[NewMusic] What David Cope is up to

[Matthew Goodheart]

Hmmm. . . I suggest you go back and re-read my earlier post more  
carefully. I sense that you are arguing with something other than what  
I said.

On Dec 29, 2007, at 10:46 PM, barry threw wrote:

> t it is also too  much to say that just because something is made  
> for commission or pay
> it isn't art.

  What I said was that the term "art" is problematic, and attempted to  
differentiate between different forms based on functionality. If you  
don't grok that, you won't get what I'm "blogging" about. Personally,   
I'm almost as suspicious of the word "art" as I am of the word "pure."  
Its too value-laden, and means too many contrary things.

> Hell, everything would be corrupt then, for some reason.

No, everything is functional. To deny the essential nature of that  
functionality is to misunderstand your own form.

>> Music reflects the function it was created for,
>> therefore music that is produced to fulfill a particular economic or
>> sociopolitical function must adhere to certain strictures and
>> underlying assumptions about what it is and what it does- it would  
>> not
>> fulfill its purpose if it went beyond that.
>
> Bullshit. It can fulfill its purpose and go beyond.

Okay, beyond was the wrongt word (and I spent a damn hour writing that  
post). Any piece of work can fulfill its function so elegantly that it  
seems to have a nature outside it. But it cannot pursue aesthetic  
questions that would undermine its functionality. Salsa music, for  
example, cannot pursue certain types of rhythmic and temporal  
investigations, since it must sync with the steps of the dance. Its  
very language is bound by its purpose. It can stretch it, but it  
cannot break it, therefore cannot think outside of those strictures.

> All music has a purpose, and whether that purpose is to embody  
> someone's ideals or to support the narrative of a interactive work  
> has no bearing on the efficacy of the art. Or, rather, it CAN have  
> an affect, but does not necessarily so. It all depends on the work,  
> because they are all
> influenced by myriad factors...your sweeping generalizations just   
> don't mean anything.

I thought they were sweeping specifications rather than  
generalizations. . . nor did I say that music that was created to  
support the narrative of an interactive work was not efficacious.  I  
think you mean of its efficacy AS art. But then you'd have to define  
what you mean by art.

>> Again, if one believes that the structure on which it is based is  
>> corrupt, then the music is not somehow magically free from that
>> corruption.
>
> Nor is it necessarily bound to it. Bach got paid.

Bach was the essence of the priestly artisan.

> they cannot coexist, and indeed reinforce each other. If you are
> saying these people are not artists it is because you haven't paid
> close enough attention to their art.

Again with the semantics. Hell, there are "make-up" artists.  It  
doesn't matter what we call the creators, really. What matters is the  
work. Is make-up art?

> You are going to argue to me that Frank Gehry buildings are not art?

Again I'll refer you to my earlier post.

>> This has been so thoroughly exploited by corporate influence as to  
>> have become a general indoctrination, and to
>> question it one most often gets cast as some kind of anti- 
>> democratic throwback, a luddite or classist or racist or elitist.
>
> It could be because it is elitist.

OF COURSE its elitist. So are your video games. So is physics, and car  
mechanics. So is this list. So is computer programing.  It just  
depends on which elite you're talking about, and in comparison to  
which population. Being "against elitism" is like being "for freedom"  
or "supporting our troops." Its an easy accusation to make,  a  
linguistic trick, and means nothing. Best of all you don't have to  
offer any evidence.

>> I would have to disagree. Music rarely transcends: it far more often
>> manipulates, anesthetizes, intoxicates, indoctrinates, and seduces.
>
> Wow. I don't know what to say. It certainly can do those things, but I
> like art because it transcends its creator and its context. Not to say
> it isn't influenced by those things, but it can become something more.
> Thats something I believe.

Since you brought up Bach, let's take the first Brandenburg Concerto.  
Do you recognize in the opening measures in the horn line a variation  
on the hunting call of the Margrave of Brandenburg juxtaposed against  
the ensemble's ritorello?  Do you follow how the treatment of the  
instrumental choirs the relates to the musicians actual status (and  
therefor salary) within the ensemble, and how that reflects upon the  
hierarchical status of the court patrons? Do you hear how the  
treatment of the Grosso form brings these instruments together in a  
way which subsumes their earthly hierarchies,  a reflection of the  
afterlife, yet reasserts them following the development to re-assert  
their hierarchies, thereby reaffirming the orderliness of the temporal  
world? Do you hear, in the final movement, how the horns now play a  
purely supportive role in the Minuet, while the integrated ensemble  
balances rising and falling lines layered in imitation against  
themselves, simultaneously balancing Dominant and SubDominant  
harmonies in an allegorical depiction of heaven? And how in each of  
the Trios, these previously earthly choirs reassert themselves, only  
to be subsumed again into the heavenly balance? Does it lift your  
thoughts to how the earthly hierarchies are the necessary worldly  
order of the God's choosing, yet each of us will be as equals united  
with the Creator in the afterlife?

Wow, if you did, I'd be envious. . . it took me until 37 to figure all  
that shit out. On the other hand, all of that allegory would be  
absolutely clear to the intended audience of Bach's time: the few in  
the court who would have actually heard it, seated as they were in  
hierarchical formation around the Margrave. But that is what the piece  
is about, as nearest as I can figure out.

We hear it in our own way, because we interpret it according to our  
own experience. Its modern use hasn't transcended its context- if  
anything, I think its been reduced- rather it has been repurposed,  
recreated to serve modern interests.  It is not the same piece of music.

>>  it failed as work of art because it insisted on being successful  
>> as a "game"


> For you. I have played MYST

So give me an interpretation/analysis of the game. Show me what I  
missed.

And I'm serious about the other question:

> What would you consider a game that is also a work or art in the
> "prophetic" sense, or where the deeper meaning of the work became of
> primary importance, though it would damage its success as a commodity?

Holy crap its late!! What the hell are idiots like TIm and I doing  
with our useless lives?

cheers
mg


Matthew Goodheart
composer ~ improviser ~ pianist
matthew at matthewgoodheart.com
http://matthewgoodheart.com