"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

[ahinton]

hinton

Simon doesn't like Bartok. That's all. No need for the detailed analysis.

No, it isn't. Of course it's fine for him not to like Bartók but not for him to make these value judgements and references to rubbish as a direct consequence; I would have thought that you could understand this.

[Serial_Apologist]

No, it isn't. Of course it;'s fine for him not to like Bartók but not for him to make these value judgements and references to rubbish as a direct consequence; I would have thought that you could understand this.

Indeed, to say one doesn't like something is fine; to say it is rubbish demands justification.

[ahinton]

Re #161. The words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind

Don't they just! Think about this in terms of certain of your own assertions...

[ahinton]

ts, it's your fault for mentioning Bartok!Why would it be anyone's "fault" for merely mentioning Bartók, in this contest or indeed any other?

Shame you don't heed the wisdom. But you will, one day! :smiley:

Your preternatural arrogance continues to know no bounds, does it not?!

[Ian]

Indeed, to say one doesn't like something is fine; to say it is rubbish demands justification.

And what could that 'justification' consist of except more personal opinions?

[ahinton]

And what could that 'justification' consist of except more personal opinions?

That would depend in part on the extent to which such a justification could be regarded as such and it would also depend upon the extent of the pertinent skill, experience and knowledge of the person making the accusation; I wouldn't hold out much hope in this instance, frankly.

[Ian]

That would depend in part on the extent to which such a justification could be regarded as such and it would also depend upon the extent of the pertinent skill, experience and knowledge of the person making the accusation; I wouldn't hold out much hope in this instance, frankly.

The accusation is that Simon thinks Bartok is rubbish - his reasons are that he finds him tuneless and unmusical. Why does he have to provide more justification? Why don't you believe him?

[ahinton]

The accusation is that Simon thinks Bartok is rubbish - his reasons are that he finds him tuneless and unmusical. Why does he have to provide more justification? Why don't you believe him?

He doesn't (although what he does justifies nothing in terms of value judgement); I do not disbelieve him in any case and, as I have already noted, he is, of course, entitled to like and dislike whatever music he may choose. The point at issue here, however, is that he is expressing his views on Bartók (and, by implication, many other composers whose work he also dislikes) in the specific context of arts funding (largely irrespective of its source) and thereby providing a platform for him to opine that, for example, music of which he disapproves does not merit such support and ought not to receive it because, instead of being great art, it's rubbish. There's a big difference between saying that you don't like the music of Bartók and stating that, because you don't like it, it's rubbish and therefore undeserving of funding support.

[Richard Barrett]

PRS foundation?

That's a good example, though probably not representative since PRS isn't a profitmaking company and the its only promotion-related interest is precisely in the performance and broadcasting of music. I wonder if there are any others in the UK.

I can't really see why Simon's opinion of Bartók is of interest to anyone... although I do have one more thing to say on that issue: Simon has obviously decided what beauty in music consists of, and is only interested in music which confirms that decision. Some of us, on the other hand, find it more fulfilling not to come to conclusions about what beautiful music is, instead being more interested in hearing (and perhaps creating) things which change and expand one's perception of beauty. There's nothing new about this; music is obviously not a matter of eternal verities, except in so far as every age has its Simons.

[MrGongGong]

The accusation is that Simon thinks Bartok is rubbish - his reasons are that he finds him tuneless and unmusical. Why does he have to provide more justification? Why don't you believe him?

There could be good "reasons" for not liking Bartok
BUT
to say that Bartok's music is "tuneless" & "unmusical" would IMV just show ones ignorance of music
and what "tuneful" and "musical" mean .......

[Ian]

There's a big difference between saying that you don't like the music of Bartók and stating that, because you don't like it, it's rubbish...

The difference is only big if you think statements like “x is exquisite”, “x is rubbish” are statements of fact.

Your post highlights for me one of the problems of finding a non-economic justification for state subsidy - that it requires the objective valuation of art. Of course it would be so much simpler if this could be done - individual opinions would simply be right or wrong depending on the proven ‘facts’.

[eighthobstruction]

Re #161. The words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind, Inspector! :biggrin:

I've had a few words come to mind....bless me; sweet innocent, free to be me.... <mostly monosyllabic>....(but had to look up monosyllabic....)....:peacedove:

[MrGongGong]

Surely the point of subsidy is to create opportunities for things to exist that couldn't exist without it ?
It makes little sense for the Arts Council to fund the Rolling Stones or Raymond Gubbay's latest "Classical Spectacular" as they will get along fine without
BUT
there are some things that simply wont exist without funding
now you can take a view (as many do) that that's tough we can live without Opera , HCMF etc etc
But many of us feel that these things are vital parts of our society

If you subscribe to the view that only things one uses oneself should get funding they say goodbye to MRI scanners , Schools and cycle lanes etc as most people don't use these either (though i'm more than happy to pay for them myself) ......

[Ian]

There could be good "reasons" for not liking Bartok
BUT
to say that Bartok's music is "tuneless" & "unmusical" would IMV just show ones ignorance of music.
and what "tuneful" and "musical" mean .......

Very possibly - I'm sure we are all ignorant about most music.
"tuneful" and "musical" mean different things to different people.

I used to love Bartok's Children' pieces when learning the piano, but I do remember when one was set for an exam they managed to pick my least favourite!

[MrGongGong]

Very possibly - I'm sure we are all ignorant about most music.
"tuneful" and "musical" mean different things to different people.
!

indeed
but in this particular context (Western Art Music) it would be difficult to describe Bartok as "tuneless"