The Art Of Serious Composition

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What do you think about this...

"One of the prominent features of post-modernism lies in the use of collage in composition. This technique relies upon a gathering together of seeming-diverse sounds, patterns, styles, etc. in a soup of mixed effects. However, this ‘solution’ is really a refusal to choose. If one believes that one may escape the grueling demands of original work by hiding from disciplined choice behind that which has gone before, the art of serious composition need proceed no further. One may as well say, "I give the responsibility for original work to someone else. I can entertain listeners without it."

From an article recommended to me by someone in the same circle as one of my music tutors next year.

― TomB (TomB), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)

I think that's pretty ass-backwards.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think such compositions reflect "a refusal to choose." Am I being too literal about this? Ultimately, refusing to choose is not possible. It's perfectly understandable that composers would write in a way that reflects the enormous variety of music we are now aware of. There are probably a lot of criticisms that could be made of such compositions--a lot of these soups do sound like crap--but these particular points don't make much sense.

― Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 16 June 2004 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!"

Wow, I never knew Geddy Lee was a post-modernist!

― Apostrophe Catastrophe (kate), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it's a pretty terrible analysis. It amounts to the same argument that says hip hop doesn't take talent if there are no live instruments. To refuse to call collages "original works" is a bit lazy and close-minded. When was this article written? It seems that this topic should be pretty well mined by now.

It seems like the writer of your paragraph would be into the modernists, as I suspect his theory ties in with an art-for-art's-sake line of thinking. De-valueing collage allows you to ignore culture influence.

― JC-L (JC-L), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 14:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, is this the article?

http://www.futureofmodernmusic.com/article-3.html

Some of it's above me, but I get the sense that the intro just sets up a polemic for his own argument to respond to.

Something about this statement makes me put my guard up:

"Entertainment is good in its appropriate context; but only research and teaching can elevate art making to a lofty status."

― JC-L (JC-L), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 15:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Is this truly a post-modernist perspective anyway? Does she/he mean "post-modern" as in after the modernist movement or what criticism would consider "post-modernism"? I confused.

Either way, like others I think this is relatively an out-dated way of thinking.. Variations on a theme anyone?

ALthough I do admit to the predisposition to regard collages as suspect and devoid of intent. But that is my bias.

― nothingleft (nothingleft), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 17:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd lump into that vague concept of post-modernism. Collage is generally viewed as such, even though modernists (at least writers) were heading that direction.

― JC-L (JC-L), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 18:03 (twenty-two years ago)

it is always disconcerting for any generation when it comes time to be thoughtlessly consumed by its own children, and if one has enough spare time during the process, that person is certainly within rights to sit down and write a book complaining about it

he names worthy heroes, but if Scelsi's the most recent person he feels safe championing, though, I'd say he should go out and start buying some more records.

― (Jon L), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 18:12 (twenty-two years ago)

If one believes that one may escape the grueling demands of original work by hiding from disciplined choice behind that which has gone before, the art of serious composition need proceed no further.

typically confused critic. for artist a, the craftsman, the art of serious composition has largely been worked out, and by following its rules and adding a bit of personality, adequate results can be had. for artist b, the modernist, the historical rules of the art are constraining, and must be pushed against or broken down entirely in order to entertain his more rarified audience [or just satisfy himself]. for artist c, the postmodernist, the art of serious composition need proceed no further, and he may successfully entertain his audience/buyers with clever collage, borrowing, digging into culture to bring the obscure to light, etc..

― mig (mig), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 19:34 (twenty-two years ago)

one of those is QUANTITATIVELY BETTER than the others
and they can NEVER BE MIXED

― common_person (common_person), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 19:53 (twenty-two years ago)

like beer and skittles

― JC-L (JC-L), Friday, 18 June 2004 18:54 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.