The Unanswerable Question

[heliocentric]

I am starting to realise that my initial premise that a piece of music could be classed as "rubbish" was wrong and even dangerous, because if such a uniform assessment was possible it would also be possible to prescribe "rules" that might even prevent some music from being created!

... sounds like Glaucon in Plato's Republic, getting all enthusiastic about expurgating from an ideal society those modes and rhythms characterised as soft and indolent, and allowing only those that are simple, warlike and resolute.

Coming back to "intent", is it ever in principle possible to extract the artist's intent from an experience of his/her work? and what use would it be to be able to do so? Many of those who stand by the concept of intent being important are also those who can't bring themselves to believe there's any serious intent behind the work of say Boulez or Birtwistle (since they won't have heard of anyone less mainstream than these), and as a result assert that these composers' "intent" is to play some kind of practical joke on a credulous public, which I hope we can agree is very unlikely to be the case... and even if it were, so what? Stravinsky tried often enough to disavow any expressive intent in his music but many listeners to it (including me) choose to disregard what he had to say on the subject.

[teamsaint]

intent is a difficult area. (Aren't they all when you start examining them?!)

However, I still feel there may be value in judging, or looking for positive intent in this respect at least: our society is over run with "content" that seems to serve little purpose other than to help keep the population in a state of unthinking compliance. Low grade TV, radio stations with seriously bad music and worse chatter(I know, I am making judgements) newspapers( high and low brow) more interested in princess middletons assets than the impending war on Iraq, etc etc, junk food, wall to wall football distraction etc etc.
So unravelling the intent may be a difficult thing to do...but making a judgement may equally be a useful process, even if fraught with intellectual danger !
The pap that surrounds and drowns us needs combating.....

[David-G]

It strikes me that the narrower and more reatricted and limited the circumstances in which the music may be enjoyed then the lower the "enjoyment potential" of the music. So should all music be a pleasure to listen to? I'm getting into a minefield here - I'm sure a pavane or a requiem are not meant to be a "pleasure" so perhaps instead it is the music's ability to conjure an emotion in the listener,
On that score I suppose you might say Lol Coxhill's piece invoked the emotions of speechless incandescent rage which would qualify it as a roaring success, so should we further qualify the definition as "an emotion requiring introspection?"
Maybe it's actually quite simple for all of us, even the true liberals among us :-
WOuld you listen to it twice?

Should music be a pleasure? I feel that the answer should be "yes"; though that then begs the question of what is "pleasure" in this context. It does not necessarily mean that the music is pleasing. It might be distressing, in the sense that it conveys distress; but it will only be capable of conveying distress to me if at some level it engages with me, and holds my attention. So perhaps this is a better way of putting it; to have any value, music must engage with the listener. I would grant that Lol Coxhill's piece is music (or at least might be regarded as such by some or even many people); but it totally fails to engage with me. And I do not feel inclined to try repeated listening to see if I can establish some form of engagement.

In contrast to some composers, for example Debussy, whose music also fails to engage with me; but where I feel that there must be something to this music, since so many people love it, and hence I force myself to listen to it over and over again, though never yet with any feeling of engagement.

I feel that it is futile to try to define what music is; to say that "this" is music, while "that" is not. If Coxhill's piece is regarded as music, I am not going to dispute it. But just because a certain type of music exists, I feel under no obligation to listen to it if it does not engage with me. I see no point in continuing to listen to music once I have established that I derive neither pleasure, nor delight, nor intellectual satisfaction, nor emotional impact from it.

[heliocentric]

to have any value, music must engage with the listener.

That much is completely obvious. But thereafter your argument becomes a bit confused. You "force" yourself to listen to Debussy because you perceive that it engages with other listeners, but you wouldn't consider doing that with Lol Coxhill (who has many admirers in fact). So it isn't just "the listener" according to you - a significant role seems also to be played by peer pressure. (But presumably it also depends on what kind of peers - you might not "force" yourself to listen to the latest X Factor starlet just because millions of others do, right?) Whether you have "established that [you] derive neither pleasure, nor delight, nor intellectual satisfaction, nor emotional impact from" some music seems to be partly a question of what you reckon other people derive from it. Doesn't this go somewhat against your insistence that music should "engage" with you personally?

[MrGongGong]

I'm still puzzled by this question ?

Why does it bring out "speechless incandescent rage" ??

[heliocentric]

I'm still puzzled by this question

It doesn't "bring out speechless incandescent rage" though, does it?

What something like that does bring out is a certain lack of imagination among some listeners who seem to think something like "if I did something like that (which heaven forfend) it could only be to annoy or maybe even hoodwink people, therefore if someone else does it they must be doing it for similar reasons".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxPsXPCR5MU

[MrGongGong]

No it doesn't
but I AM puzzled why people would get so het up about it ?

Though I thought we had got past the "conspiracy theory" of contemporary art with the departure of the cyclist and absence of the prof ?

[teamsaint]

No it doesn't
but I AM puzzled why people would get so het up about it ?

Though I thought we had got past the "conspiracy theory" of contemporary art with the departure of the cyclist and absence of the prof ?

and panj......(now where did they all go...and at the same time...)

[Domeyhead]

I'm still puzzled by this question ?

Sad to say, but it was my attempt at a joke, Mr GG. Although I was a little irritated by Lol Coxhill I was not enraged, but I was amused by conjuring the notion of the kind of tweed suited pipe smoking reactionary listener who writes letters of complaint to BBC Breakfast!
As my joke failed, it might spawn a thread on the nature of actual humour versus an "intent to amuse" but I feel we have enough on our plates already.

M'learned friend previously mentioned engagement with the listener as a measure of the skill or ability of the composer, which I think is fair and interesting. I am sure any composer would hope to engage with as many listeners as possible even if the hope is often unfulfilled. In some cases though composers deliberately seek to challenge the listener's paradigms or beliefs or tastes etc and might consider it a failure if the listener ended up enjoying the piece! perhaps this is the definition of the nature of "experimental" music we discussed above.

[heliocentric]

and panj......(now where did they all go...and at the same time...)

The prof has recently been seen laying down the law about choral music to a certain Mr Jackson who one might imagine could be regarded as perhaps something of an authority on the subject, although of course that counts for nothing to such a fearless seeker after truth.

[heliocentric]

I am sure any composer would hope to engage with as many listeners as possible even if the hope is often unfulfilled. In some cases though composers deliberately seek to challenge the listener's paradigms or beliefs or tastes etc and might consider it a failure if the listener ended up enjoying the piece! perhaps this is the definition of the nature of "experimental" music we discussed above.

I think that the approach taken by many composers, perhaps especially "experimental" ones, is actually neither of the above, and certainly not the latter, but rather: "if what I'm doing is to the fullest possible extent exciting, engaging, affecting, disturbing, challenging, surprising etc. (or whatever, depending on their particular preoccupations) to me, then it could possibly also be so to at least some of my fellow human beings."

[MrGongGong]

For many composers (and not just "experimentalist" ones ,whatever that means) the impulse to create work isn't tied to someone else listening to it.
Some composers (La Monte Young being a prime example ) would seem to deliberately make it as difficult as possible for people to actually hear their music , though they would say that they are being true to it's intent. When I used to play in bands I wished I had realised that the time to leave was the time when someone said "I think we should try and make something more popular"

[heliocentric]

"experimentalist" ones, whatever that means

To me it means the same sort of thing as it meant to Michael Nyman when he wrote his book on the subject, which I'm sure you've read.

That's a good point about La Monte Young. I think that in his case the issue is that he would prefer his music not to be heard at all than to be performed in the wrong way or under the wrong circumstances, and with music like that I can see his point.

[MrGongGong]

To me it means the same sort of thing as it meant to Michael Nyman when he wrote his book on the subject, which I'm sure you've read.

It does (more or less) mean the same to me also
but i'm very aware that that is not shared by many hence the ""

[Domeyhead]

For many composers (and not just "experimentalist" ones ,whatever that means) the impulse to create work isn't tied to someone else listening to it.
Some composers (La Monte Young being a prime example ) would seem to deliberately make it as difficult as possible for people to actually hear their music , though they would say that they are being true to it's intent. When I used to play in bands I wished I had realised that the time to leave was the time when someone said "I think we should try and make something more popular"

I like that point in your first sentence. It distinguishes commercially driven composition ie with an outcome in mind, from that which is created because of some inner, possibly more noble imperative. I am not as familiar with Lamonte Young as yourself and Mr Heliocentric but it sounds as though his (Young's) insistence on controlling the conditions in which his music is heard would, pretty much put him above criticism - because the listener must come to the music on the composer's terms. I am starting to appreciate this the more I think about it.
But when a composer/creator/musician commits their work to a publisher for release on any mass media then I thnk a degree of judgement is valid and even healthy.
My view on its own is merely a subjective opinion, and in a random population of listeners even a majority verdict of such opinions cannot ever condemn a piece, but I realise where I went wrong before. If the audience has pre selected itself by an expectation of a certain style or form of music, and then something is disliked in those conditions then the judgement does have weight. I remember the irascible Neil Young playing his new grunge material to an audience expecting to hear Heart of Gold. "Just hear it out" said Neil above the catcalls, "Then we'll do the other stuff". He completed his grunge set then went straight back and played it right through a second time, in defiance of the boos. He was making a point, but he shouldn't make it to people who had each paid him 50 bucks first.

A Late Junction audience is far from being average in taste or understanding, and if the LJ audience as a whole dislike a piece then that opinion has weight. In the case of Dear old Lol Coxhill my opinion has been weighed and found wanting and I am in a minority of one - at least so far(!) I accept that my criticism was wrong. I thank you and Helio for a most enjoyable debate and will renew my efforts to appreciate and enjoy I am the Walrus now.