Pieces Not Fit for Purpose

[ahinton]

But my point is that - as Natty's nomination of the Adams demonstrates - it all depends on the individual listener's perception of what is "fit for purpose"; there are no objective criteria involved here, are there? EdgeleyRob and I would have diametrically opposed ideas about whether the work of George Lloyd are "fit for purpose", just as I disagree (quite strongly) with your perception of what the purpose is of Feldman's Music, and how perfectly it "fits" that purpose. In both cases, of course, my own is the "correct" opinion.

I don't quite see the point of this Thread - is it "Can you hear the sea when you listen to La Mer? If so, then that is why I put "discussion" in inverted commas in #21.

Correct on all counts (and your use of "correct" in inverted commas here clearly means "correct for you", as indeed it would have to do).

Speaking personally, I don't know what the "purpose" of the works of George Lloyd might be (and that's not a comment on what they mean to me - as it happens, I'm quite ambivalent about such as I've heard of them, one symphony in particular standing head and shoulders above the other eleven to such an extent that it's almost embarrassing), but I do recall in an interview the composer saying that it's to take listeners to places that they wouldn't otherwise go which, for what it may or may not be worth, seems at least to be an honest attempt to answer that question.

The fact that I happen to dislike everything of Feldman that I've ever heard does not influence my questioning of its purpose; I don't know what its purpose is supposed to be in any case, although one might at least argue (for what it's worth) that it differs from Lloyd's insofar as Feldman's concern seems to be less obviously focused upon the notion of taking the listener on any kind of journey, as far as I can tell.

As to "can you hear the sea when you listen to La Mer?", pehaps Sorabji on Ravel might have some input here, when referring to "no stream ever sounded like that" but that the sound of one may well have sparked off certain sounds in his imagination (and, in the same context, he went on to pour scorn on Richard Stauss's probably tongue in cheek comment about the possibility of "representing" a spoon of a fork in music). How many people might hear - or think that they hear - the sea when listening to La Mer - or Bridge's The Sea, Vaughan Williams' A Sea Symphony or David Matthews' A Vision of the Sea without knowing the titles of those pieces?

As you've probably gathered, I don't quite see the pont of this thread either; sorry!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'd far rather discuss Feldman than whether or not you can see the sea in La Mer (a conversation about which I'd find as bewilderingly missing the point as if two people got into an argument about whether Les Parfums de la Nuit reminded them of Chanel no5 or Brut 33) - I don't know if Feldman wants to take me on a "journey", but I do know that I feel fully alive when listening to his Music and it leaves me with a greater gratitude for the experience of being alive for a long time afterwards. I can't think of a better reason for listening to a work of Music.

[eighthobstruction]

....are we there yet?....

[Nick Armstrong]

....are we there yet?....

Here, there and everywhere!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Here, there and everywhere!

Or even -

[Richard Barrett]

Here, there and everywhere!

It might very well be said, though personally I have less than no idea why one might say that, or indeed why one might not say that, or for that matter why one would say anything at all when one demonstrably has nothing to say, that the concept "fit for purpose" might equally, or at least not completely unequally, be applied to posts on a thread such as this, given that they often seem to derive from what one might (or might not) term a "postorrhoeic" compulsion to post one's own views, if such they are, since often no views as such are actually expressed, whether or not one actually has what might (or might not) be termed an opinion on the subject at hand, if indeed such could be said to exist in cases like this, the only certainty being that one agrees with oneself, methinks, to which some might respond, all things considered, with a ça va sans dire should they be so inclined, and after all who am I to disagree!

[Nick Armstrong]

it all depends on the individual listener's perception of what is "fit for purpose"; there are no objective criteria involved here, are there? EdgeleyRob and I would have diametrically opposed ideas about whether the work of George Lloyd are "fit for purpose", just as I disagree (quite strongly) with your perception of what the purpose is of Feldman's Music, and how perfectly it "fits" that purpose. In both cases, of course, my own is the "correct" opinion.

I think one of the things that has become most clear to me from years on this Forum is that a key deciding factor in which music people like, is/are the purpose/s for which they listen to music. I hadn't appreciated fully how different those purposes can be. For example, some people clearly love the display of digital or vocal dexterity for its own sake, and hence yer Rossinis or yer Liszts are likely to appeal. I don't and therefore they don't appeal. Some people clearly seek a cerebral, analytical experience from listening to music, and may therefore love certain kinds of music from the last 100 years which to me appear arid, opaque and unattractive. I haven't got time to say what purposes I DO listen to music for, except to say that Mahler and Ravel and Elgar and Shostakovich and Rachmaninov and RVW and Fauré and Bach and Tallis and Brahms and Sibelius and Schumann fulfil those purposes, inexhaustibly so far

[Nick Armstrong]

It might very well be said, though personally I have less than no idea why one might say that, or indeed why one might not say that, or for that matter why one would say anything at all when one demonstrably has nothing to say... whether or not one actually has what might (or might not) be termed an opinion on the subject at hand, if indeed such could be said to exist in cases like this, the only certainty being that one agrees with oneself, methinks, to which some might respond, all things considered, with a ça va sans dire should they be so inclined, and after all who am I to disagree!

You are ahinton and I claim my £5 !!!

[ahinton]

You are ahinton and I claim my £5 !!!

No, I am ahinton and I claim it (please!)...

[ahinton]

whether or not one actually has what might (or might not) be termed an opinion on the subject at hand

BZZZ...

Repetition!

after all who am I to disagree!

Richard Barrett, presumably - unless you adopt an alter ego when disagreeing...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

BZZZ...
Repetition!

Well - the Thread was "sparked off" by a piece by John Adams.

[Richard Tarleton]

For example, some people clearly love the display of digital or vocal dexterity for its own sake, and hence yer Rossinis or yer Liszts are likely to appeal.

Veering OT, but can't let this pass....Cali, I leave Rossini to others (jean??) but:

For Liszt, the much-maligned programme musician, music was fundamentally a tool of poetic expression, and the piano an object to be transformed into an orchestra, turned into the elements, lifted into the spheres. In lesser hands, his extraordinary pianistic demands risk becoming an end in themselves.......Subservient to the desire to encompass every facet of experience, and freed from classical restrictions, the piano is made to release the whole gamut of colour, dynamics and nuance, and encouraged to forget its own boundaries.

Liszt's 'poetic' imagination relied no less on the sensations of the surrounding world than on those of the world within.....Without its poetic core. Liszt's music easily degenerates into a vehicle of Effekt, which in its German sense, has been defined as 'effect without cause' by Wagner. On the other hand, it would be a grave mistake to overlook, or underestimate, Liszt's musical intellect even if it was not always employed to full advantage.......

Alfred Brendel, 1986.

Liszt wrote music of great emotional and intellectual profundity. I offer his "Variations on "Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen" as a piece which is entirely fit for (his) puropse - I hear as profound an expression of grief (for his daughter Blandine) as you're likely to hear in western music.

[ahinton]

Well - the Thread was "sparked off" by a piece by John Adams.

!!! True!

[NatBalance]

Bloomin' heck ….. I don't know what's going on here. Folk seem to be thinking I am refering to ALL pieces of music. May I quote myself here in post #6

Not all pieces of music are composed to describe a feeling, a story, subject, whatever, they are just pieces of music ...... but some are.

And I'm sorry if I offend Richard but gee whiz, I started laughing out loud when reading this …

It might very well be said, though personally I have less than no idea why one might say that, or indeed why one might not say that, or for that matter why one would say anything at all when one demonstrably has nothing to say, that the concept "fit for purpose" might equally, or at least not completely unequally, be applied to posts on a thread such as this, given that they often seem to derive from what one might (or might not) term a "postorrhoeic" compulsion to post one's own views, if such they are, since often no views as such are actually expressed, whether or not one actually has what might (or might not) be termed an opinion on the subject at hand, if indeed such could be said to exist in cases like this, the only certainty being that one agrees with oneself, methinks, to which some might respond, all things considered, with a ça va sans dire should they be so inclined, and after all who am I to disagree!

Sorry … I just couldn't help myself. It's brilliant …. it was like reading legal jargon … top marks …. I give in muh Lud, you've got me :)

[Barbirollians]

Bloomin' heck ….. I don't know what's going on here. Folk seem to be thinking I am refering to ALL pieces of music. May I quote myself here in post #6



And I'm sorry if I offend Richard but gee whiz, I started laughing out loud when reading this …



Sorry … I just couldn't help myself. It's brilliant …. it was like reading legal jargon … top marks …. I give in muh lud, you've got me :)

I never knew that Richard and Sir Humphrey Appleby had so much in common