Harrison Birtwistle 80

[Blotto]

Wot Ives said

"Clear purpose"

I really don't understand what you mean at all by this ?

I've thought about this a little and I think I'd mean not as absorbing in rhythm, as amusing in melody or as moving in harmony. Overall, it serves no clear purpose to me.

And I felt sure that I'd been quite clear. I appreciate that issue can be taken with the word 'good' but if you see music as having a broad purpose to entertain in some way, if it fails to entertain in any way then it's ineffective, it has no purpose. It's not "as good as Mozart". But this is an opinion based on feeling, not a physical law.

So - by saying it serves no clear purpose, I mean that it doesn't absorb, doesn't amuse, doesn't move me. Very roughly I'd say those are the respective effects for me of agreeable rhythm, melody and harmony. Overall, there's no positive significance to or in the passage of the music that comes in exchange for the time that's taken to hear it.

[MrGongGong]

but if you see music as having a broad purpose to entertain in some way, .

I don't
it is ONE of the things that music can do
but there are many more

"agreeable rhythm, melody and harmony" .
"Agreeable" to whom ?

What do you think Mr Hinton ?

[Ian]

but if you see music as having a broad purpose to entertain in some way,

Not necessarily, but I would say that the purpose of music (and indeed all art) is to valued - which of course can only be done by an individual.

It's not worth bothering with questions of good and bad (i.e. in an objective sense). That's only useful for people who want to bully others and/or pat themselves on the back.

[Blotto]

I see. "End of", I think.

[jayne lee wilson]

I've thought about this a little and I think I'd mean not as absorbing in rhythm, as amusing in melody or as moving in harmony. Overall, it serves no clear purpose to me. I can catch a few moments of interest but I can't appreciate Birtwistle's "endless exposition" (if that's what I'm hearing) even whilst, through abstract drawing, at least, I'm sympathetic to the idea. What surprises me in his singing are its consistent monosyllabics and how impotent it is. What surprises me is how little identifiable syncopation I'm able to catch even though I understand that he's a great rhythmatist.

Since I find it difficult to accept that I might be inadequate to the music's purpose, I would agree with the suggestion that the music is probably not as good as Mozart because it does not speaking with any meaning to me. It may as well be prattle or chatter or jabber.

If, Blott, you find it "difficult to accept that I might be inadequate to the music's purpose", then the problem is yours, not Birtwistle's or anyone else's...
I could suggest that you try to find a way of submitting yourself to, rather than applying yourself to, this music, but...

Anyway there are plenty of composers I feel "inadequate to the purpose" of... Bax and Elgar, to name just two... I've nothing to say about them, so... I say nothing. (Not that the temptation isn't there... be still my wicked tongue, etc)...

[MrGongGong]

I see. "End of", I think.

Why do people often give up when we finally start really talking about music ?

[Blotto]

Why do people often give up when we finally start really talking about music ?

I give up.

Why do they?

[Ian]

then the problem is yours, not Birtwistle's or anyone else's...
I could suggest that you try to find a way of submitting yourself to, rather than applying yourself to, this music, but...

Anyway there are plenty of composers I feel "inadequate to the purpose" of... Bax and Elgar, to name just two... I've nothing to say about them, so... I say nothing. (Not that the temptation isn't there... be still my wicked tongue, etc)...

Why is it a “problem”? Surely it’s only a problem if you think music can be objectively good.
If that were true then I can see that not valuing the ‘right’ stuff can be potentially problematical in a number a different ways.

BTW, have you tried submitting yourself to, rather than applying yourself to Bax and Elgar?

[MrGongGong]

I give up.

Why do they?

you tell me
you are the one who decided that

"I see. "End of", I think."

So

What is music FOR ?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If "entertain" is taken at its etymological meaning (something that "enters" and "holds" the imagination) - then I would say that that is an exact definition of "good Art" (if you'll pardon my giving myself a pat on the back - I've been lying in a cow field this afternoon). If the word is used in its more widespread meaning of "light, frivolous diversion", then it's an inappropriate word for a lot of fantastic Art.

[Ian]

If "entertain" is taken at its etymological meaning (something that "enters" and "holds" the imagination) - then I would say that that is an exact definition of "good Art" (if you'll pardon my giving myself a pat on the back - I've been lying in a cow field this afternoon). If the word is used in its more widespread meaning of "light, frivolous diversion", then it's an inappropriate word for a lot of fantastic Art.

You would only be patting yourself on the back if you then went on to imply that what holds your attention should hold everyone’s attention - there being a problem otherwise.

[Blotto]

you tell me
you are the one who decided that

"I see. "End of", I think."

So

What is music FOR ?

You have your own ideas on the subject of the purposes of music, you've itemised one or two already. You clearly don't enjoy what I have to say on the subject so I think you're on a hiding to nothing by asking me and I by answering you.

The answer to why I stop here is perhaps that the tone of what you call 'discussion' seems a little quarrelsome to me and I've no wish to quarrel. If I look at my own small statements, if there's any interest in them, it seems to come in places other than grinding down whether it's acceptable to use the word 'good' in public as a description and judgement on music.

The following seem to me to 'talk about' music:

I wonder what contribution does all the mediocre music make to life?

I've thought about this a little and I think I'd mean not as absorbing in rhythm, as amusing in melody or as moving in harmony.

Very roughly I'd say those are the respective effects for me of agreeable rhythm, melody and harmony.

You want to talk about the word 'good'. I don't. I've said my piece.

[Ian]

You want to talk about the word 'good'. I don't. I've said my piece.

I think it was me that that brought up the ‘good’ word - but only to say it’s not bothering with!

[Blotto]

I think it was me that that brought up the ‘good’ word - but only to say it’s not bothering with!

I've said my piece.

[MrGongGong]

You want to talk about the word 'good'. I don't. I've said my piece.

I certainly don't want to talk about the word 'good'