - -- very much a modern Shostakovich. Tan Dun, well, though he employs some randomness, his works are staggering in their originality and in the instrumental ground they explore. And Sophie couldn't make hit or miss noise if she tried. . . . >And just quickly, if your human mind can't tell the difference between the >mathematically generated and Cage's random spewing, do you enjoy the >calculated stuff just as much? Actually, I enjoy neither all that much. While I do occasionally like that level of atonality, I much prefer the atonal works of Schoenberg, Berg, and Takemitsu, all who tempered with with warmth and human expression. Or Lerdahl and Berio, who have a sense of humor about it. Or Sessions and Rotchberg, who created unusual hybrids. (Though Babbitt was also reknown for his sense of punning humor, his pieces are too cold and alien to really listen to very often.) (Unless you are Gene Hopstetter, who listens to radio static to relax.) (By the way, I am just mentioning all these composers because I like to reassure Eb that I really am as pretentious as he thinks.) But your question is a fair one, and I suppose it depends on my mood - -- though my ear cannot really distinguish them, my mind can laugh and wonder at Cage or pursue mathematical mysteries in Babbitt -- which is totally a self-generated slant. >Man, don't let my boss hear you say shit like that. You didn't mention a >single classical artist in your post. Classical music, Aaron will drive >through your skull, is music of the Classical Period, that is ~1750-~1820. >This period is marked by the deaths of Bach and Beethoven respectively. Oh, my eyes do roll in sympathy with you. And I also call any photocopier a Xerox. Honestly, it's that sort of musical pedanticism which drives most people away from "classical" music! >> >Great question! No I can't and only a really good artist does. But >> >I don't think universality is in itself the acid test of art. >> No, but it is *an* acid test. > >Naw. An artist can be topical and referential and specific to a place and >time. I have no problem with that. That's not what I mean by Universality. Picasso's "Guernica" is fairly topical but pretty universal. But a lot of so-called "art" today seems top only focus on one-line political statements that I think get stale pretty fast. . . . - --Quail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth: http://www.libyrinth.com "Countlessness of livestories have netherfallen by this plage, flick as flowflakes, litters from aloft, like a waast wizzard all of whirlworlds. Now are all tombed to the mound, isges to isges, erde from erde . . . (Stoop) if you are abcedminded, to this claybook, what curious of signs (please stoop) in this allaphbed! Can you rede (since We and Thou had it out already) its world? . . . Speak to us of Emailia!" --James Joyce, Finnegans Wake ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #312 *******************************