The Music of the Spheres, or the Metaphysics of Music

ISI.ORG ^ | Fall 2001 | Robert R. Reilly

[cornelis]

Interesting and readable, although it says nothing about the popularity of music which incites negatively. Of course, music is most influential when it is not entirely bad; it would hardly be popular in an absolute style for very long. Cage is not played on the radio.

[Savage Beast]

Oh I don't know. Every time I hear 4'33" it gives me goosebumps--radio or not.

[aristotleman]

The understanding of higher musical structures is not easily achievable. It takes a lot of sophisticated training to understand the modern art musical universe. That's why modern music is not easily accepted by wide audiences. Cage was sound experimenting more than composing, he was an important historical figure, but not even composers listen to his music often.

[cornelis]

LOL.

Our choir sang a Biebl piece and there is a certain individual who inevitably had to "break the silence" with a silly question after the last chord rings out.

[cornelis]

We can say that art, musical or pictoral, has two kinds of expression: the hieratic and the demotic. One is characterized by increasing complexity of order, the other a decreasing complexity. If we stretch the poles further, beyond the demotic there is the avant-garde and beyond the demotic there is propaganda. It probably is true that all great art is neither of these extremes, but mixture of the demotic and hieratic.

[cornelis]

sorry, beyond the hieratic

[Risky Schemer]

Like Rousseau's man in the state of nature, Cage said, "I strive toward the non-mental."

Mission accomplished.

[Senator Pardek]

Interesting, but this essay is wanting.

Pythagorean tuning is woefully lacking. Bach's 24 Well Tempered Clavier pieces laid the groundwork for transposing a melody in a single composition.

The "twelfth root of two" is the best you'll get - and it's a sad metaphor for our Nation...

[cornelis]

It takes a lot of sophisticated training to understand the modern art musical universe.

There is a nice piece by Ortega Y Gasset on this subject in The Dehumanization of Art:

Every work of art awakens different responses: some people like it, others do not; some like it less, others more. No principle is involved: the accident of our individual disposition will decide where we stand. But in the case of modern art the separation occurs on a deeper plane than the mere difference sin individual taste. It is not a matter of the majority of the public not liking the new work and the minority liking it. What happens is that the majority, the mass of the people, does not understand it.

In my opinion, the characteristic of contemporary art 'from the soiological point of view' is that it divides the public into these two classes of men: those who undertand it and those who do not. . .

Modern art, evidently, is not for everybody, as was Romantic art, but from the outset is aimed at a special, gifted minority. Hence the irritation it arouses in the majority. When someone does not like a work of art, but has understood it, he feels superior to it and has no room for irritation. But when distate arises from the fact of its not having been understood, then the spectator feels humiliated, with an obscure awareness of his inferiority for which he must compensate by an indignant assertion of himself.

[aristotleman]

I find it extremely difficult to combine the two in our era. The abundance of musical styles and opinions make it hard to find the mean. Personally I compose music that is not avant-garde, but is harsh and complex. Hard to make popular. No need to.

[cornelis]

He essayed discord etc.

Even Joe Montana listens to Bach

[cornelis]

No need to

Well, there's always the stoic's ephemeral hope for immortality.

[Senator Pardek]

LOL - have you ever heard Western Music that does not change keys played in tunings where 4ths and 5ths match? Like Butta.

There's a number of chamber groups out there that specialize in that.

[John H K]

Here's my mystery (was actually thinking about this tonight, before I read the article.)

Why does Asian music, well, SUCK?

I mean, here you have a grouping of sophisticated cultures, whose food, art, and philosophy have been beloved and sought after all over the world by other cultures.

But even ASIANS don't like Asian music...only thing that seems remotely tolerable are the Japanese guys with the big-assed drums. But that cymbally Chinese stuff is horrible, etc.

But many Asians have demonstrated tremendous music talent...in Western classical music, etc.

NOBODY outside of Asia seeks out and listens to Asian music though...but African music, Carribean music, Western Classical, American rock, etc....is sought after and enjoyed around the world.

What went terribly wrong? Is it like the English and food?

[Ken H]

There's nothing like the Lone Ranger Overture to get the adrenaline going!

Hi-yo Silver!

[driftless]

Cage was a charlatan who proved once again that some things are so stupid only intellectuals believe them. My belief is that Cage knew early on that he lacked any musical aptitude but like legions before wished to be famous. How then to gain fame? Why by concocting his "music" system and gaining the praise of all sorts of screwball avant-garde music critics who also wished to be famous. Cage, Schoenberg, and others like them are musical frauds and dead-ends like (c)rap "music".

[aristotleman]

I can see why you would say that about Cage, I think similarly, often. He didn't think of himself as much of a musician though. He was experimenting with the boundaries of sound, music and perception and never claimed he was trying to create beauty or ugliness. All of that experimenting is gone now, few composers are still interested in "pushing the envelope". Now there are those who try to blend styles in order to be fashionable, there's the purists clinging to ideas that used to be creative, most are charlatans IMO.

[twigs]

That's actually not true. My husband hired a Chinese professor to teach in his department last year and his wife has become a close friend. I sometimes accompany them as they explore the area. They LOVE Asian music and play it all the time in the car!

[xp38]

:) William Tell sends his regards.

[Savage Beast]

Many things of great quality are not understood, not just art. Some never are ("full many a flower" etc. etc.). Moby Dick was unappreciated for years. Much of Bach's greatest music was used for fish-wrap and lost forever. Van Gogh sold a room full of paintings for about 25 bucks.

I couldn't see what was so great about Huck Finn until I read Tom Abshur's very good book, Men and the Goddess, and he explained it to me. Huck immediately surpassed d'Artagnan as my favorite fictional character.

I read The Sound and the Fury four times, and I still didn't know what the hell was going on. When I read Falkner's explanation, I was more confused than ever. Then one night at a party at my sister's house, I met a woman, a friend of hers, who taught Falkner in college. I said to her, "You're not leaving here tonight until you tell me what that damn thing is about." For the next hour and a half we sat on the sofa, and she explained it in great detail and answered my questions. Then when I reread it, it was as clear as crystal. (But I was so depressed I wished I'd never found out.) (I am in love with Caddie Compson though. So was Falkner.)

I've got James Joyce's Ulysses in the book case next to me right now. Who knows? Maybe some day I'll tackle that.

It's a good thing The Renaissance didn't depend on me, isn't it?

It's comforting to know that one's coming and departure will be noted no more than the sea's self shall note a pebble into the waters cast. It's a lot more fun being a lazy slob than being responsible for--say--The Renaissance.