 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 14, 2019 - 8:38 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Rozsaphile
(Member)
|
Itz all just noise. 'Academics' like these have such a high opinion of themselves they decide for everyone else what's relevant and what goes into the book.
Alex Ross is not an "academic" at all. He works for the New Yorker, in the journalistic realm where good and lively writing is expected. Lots of people, including myself, have found him worth reading:
Alex Ross has been the music critic at The New Yorker since 1996. He writes about classical music, covering the field from the Metropolitan Opera to the contemporary avant-garde, and has also contributed essays on literature, history, the visual arts, film, and ecology. His first book, “The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century,” a cultural history of music since 1900, won a National Book Critics Circle award and the Guardian First Book Award and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. His second book, the essay collection “Listen to This,” won an ascap-Deems Taylor Award. He is now at work on “Wagnerism: Art in the Shadow of Music,” an account of the composer’s vast cultural impact. He has received a MacArthur Fellowship, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and an Arts and Letters Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's his prerogative to beat the dead horse again about how there is no originality in music. Admittedly, Horner is a good straw man for such an argument.
But it really is a lot of contemplation of navels. I've only been an active member on this board for a short while and already I notice a sort of existential crisis moving through some of these threads about "what makes such and such good and what makes such and such bad." It's human nature to define and categorize.
But obviously art--and really, pretty much anything-- is subjective and a lot of people have managed to make a pretty decent living by attempting to place their opinions above that simple truth. And, again, because we like to define and categorize, there will always be a market for critics.
Bottom line--originality has never been a yard stick for quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 14, 2019 - 11:08 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Itz all just noise. 'Academics' like these have such a high opinion of themselves they decide for everyone else what's relevant and what goes into the book. So sick of the ragging on James Horner.
Who but the author of a book should decide what goes into it? Isn't that his job?
And you can be as sick as you want about the ragging on James Horner, but the swipes he cites are legitimate. You can decide you don't care, or that the uncredited uses of others' music is artistically valid, or that it works anyway, or whatever you want, but you can't reasonably say that Ross's points are fake news.
Shiffy is right on this. And look, I have quite a few Horner scores, and I especially have a love of his earlier works. I feel like his passion was more of a fire perhaps up to the 90's, even when he was cribbing classical stuff. His later scores were always well made, but they fell into a heavy, though finely woven, pastiche-knitting of his own themes that existed for 30 years. For outsiders that are casual movie watchers, they could probably never know it, but the community of musicologists certainly knew what was going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 14, 2019 - 11:35 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
jkholm
(Member)
|
But obviously art--and really, pretty much anything-- is subjective and a lot of people have managed to make a pretty decent living by attempting to place their opinions above that simple truth. And, again, because we like to define and categorize, there will always be a market for critics.
That's a pretty objective statement about all art being subjective. :-)
While there are some aspects of art that are subjective, there are many qualities that both academics, critics and "regular" people have been using for centuries to judge the merits of individual works. It's why we still read Homer and Shakespeare. It's why we still listen to Bach and Beethoven. Time has proven that those works are not merely subjectively entertaining or moving, but that they have transcendental value. And originality is certainly a valid means of determining quality.
As for the Alex Ross book, it's one of my favorites. He is more than qualified to offer his opinions on classical music, even if he doesn't give as much time to film music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 14, 2019 - 11:55 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
But obviously art--and really, pretty much anything-- is subjective and a lot of people have managed to make a pretty decent living by attempting to place their opinions above that simple truth. And, again, because we like to define and categorize, there will always be a market for critics.
That's a pretty objective statement about all art being subjective. :-)
While there are some aspects of art that are subjective, there are many qualities that both academics, critics and "regular" people have been using for centuries to judge the merits of individual works. It's why we still read Homer and Shakespeare. It's why we still listen to Bach and Beethoven. Time has proven that those works are not merely subjectively entertaining or moving, but that they have transcendental value. And originality is certainly a valid means of determining quality.
.
Thank you for saying this better than I could.
That, "everyone's subjective opinion is valid" stuff, it's just pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
But obviously art--and really, pretty much anything-- is subjective and a lot of people have managed to make a pretty decent living by attempting to place their opinions above that simple truth. And, again, because we like to define and categorize, there will always be a market for critics.
That's a pretty objective statement about all art being subjective. :-)
While there are some aspects of art that are subjective, there are many qualities that both academics, critics and "regular" people have been using for centuries to judge the merits of individual works. It's why we still read Homer and Shakespeare. It's why we still listen to Bach and Beethoven. Time has proven that those works are not merely subjectively entertaining or moving, but that they have transcendental value. And originality is certainly a valid means of determining quality.
As for the Alex Ross book, it's one of my favorites. He is more than qualified to offer his opinions on classical music, even if he doesn't give as much time to film music.
I respectfully disagree. Like most of these discussions on the nature of art criticism, I think it all comes down to semantics. I would argue that Bach, Homer, etc are relevant and are objectively considered quality based off the fact that we still consume their works and still gain value from them despite the myriad of artists who followed their footsteps. However, that doesn't mean that they are good or bad, it merely means that they are liked. For every person that likes Homer, there may be another who prefers Virgil, etc. Again, it all comes down to how we define what is good or bad on a personal level. Originality is useful but it's not the only metric to use in determining value. I think that was the point in my OP but I got sidetracked trying to show how much I despise professional critics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But obviously art--and really, pretty much anything-- is subjective and a lot of people have managed to make a pretty decent living by attempting to place their opinions above that simple truth. And, again, because we like to define and categorize, there will always be a market for critics.
That's a pretty objective statement about all art being subjective. :-)
While there are some aspects of art that are subjective, there are many qualities that both academics, critics and "regular" people have been using for centuries to judge the merits of individual works. It's why we still read Homer and Shakespeare. It's why we still listen to Bach and Beethoven. Time has proven that those works are not merely subjectively entertaining or moving, but that they have transcendental value. And originality is certainly a valid means of determining quality.
.
Thank you for saying this better than I could.
That, "everyone's subjective opinion is valid" stuff, it's just pathetic.
I like what I like, you like what you like. That's not valid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 14, 2019 - 12:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
But obviously art--and really, pretty much anything-- is subjective and a lot of people have managed to make a pretty decent living by attempting to place their opinions above that simple truth. And, again, because we like to define and categorize, there will always be a market for critics.
That's a pretty objective statement about all art being subjective. :-)
While there are some aspects of art that are subjective, there are many qualities that both academics, critics and "regular" people have been using for centuries to judge the merits of individual works. It's why we still read Homer and Shakespeare. It's why we still listen to Bach and Beethoven. Time has proven that those works are not merely subjectively entertaining or moving, but that they have transcendental value. And originality is certainly a valid means of determining quality.
.
Thank you for saying this better than I could.
That, "everyone's subjective opinion is valid" stuff, it's just pathetic.
I like what I like, you like what you like. That's not valid?
I am not going down the rabbit hole on this. JKholm already very nicely explained it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.