Damien Hirst Ch4

[handsomefortune]

I don't who that simpering fellow was who accompanied DH round his exhibition, but I was left wondering what his contribution was. His incessant fiddling with his hair - don't girls do that, and standing with feet turned in (stylishly gamin like if you're a young model), An opportunity to draw out the artist and explore the work was thrown over for sycophancy. Oh dear! His obvious adulation got no further than that - his obvious adulation. Perhaps they were both wearing new clothes.


+

You perceive an insult where only an observation was made. What has his attractiveness - or otherwise - to do with the job at which he failed so miserably? Why did his posture(ing) get in the way of programme's content. My point is that, with all the controversy about DH and his art, there was an opportunity lost.

rhetorical - i think you've answered your own query perhaps john ward moorhouse!

[Simon]

Come on you can do better than that !

some questions then (with a nod to JC )

Is the nightingale in the Pines of Rome music ?
Was the nightingale singing the moment before the recording was started music ?
Is the wind machine in Sinfonia Antarctica music ?
Is the sound of the wind NOT in Sinfonia Antarctica music ?
If I "read" the score of Elgar's first Symphony and imagine the music , is that music even though no sounds are made ?
If it says in a score by a composer who's music you regard as great "break pane of glass with hammer" is that music ?
If it says in a score by a composer for whom you have nothing but contempt "break pane of glass with hammer" is that sound the same music (if it is music in the first place) ?

There's nothing shocking about Hirst's art in my view, in many ways it is very much in the tradition of art history (much like the Operas of Stockhausen are in music).

Talent and Skill are not the necessities for making something into Art (or music) from it being not Art. A very poor composition with no imagination is still music.

Sorry - only just saw this. As expected, a relativist's "answer". I understand that you can't accept absolutes, as they don't fit in with your general worldview. But the answers are easy.

The beautiful melodies sung by a nightingale are of course music, whether they are recorded or not.(Strangely enough, I heard two nightingales singing a few nights ago, and recorded them on my mobile: glorious!).

The wind machine is not of itself music, as is not the smashing glass. These are sound effects, just as would be the honking of a car horn in an opera, though they all contribute to the overall effect of the work which in toto, provided that it has either melody or harmony or rhythm or a mixture of these three, and provided that it has been deliberately written by a composer with the talent to write music, will be a musical composition. (I do hope that you can understand the difference between a sound effect and a musical composition: even Hollywood manages that, employing "sound effects" people for the former and composers for the latter).

If you "read" the score of anything musical, you are not of course making music, but you are, if you have the ability, able to imagine the sounds that the written instruments/voices would make in your head, so therefore you are imagining how the music might sound.

But at least you've had the guts to (almost!) nail your colours to the mast as regards your views on skill and talent.

Now, how about your own definition of music, as I requested earlier?

[Serial_Apologist]

Sorry - only just saw this. As expected, a relativist's "answer". I understand that you can't accept absolutes, as they don't fit in with your general worldview. But the answers are easy.

The beautiful melodies sung by a nightingale are of course music, whether they are recorded or not.(Strangely enough, I heard two nightingales singing a few nights ago, and recorded them on my mobile: glorious!).

The wind machine is not of itself music, as is not the smashing glass. These are sound effects, just as would be the honking of a car horn in an opera, though they all contribute to the overall effect of the work which in toto, provided that it has either melody or harmony or rhythm or a mixture of these three, and provided that it has been deliberately written by a composer with the talent to write music, will be a musical composition. (I do hope that you can understand the difference between a sound effect and a musical composition: even Hollywood manages that, employing "sound effects" people for the former and composers for the latter).

If you "read" the score of anything musical, you are not of course making music, but you are, if you have the ability, able to imagine the sounds that the written instruments/voices would make in your head, so therefore you are imagining how the music might sound.

But at least you've had the guts to (almost!) nail your colours to the mast as regards your views on skill and talent.

Now, how about your own definition of music, as I requested earlier?

Thenm it's a shame for you that you have obviously not heard the car horn fanfares in Ligeti'
s "Le Grand Macarbre", Simon - which even you would have to admit to being music.

I wonder just where you draw the line between "music" and "sound effects"?

[Simon]

Thenm it's a shame for you that you have obviously not heard the car horn fanfares in Ligeti'
s "Le Grand Macarbre", Simon - which even you would have to admit to being music.

I wonder just where you draw the line between "music" and "sound effects"?

I specifically and deliberately said "the honking of a car horn" - intended to mean just a simple one or two blasts. I wouldn't consider that on its own as music.

A one-note, one-off hit onto a drum is not music; the composed and talented use of timps and other percussion instruments of course can well be very musical indeed, as we all will have heard!

But your musing is one I've thought of too, though I'm reasonably sure where I'd draw the line. I await with interest GongGong's definition.

[MrGongGong]

Sorry - only just saw this. As expected, a relativist's "answer". I understand that you can't accept absolutes, as they don't fit in with your general worldview. But the answers are easy.

The beautiful melodies sung by a nightingale are of course music, whether they are recorded or not.(Strangely enough, I heard two nightingales singing a few nights ago, and recorded them on my mobile: glorious!).

The wind machine is not of itself music, as is not the smashing glass. These are sound effects, just as would be the honking of a car horn in an opera, though they all contribute to the overall effect of the work which in toto, provided that it has either melody or harmony or rhythm or a mixture of these three, and provided that it has been deliberately written by a composer with the talent to write music, will be a musical composition. (I do hope that you can understand the difference between a sound effect and a musical composition: even Hollywood manages that, employing "sound effects" people for the former and composers for the latter).

If you "read" the score of anything musical, you are not of course making music, but you are, if you have the ability, able to imagine the sounds that the written instruments/voices would make in your head, so therefore you are imagining how the music might sound.

But at least you've had the guts to (almost!) nail your colours to the mast as regards your views on skill and talent.

Now, how about your own definition of music, as I requested earlier?

Oh dear Prof you are a little confused .........

Stravinsky was fond of "sound effects" as you put it........
it's hard to know where to start really !

When you refer to Foley artists I'm assuming you don't mean Sound Designers ? oooh but they are often composers .........

Melody and Harmony are PART of music but not all music , whether nightingales sing "melodies" all depends on whether a human hears them or not as as far as i'm aware "melody" is a human construct , but they are good to hear all the same !

For me , my definition of music includes all the sounds that I perceive as being part of music, which does include sounds which are technically (in a scientific sense) "noise" and some which are decidedly "unmusical".........So what makes Music Music is the act of hearing it as such NOT the fact that someone has organised it or chosen it for me. If I read an orchestral score I am , in some ways, making music though it lacks an audible sonic component.

It is possible to not fall into the sad trap of thinking that if one advocates a wide definition of music then one is dismissing much music of the past. I happen to like BOTH Bruckner and Merzbow, Cage and Shostakovitch and insect sounds and the sounds of ice cracking and ............

So to answer again ..........

The Wind machine IS music when we play it in a musical context
A single note IS music when we hear it in a musical context
And breaking your window can be a sound effect, a musical gesture and/or a hefty bill and a pain in the arse !
I can program my computer to produce an algorhythmic composition and it IS music even though I might not have chosen every note.
Composition is NOT the art of choosing notes it is an art of SOUNDS.

Music is (as you dismissively put it) essentially "relativist", a cursory study of musics from other cultures will soon disabuse one of the idea that it is anything other.

Oh and Le Grande Macabre is a work of towering genius IMV

But WHY oh WHY Simon are you SO ADAMANT that your definitions of things are RIGHT and everyone who has a different perspective is WRONG ? I used to have very narrow ideas of what music was about until I discovered whole worlds of sound that I could never have imagined existing. Open Ears my friend never harmed anyone ! (and you might notice the connections between things ......... Schubert and Rammstein )

[Lateralthinking1]

Do I not like Damien Hirst.

[MrGongGong]

Do I not like Damien Hirst.

Is that a question ?

[Lateralthinking1]

Is that a question ?

No but that is.

[Simon]

Ref #35

Thank you for an interesting post. I'm off away for a few days now - and running a bit late! - but hope to be back at the weekend to reply.

[Bryn]

...Oh and Le Grande Macabre is a work of towering genius IMV ...

I too am fond of the work, but perhaps it might be best to consider it as a work of genius in somewhat the same way as as Leonore/Fidelio is by many (but by no means all). Both composers had major problems with their operas and felt the need to undertake major rewrites. I am glad to have recordings of Leonores 1 and 2, Fidelio and two versions of Le Grande Macabre (plus Mr. Howarth's Mysteries of the Macabre) to compare and contrast.

[MrGongGong]

I too am fond of the work, but perhaps it might be best to consider it as a work of genius in somewhat the same way as as Leonore/Fidelio is by many (but by no means all). Both composers had major problems with their operas and felt the need to undertake major rewrites. I am glad to have recordings of Leonores 1 and 2, Fidelio and two versions of Le Grande Macabre (plus Mr. Howarth's Mysteries of the Macabre) to compare and contrast.

indeed
It was a great shame that the Opera House cancelled the scheduled performance after the refurbishment.