I'm struggling to get a new piece off the ground so, not too many postings this week. Let's start off with a new clip from Rick Beato in which he reviews the ten songs nominated for Song of the Year for the Grammies.
Well, yeah, it is nice to hear some informed criticism. I think that, as in recent movies, the overuse of technology is simply destructive to good aesthetic values. Oh, and songs written by committee.
* * *
I have something of an unusual distinction: I may have the YouTube channel with the least subscribers ever: two (2). I actually didn't set this up. It comes from a compilation album released years ago by a Toronto record company (violating my copyright, by the way). Here is one of the three tracks on the channel, all from the album. This is En los Trigales by Joaquin Rodrigo. Of course, Blogger won't embed.
* * *
Here's an interesting bit of speculation: Have Any Composers Become Film Directors? The answer, by the way, is "no" but it might happen one day.
In the past, the great orchestral music composers like Beethoven were titans of culture. Today, individuals with skills at complex orchestral music such as John Williams are still much in demand to score films.
Movies are, more or less, the Total Art dreamt of by Wagner. On the other hand, he would have been surprised that the composer is a servant, typically called in late in the process to augment the existing work.
Composing the music for movies is a really good job. Still, it’s paid work rather than being the boss. In contrast, it’s hard to imagine Mozart, Verdi, or Wagner deferring to their librettists or the directors of their operas.
In opera, the composer is The Man. But in movies he is not.
It seems that the person, director, actor, producer, who brought in the money, is the one who calls the shots. Nowadays we have a number of billionaire musicians so I can see one of them getting involved. We already have an example: Kanye West directed his own 34 minute film of Runaway using tracks from his album My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.
* * *
Alex Ross is doing a piece on ecological tourism this week, but economist Tyler Cowen had one a few years ago on How to get started with opera:
First I assume we are talking about recorded opera (most opera on DVD bores me, too static, though many swear by it), but of course go live when you can. My core view is that people "do well" with culture when they feel they are in control, and tune out otherwise. So pick one area and master it, or at least get intrigued, rather than trying to survey all of opera. Those "introductory" books are probably counterproductive, if only because they let you know how much ground there is to cover. Who could possibly master five different recordings of Parsifal?
That's actually pretty good advice and corresponds with my experience. I was a late-comer to opera, at least as a fan. It wasn't until I heard a couple of major European productions that I really got into it.
The Ingmar Bergman film of Magic Flute is perhaps the single most inspiring introduction to opera, even if they are singing in Swedish. It is cinematic in conception, rather than a mere film of a performance, thus avoiding the DVD problem.
I first saw this in Montreal in Swedish with French sub-titles, but yes, great film of a great opera.
* * *
Of course I agree with this: Classical comeback: the pandemic proves the need to support musicians and orchestras.
However, for all of its darkness, the pandemic has allowed us to reimagine what our musical world could look like if we start from scratch. Throughout the crisis, the industry has begun to construct a new narrative shaped to accommodate great artistic expression for everyone. As we rebuild our society and our economy, I’m convinced, more than ever, that participation in music is part of the solution for national recovery. Participating in musical activity sustains us through the most perplexing and difficult moments of our lives.
I also think that, in order to avoid complaints that this is "elitist" we also rethink music as a component of education. Apart from the usual benefits, it would go a long way to developing a larger audience for classical music.
* * *
But the reality is that the performing arts have sustained and continue to sustain horrific damage as a result of the often arbitrary decisions of government bodies. Canada provides a case study: Arbitrary shutdowns show that most Canadian leaders hold little value in artists.
Anyone dedicated to a career in the arts is a risk-taker used to inconsistent income but the damage COVID has done, particularly in the performing arts, is without precedent; this is the fourth time in two years that arts workers have had to shelve their careers. The federal income supports expired at year’s end and there is no word yet whether they will be reinstated; in December, the federal government did announce the $60-million Canada Performing Arts Workers Resilience Fund for 2022-23 but it will not be available until the spring. Many gig and contract workers have simply switched to other jobs, while newcomers are unlikely to join such precarious fields. Shuttered institutions will survive and return – although the federal payroll subsidy that kept many afloat expired in October – but individual artists will abandon the arts, depriving Canada of their creativity.
We may even want to rethink how much liberty we are willing to give up in the face of the growing technological tools available to governments and administrators and whether they possess the understanding to use them wisely.
* * *
I think the kindest thing you can say about this aesthetic train-wreck is that it was mercifully brief:
* * *
Here is a light article on composer Caroline Shaw: Caroline Shaw on Writing Classical Music ‘Fan Fiction,’ and Her Top 4 Desert-Island Songs
Because the more you know about Shaw’s work and the trajectory of her career, the more intimidating she seems. She became, at the age of 30, the youngest person to win the Pulitzer prize for music (2013, Partita for Eight Voices). She has filled the decade since winning her Pulitzer by continuing to perform as a violinist and vocalist, all the while composing for orchestras, chamber ensembles, and soloists, often collaborating as a performer with those for whom she composes—in the classical realm but further afield as well, with such artists as Kanye West, Nas, The National, and at least one member of Arcade Fire. And she has written film scores. And won two Grammys. And even appeared, as herself, in season four of the Amazon series Mozart in the Jungle.
I've found myself listening to several pieces for string quartet by Caroline Shaw recently--and enjoying them! So I will probably devote a post to her in the near future.
* * *
For our envois today, let's start with a piece by Caroline Shaw:
And an excerpt from the Bergman Magic Flute:
8 comments:
I invite Rick Beato and other nostalgists to review the top ten songs during any other period in popular music history, they will similarly find it to be mostly cynical and uninspired pap. Same goes for the most popular music in any form, in any community. Most music is uninspired. Rick Beato can be misty-eyed about the 1970s because time has filtered out all the mediocrity. Writing by committee and recording using software is no more antithetical to good music making than being a solitary genius scratching it out with a quill pen by candlelight, those guys write plenty of garbage too.
Oh no, I find myself in the really uncomfortable position of wanting to defend Rick Beato! One thing: I was expecting a more stringent criticism in the video because of the big CRAP in the still. But he wasn't that harsh on anyone, really. That, plus the nonplussed expression on his face is just the usual clickbait.
I almost feel that it is your position that pop music ought not to be criticized on general principles? Because all your ripostes are general. In other words you are not saying Beato is out of line criticizing Justin Bieber, but ok criticizing someone else? His criticisms, even though they differ from song to song, are inherently misplaced because he is an old guy in love with the 70s? Honestly, this is not a well-founded complaint.
My comment about excessive use of technology and writing by committee both being likely causes of mediocrity come from the observation that both of these things make the generation of songs easy--perhaps too easy. Sometimes songs just come like rain from heaven, but other times there is a creative struggle. I think that this is something that is likely essential to real creativity.
In the movies when they just throw in more and more CGI it usually detracts from the film. Ex: the second and third Matrix movies.
Survivorship bias is the term. Now I admit that I found Bobby Brown songs annoying but that after hearing Katy Perry I suddenly was won over to the virtues of some of his songs. :) I have also gone over twenty years from hating Hall & Oates to actually liking a few of their songs. Sometimes there can be a critical consensus AGAINST a musician that evaporates over time. In jazz one of the more notorious examples would be Dave Brubeck. Was he really "that" bad? I admit I've liked significant chunks of his work.
When we think of the 1970s now it's easy to think of the peaks but how many people are still wild about Frampton or Steve Miller? The Eagles are stuck in their canonized spot even if I find them tiresome in the extreme. Stevie Wonder has surely earned his place in the canon of 1970s pop but who has talked about, I dunno, Gino Vanelli lately?
But styding the lesser-knowns and also-rans has some real value to it. Hepokoski & Darcy went through not just the big three from the 18th century but also went through stuff by Vanhal and Clementi and Dussek and other composers that were consigned to the dustbin of history who were fairly successful in their own time and place. If we only ever ignore someone like Spohr then we won't have access to the fact that some 18th and 19th century composers would write sonata forms with expositions in C major that became recapitulations in C minor. Sure, Charles Rosen dismissed it as a cheap gimmick but he didn't really explain why. Thanks to Beethoven going minor to parallel major as a musical narrative of triumph-over-adversity the opposite option, of sunny days being swamped out by disaster, were taken off the table by dint of music theorists and music historians not even mentioning that it was done.
And now I would suggest (as I have a few times implicitly) that Beethoven, as good as he often is, was not solving the kinds of musical problems that I sense many people want to solve now. It's not that we can't learn from his work, it's that different eras have different aesthetic, philosophical and cultural problems to which they view different artists as having formulated solutions.
Much of the music wasn't even garbage, actually, more like undistinguished, neither bad enough to become legendarily bad nor good enough to become legendary. I think, hobbyist composer that I am, that might be more fair to all the also-rans and never-weres of music.
and yet an entirely CGI film like those made by Pixar or Into the Spider-Verse (which I own and I'm totally seeing the sequel) can work nicely. The history of blending CGI with film has a long and often sad/funny history. There's been some bad CGI where stop-motion and practical effects would've worked better.
Very good points! This is why I am always saying that the canon is not something fixed, but something in constant flux for precisely the reasons you mention: "different eras have different aesthetic, philosophical and cultural problems to which they view different artists as having formulated solutions."
there were far more profound problems with the Matrix sequels than the CGI. Still, compared to the nadir of late 1990s Star Wars I cut the original Matrix a lot of slack because I still enjoy it and because the usual action film suspects were doing such bad work in the 1990s that the Wachowski copycat take on John Woo and Yuen Woo Ping's work may not have been entirely inspired but it was way more inspired than The Phantom Menace or what Sly and Arnold were up to in the same period. But living on the West Coast as I did I had already seen enough Jackie Chan and John Woo films to know what the Wachowskis were cribbing from. In hindsight I figure it was probably unfair to see their work as "only" derivative because for a lot of Americans who saw The Matrix and had no exposure to Asian cinema it probably felt revolutionary and revelatory whereas for me it was, eh, a pretty well-done knock off. There's such a thing as cultural and historical context to make something seem daring and fresh at one point in history because of giving wider exposure to the mainstream of ideas or styles that were not yet mainstreamed.
The fact that we even have had OScars for best animated feature in the last twenty years, for instance, signaled that the Academy felt it dropped the ball in 1999 not having a category to recognize animated films after we got South Park, The IRon Giant, Toy Story 2 and Princess Mononoke all in the same year and every last one of those animated films is worth watching.
So, yeah, canons change and they both can and should.
The Best Animated Feature category is still the "members nominate Frozen because their kids saw it" award.
yeah, so Ratatouille (which I like and own) beat Persepolis (which I ALSO like and own) one year and before or after that (I forget) Surfs Up got a nomination despite the fact that Sony would've been better off (IIRC) nominating Satoshi Kon's spectacular and surrealistic masterpiece Paprika.
So, yeah, I know, people voted for Frozen over Miyazaki's The Wind Rises cuz their kids saw it.
But the earlier point was that whether as a balm for no recognitions at all or to ensure an animated film could never win Best Picture, something changed.
Still dreading the live-action remake of Your Name that's in the works! I just won't go to see it. I do hope to see Star Blazers 2205 at some point.
Post a Comment