More from "Two New Hours" list (not all were friendly on this topic).


-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	[2NH] Commercial vs Art Music
Date:	Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:31:35 -0700
From:	Monart Pon <monart@...>
To:	Discussion list focusing on new concert music. <twonewhours@...>

One of the topics discussed here, following the announcement a few weeks ago about CONCERTO OF DELIVERANCE by John Mills-Cockell, was about the division or distinction between commercial and art (non-commercial) music. That the distinction exists is significant in understanding the state of truth, beauty, and justice in the modern music culture.
What makes music "commercial" and what makes it "art"? Is the key distinction found in their differences of popularity? Or differences, too, in complexity, intelligence, craftsmanship, originality, authenticity...? Who is to judge? By what standards of truth (and beauty) are the judgments based? Can (and should) appreciation of "fine" art be taught and encouraged? Does art music have to be non-popular and non-commercial? Is it possible for music to be both artistic and popular? (e.g., Dvorak's?) Is popular music commercially successful because it is truly enjoyed by many people, or is it just that they are fooled, or don't know otherwise (or don't care to)? To make art music popular: does it just take expensive commercial advertising? How can one be sure that such investment will pay back? Can people's music comprehension and preferences be improved? Must art musicians do it only for love, not money? How could they not feel the ambivalence? How many art musicians stop before
they start? How many struggle on, embittered by years of discouragement and lack of recognition, even turning away from their own kind? How many others prefer to maintain the commercial/artistic distinction, as a form of elitism and cloak for their mediocrity?
These are hard questions, and just a few basic ones. Appended below is a concrete example, asking: What are the differences between, say, a forum like this one, and the ones at MTV.com? One difference is this: the same CONCERTO OF DELIVERANCE announcement I had posted here was banned at MTV, shortly after it appeared there. Is the commercial/artistic dichotomy at work here? Or just random negligence or prejudice? Their quoting of the "Guidelines" aren't much help. (Interestingly, the MuchMusic forums have not removed the announcement yet.)
- Monart
___________________________________________________
-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: [2NH] Commercial vs Art Music
Date:	Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:33:37 -0700
From:	Shane <officech513@...>
To:	Discussion list focusing on new concert music. <twonewhours@...>

I was reading through this set of quoted correspondence and suddenly... the "MTV red flag" came up. In all honesty, it is very difficult to take much of what is happening in the film and telelvision industry seriously. When it comes to generating imagery that is powerful enough to actually sustain on screen, most of the people that make the stuff are incapable of doing it. It is really strange. It seems that the general broadcast school mantra is: "circus, circus.. all the time." Try it... watch some video work (of any kind) on television... and count as if you are a "shot clock". If you find a still image, I will be shocked. To be fair, a "static" moving image that is longer than 2-3 seconds would surprise me.

Think about it: watch ESPN. Watch a "talking head" segment. How many things are moving on screen other than the anchor's lips? Well, lots of things. The crawl, some wavy stuff over his left shoulder, some other sort of cross-fade composite bumper circus over his right... It's weird man. It's like they just can't stand it! "VTR... cross-fade to camera two, overlay the tape segment, have the hand-held guy flip is camera around so that it's jumpy... get something happening!" You know? Hey baby, where's the haupstimme? It certainly can't be what the anchor is reading off the teleprompter.

" What makes music "commercial" and what makes it "art"? Is the key distinction found in their differences of popularity? Or differences, too, in complexity, intelligence, craftsmanship, originality, authenticity...? Who is to judge? By what standards of truth (and beauty) are the judgments based? Can (and should) appreciation of "fine" art be taught and encouraged? Does art music have to be non-popular and non-commercial?"

To be fair, I know an awful lot of composers that can't describe the composition of a visual image... even though they are composers. I know a lot of composers that don't look at other art forms, at all. How strange is that? For example, here is a (very compressed) visual image. There's a big mistake in it and I left it there... and no, it is not because it is upside down.

____________________________________________



-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: [2NH] Commercial vs Art Music
Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:06:25 -0500
From:	Christien Ledroit <chris@...>
To:	Discussion list focusing on new concert music. <twonewhours@...>