From: idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington)
Subject: Re: Regarding the Questionable use of the Word -> Advance
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:16:24 GMT

maverick@mahogany.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes:

> In article <m6oZVB3w165w@dorsai.com>, idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) w
> |> I would just like to briefly mention my interpretation of the discussion 
> |> of "Advances in Music Composition" as being biased towards a teleological 
> |> interpretation of music history.  Where are we going, people?  
> |>  
> |> I still feel that the late string quartets of Beethoven are
> |> infinitely more "advanced" regarding real human musical expression than
> |> anything I've heard from this century.  (Bach's Art of Fugue, too).  I'm 
> |> talking about music which is coherent, complete in its intentions and 
> |> realizations and infinite in its potential for emotional affect.  
> 
> Um, sounds like you're burdened with a teleology too --
> rather a New-Critical one at that.  My interpretation of your
> dictum here is that these pieces scratch your itches better
> than any you've heard from this century.  Fine.  But to
> project this onto the pieces is a very similar move to the
> one you deplore in the academic environment -- it entails
> that all music is trying to do the same thing.  For example,
> you present "coherence" as an unproblematic virtue -- but
> what does it mean?  what kind is desirable?  and who decides
> when it's present?
> 
> Not that I wish to defend Boulez in particular -- Eclat is
> nice, Pli Selon Pli often pretty, but he wouldn't be the
> composer I chose to empedestal.  I think there's a middle way
> between the use of "advancedness" to leverage new academic
> music into unearned significance, and the use of vague
> humanist platitudes to uphold the established classics.
> 
> 	Vance

Mr. Maverick critiques my use of the word "advance" in art criticism by 
never using the word.  He instead, implies I have my own teleology based 
on an implied stylistic revisionism.  My point is simple and I believe 
Mr. Maverick understood it.  He responded with the typical knee-jerk 
response to our university-sponsored patronage enviroment, of which I'm
willing to bet he plays a part.  
 
My point was that the university patronage system forces a conceptual 
underpinning to art, that of the sciences.  Advancement plays no role in 
real artistry.  The only requirement that an artist has is to be _true_ 
to herself.  If she does not do this she is a fraud.  
 
Additionally, the university-sponsored patronage enviroment foists an
another fundamental constraint onto the creator.  The committee.  The
committee reigns over every aspect or our culture.  The committee insures 
that things which are out of the ordinary (either by being very wierd or 
otherwise surprising or disturbing) never make it to the "market."  It 
assumes a standard of mediocrity based on a stylistic consensus rendered 
as dictum by the committee.  
 
Now, with our new market-oriented cultural markeplace we have the 
committee which requires we pay homage to "pop culture."  This way a 
steady market of youthful concert-goers will continue to perpetuate the 
committee.  This is the reigning force in NY City culture.  Naturally a 
bit of politics is added to keep our youth enlightened.  I have nothing 
against pop culture or politics.  My point is to be aware of constraining 
forces in _your_ culture.  They are there and any constraint (no matter 
how enlightened :-) is fundamentally dangerous to an artist.  
 
Mr. Maverick also implies that I have an agenda or style which I would 
like to see perpetuated.  This is patently untrue.  We all have our 
favorite pieces.  We all have our opinions about what is great music.  I, 
too happen to like parts of "Pli Selon Pli."  :-)  (even though it's 
ultimate effect imho is one of "advanced" wallpaper music).  
 
Whatever you think about style, we must all be aware of the forces which 
keep us from being true to ourselves and our infinite capacities for 
expression.  I had a saying when I was in school that "Mediocrity will
always win out over Incomprehensibility."  By participating in the 
culture of constraint (whether the constraint of "advancement" or 
"committee") we can insure that the next GREAT bit of musical 
incomprehensibility will never get written.  
 
I look forward to your comments in this regard (all).  
 

Jeff Harrington      
IdEAL ORDER               
idealord@dorsai.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose