tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post3052132643359423839..comments2024-03-27T23:06:03.736-05:00Comments on The Music Salon: MiscellaneaBryan Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482696991279345516noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post-44316757235336026012013-07-02T11:06:16.156-05:002013-07-02T11:06:16.156-05:00Hi Jared and thanks for leaving another comment.
...Hi Jared and thanks for leaving another comment.<br /><br />And an excellent one it is! I was pushing back against the unthinking praise of progress and you, very sensibly, point out that lack of progress is not very interesting either. Heh. Correct, a historically-informed performance is not necessarily great-it is just historically informed. I paused at the statement "Music is not the sound itself." This is actually a pretty big claim. Not one I necessarily disagree with, but it does put us in Platonic territory where the "music" is some abstract structure that is realized, for better or worse, in an actual performance. But the performance is not actually the "music" itself. Philosophically, that is pretty complicated!<br /><br />You are absolutely correct, both conservatism and progressivism and every other "ism" must be judged and evaluated according to higher standards. I'm rather fond of the Good, the True and the Beautiful myself. Actually, now that I think of it, my post was just such an attempt to evaluate shoddy claims of progressivism. I am equally ready to do the same for conservatism.Bryan Townsendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482696991279345516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post-74345834522961383692013-07-02T09:12:39.051-05:002013-07-02T09:12:39.051-05:00In my opinion a "historical" performance...In my opinion a "historical" performance of a piece of music is not necessarily more valid than another based solely on that factor. Music is not the instrument that it is played on. Music is not the sound itself. We are not people living in the Baroque or any era other than our own. We can only recreate the music of the past masters in our own time. I agree that music is not continually getting better. But it is changing and it always will. <br /><br />The discussion of progress is greatly oversimplified. I agree that much of our perceived progress is an illusion. We are still the same violent, deluded, loving, beautiful people who lived on earth 100,000 years ago but with smart phones. That is not to say though that we are incapable of becoming a smarter, better, more in tune species. And I don't have faith that that will just magically happen. A revolution of our education systems is not impossible.<br /><br />Conservatism can have value if what we are conserving is worthwhile and still valid and living. "Progressivism" can have value if we are progressing in the right ways. But no matter what we do we must always be right where we are. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03215244510213768612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post-59581920054656778112013-06-30T22:13:39.410-05:002013-06-30T22:13:39.410-05:00Interesting distinction: creativity vs technique. ...Interesting distinction: creativity vs technique. Yes, I see what you mean. There is real and enormous progress in a lot of areas and I don't mean to deny that.<br /><br />And I completely agree with you about Stravinsky. I've said before that he is the best argument for modernism in music. We could stand to lose a lot of serialism, a lot of chance music and a lot of "happenings", but we really don't want to lose the Rite of Spring, or the Symphonies of Wind Instruments, or the Symphony of Psalms and a whole lot of other stuff...Bryan Townsendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482696991279345516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post-86758622505581684342013-06-30T20:04:11.547-05:002013-06-30T20:04:11.547-05:00A lot of this comes down to creativity vs. techniq...A lot of this comes down to creativity vs. technique. The two have to be well balanced. In popular Western culture technique is often overlooked as it isn't a very romantic notion. So we get this over emphasis on new, original, creativity, etc.<br /><br />It's certainly true that everything has it's origins in something that came before, but every now and then there does seem to be an amazing leap, where something so creative and successful emerges that we really can call it "new."<br /><br />Just like in genetics, mutations are happening all the time, most of which are useless or just plain bad, but every now and then something really useful emerges, and it's added to the gene pool.<br /><br />So maybe only 1 in 100,000 "new" ideas are remotely worthwhile, but without them we'd been much poorer. I think Stravinsky stumbled upon a few.Nathan Shirleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14123467208814463388noreply@blogger.com