Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!uflorida!mephisto!gatech!artsnet!mgresham
From: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: Do you have to be a Musician to enjoy Mu
Message-ID: <882@artsnet.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jul 90 16:40:47 GMT
References: <15069018:49:52KRW1@lehigh.bitnet> <1990Jun17.043120.14077@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Reply-To: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Organization: ARTSNET  Atlanta, GA  USA
Lines: 75

In article <1990Jun17.043120.14077@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
=In article <15069018:49:52KRW1@lehigh.bitnet> KRW1@Lehigh writes:
=>I think that any art form eleveted to a high enough
=>intellectual level that it is no longer accessible to the untrained
=>ear/eye/etc becomes a SCIENCE, not an art.
=
=Firstly:
=	- There are no untrained ears. If you have some idea of what
=	  music is and is not, consider yourself trained.
=	- When I listen to Cage's Variations II, I don't think
=	  about science.
=
=What you seem to be saying is that if a work of art is too high-
=falootin' inaccessible to *you* (alias "the untrained ear"), then it
=ain't Art. And you complain of arrogance?
=
=[...]
=
=As a bonus, here's a simple two-step process for acquiring a taste
=for Difficult Music:
=
=	1) forget about music
=	2) listen

Back up a bit, Peter!  Did you miss a piece of the discussion
earlier?  I think you two agree more than not.  That response was
to a poster whos essentially said (and I paraphrase through my
understanding of it) that if you DON'T have a certain INTELLECTUAL
understanding of music (which, I surmise, meant an embracing of
one PARTICULAR KIND of intellectual dismemberment of music) then
the listener would be incapable of having a meaningful (valid)
emotional experience from listening to music, nor to be able to
have a credible opinion as to whether it even is or isn't music.

Well, if your mention of Cage is any indication, I suspect you'll
find that you and I agree on the two-step process.  (Though I
don't think a lot of people understand what is meant by "forget
about music" when they read that.)  I think the person you
responed to is trying to say, "Let simply listen and respond" to
pop music or whatever, but has fallen into the trap of accepting
the "purity of intellect" argument that you can only properly
respond to complex/difficult music if you have a thorough
understanding of the music's structure.

I think the best response to this person is to say, "It's fine to
listen to so-called complex music and respond to it without having
to validate that response with a written test on knowledge of its
structure, and that doesn't make you a sub-human."

I also think it's worthwhile to point out that reasonable amount
of pop/ethnic music is "complex" but in ways that are different
from the criteria laid down by a certain narrow point of view
found in certain corners of western art music.  (And these corners
are becoming smaller; and no, it does not signify the demise of
so-called western art.)  And, BTW, some of the best in western
art music isn't necessarily so complex and exclusive as certain
'proprieters of art' would like us to believe.  And some of the
best *is* quite complex, likewise, and more than those same
'proprieters of art' would like us to believe.  (No, not a
contraadiction.)

Best to repeat part 2 of your suggestion to all:

Listen.


Cheers,

--Mark

========================================
Mark Gresham  ARTSNET  Norcross, GA, USA
E-mail:       ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham
or:          artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu
========================================