Masters Degree (was:Wendy Carlos on meantone)

As a masters degree holder (in guitar) from, and teacher at, Juilliard, I
feel compelled to reply to the following comments made by Kraig Grady:

>Those with Masters degrees represent for the most part a
>group that produces no better music that any other

this is true. In any group one will find a preponderance of mediocrity and
incompetence, with a few outstanding examples of talent.

>and as a standard represents
>one of the greatest injustices in our socalled civilization.

this is a wee bit hyperbolic, don't ya think? Wouldn't the recent activities
of Milosovich and NATO be better qualified to be described this way?

>We are talking
>about individuals spending many times over 100,000 dollars

when I went to juilliard i received grants, a scholarship and student loans,
but the total was not anywhere near this

> on information and
>attitudes that are there only to justify there own existence.

i don't understand this. yes, learning music theory, ear training and
historical studies of periods in music history (in order to better
understand the music that one plays), helps to justify one's existence as a
musician. To me, one of the things that separates the serious artist from
the dilletante is a desire to study all aspects of ones art. you seem to be
implying that this is a negative thing.

>This is the same
>group that promoted pure ugliest as a standard.

what the fuck is this supposed to mean? I hate to say it but some of the
tuning experiments masquerading as pieces that i've heard in the past are
what come to mind when i think of "pure ugliest!" :-)

>It is music for an upper class
>to snub down to the lower classes.

bullshit. even Adorno wasn't this stupid. If anything, classical musicians
have their heads so in the clouds that they're not even aware there are
"lower classes" (as you so condecendingly put it) The converse may be truer:
most punk rock (and i play in a punk band) spends alot of its time trying to
snub the "establishment," which people like punk rockers perceive as the
cause of their dissatisfaction. Most of this falls under what Nietzsche
called "resentissment", that is, the natural resentment that losers feel
towards those who do something constructive with their lives.

>If not how could you afford it.

One of the programs i have taught in at juilliard is the Music Advancement
Program which is open to kids from inner city schools who come to juilliard
for lessons and classroom instruction for free.

The same is
>true of our art schools. If they all shut down I doubt if little would be
lost
>as they blood suck the youth and destroy any real creativity they had.
>Look what it did to Jazz.Killed it!

The "classicalization" of jazz cannot be blamed on schools, it results
instead from an apparent lack of Parkers and Coltrains currently incarnate
on this planet. Miles Davis may have snubbed his brief time studying at
juilliard, but im sure the theory he picked up while there came in handy.
His time there certainly did not "suck and destroy his creativity" because
he >had< creativity. What may compromise one's creativity is lack of
discipline, however.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is >alot< amiss in traditional "classical"
music education, most notably lack of improvisation. But anyone who allows
themselves to be limited by a narrow focus education has noone but
themselves to blame. No one approach or school will teach you everything. It
is up to the student to investigate all avenues. Schools like juilliard
attempt to keep alive a tradition of skillful music making which may at
times seem more like athleticism, but the bottom line is: those with musical
talent will play musically, and those that suck will suck no matter what you
teach them. At least you >can< teach people to play their instrument
skillfully, play the right notes, and count correctly when reading a score,
so those with talent will have the discipline necessary to develop that
talent and create polished art.

dante

Roast wrote:

> From: "Rosati" <dante@pop.interport.net>
>
> As a masters degree holder (in guitar) from, and teacher at, Juilliard, I
> feel compelled to reply to the following comments made by Kraig Grady:
>
> >Those with Masters degrees represent for the most part a
> >group that produces no better music that any other
>
> this is true. In any group one will find a preponderance of mediocrity and
> incompetence, with a few outstanding examples of talent.
>
> >and as a standard represents
> >one of the greatest injustices in our socalled civilization.
>
> this is a wee bit hyperbolic, don't ya think? Wouldn't the recent activities
> of Milosovich and NATO be better qualified to be described this way?

I'll stand corrected on this one

>
>
> >We are talking
> >about individuals spending many times over 100,000 dollars
>
> when I went to juilliard i received grants, a scholarship and student loans,
> but the total was not anywhere near this

I suggest you see what It cost to go to Cal Arts, USC, or Art Center. Maybe
this is just a california Situation.
$120,000 for a B.A. of which less than 50% is subsidized by grants.

>
>
> > on information and
> >attitudes that are there only to justify there own existence.

That what makes a piece of music great is 1) found in only those elements than
can be analyzed 2) its historical innovation in example being the first. With 1
we find the subject of melody suppressed to harmony and with 2 we have only
those elements picked up by others usually there immediate peers. This came to
its greatest flowering with serial music in that it was the most analyzable
style at the time, regardless of the sound. By promoting this style the justify
them teaching such nonsense!

> i don't understand this. yes, learning music theory, ear training and
> historical studies of periods in music history (in order to better
> understand the music that one plays), helps to justify one's existence as a
> musician.

All this is limited to European music for the most part. When including music
of other cultures you can be sure that they are paid way less that their
european counterparts

> To me, one of the things that separates the serious artist from
> the dilletante is a desire to study all aspects of ones art.

agreed

> you seem to be
> implying that this is a negative thing.

I'm saying they don't teach all aspects

>
>
> >This is the same
> >group that promoted pure ugliest as a standard.

Serialism and related number games!

>
>
> what the fuck is this supposed to mean? I hate to say it but some of the
> tuning experiments masquerading as pieces that i've heard in the past are
> what come to mind when i think of "pure ugliest!" :-)

I agree that alot of this old wine (the above) has been put in these new
bottles.

>
>
> >It is music for an upper class
> >to snub down to the lower classes.
>
> bullshit. even Adorno wasn't this stupid. If anything, classical musicians
> have their heads so in the clouds that they're not even aware there are
> "lower classes" (as you so condecendingly put it)

Its the same thing and that is is purpose. Not only are they a upper class but
also for the most part cultural isolationist!
At 75 dollars for a decent seat to a concert who can afford to go!

> The converse may be truer:
> most punk rock (and i play in a punk band) spends alot of its time trying to
> snub the "establishment," which people like punk rockers perceive as the
> cause of their dissatisfaction.

At least we can afford to see you play!

> Most of this falls under what Nietzsche
> called "resentissment", that is, the natural resentment that losers feel
> towards those who do something constructive with their lives.

Unfortunately I sent 8 years in 5 different colleges and I hope that is
constructive enough for you.

>
>
> >If not how could you afford it.
>
> One of the programs i have taught in at juilliard is the Music Advancement
> Program which is open to kids from inner city schools who come to juilliard
> for lessons and classroom instruction for free.

Chump change!

>
>
> The same is
> >true of our art schools. If they all shut down I doubt if little would be
> lost
> >as they blood suck the youth and destroy any real creativity they had.
> >Look what it did to Jazz.Killed it!
>
> The "classicalization" of jazz cannot be blamed on schools, it results
> instead from an apparent lack of Parkers and Coltrains currently incarnate
> on this planet. Miles Davis may have snubbed his brief time studying at
> juilliard, but im sure the theory he picked up while there came in handy.
> His time there certainly did not "suck and destroy his creativity" because
> he >had< creativity. What may compromise one's creativity is lack of
> discipline, however.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think there is >alot< amiss in traditional "classical"
> music education, most notably lack of improvisation. But anyone who allows
> themselves to be limited by a narrow focus education has no one but
> themselves to blame. No one approach or school will teach you everything. It
> is up to the student to investigate all avenues. Schools like juilliard
> attempt to keep alive a tradition of skillful music making which may at
> times seem more like athleticism, but the bottom line is: those with musical
> talent will play musically, and those that suck will suck no matter what you
> teach them. At least you >can< teach people to play their instrument
> skillfully, play the right notes, and count correctly when reading a score,
> so those with talent will have the discipline necessary to develop that
> talent and create polished art.

I'll agree with most of what you say here. This thread started with the idea of
the master degree being a universal standard. That to play an instrument
requires a certain type of training I'll go along with. But the money thing
with these schools is really out of hand and so I have to go for the throat,
after all They are refusing to give people information if they won't cough up
the dough. I'll agree there are libraries but even they are lacking. I don't
know one of the above schools that has anything by Bosanquet. Also lets take
Cardew, despite that we in the end lost him to politics, the man was more
influential than any schools will admit. An entire British movement has
developed out of both the Scratch Orchestra and his involvement with AMM. In
the experimental section of most record stores (out here) we find the direct
descendants Organum, Gavin Bryars (member of Scratch), and the next generation
of Eno,Hafler trio,
and countless others influences by all the above. This major movement occurs
without even a footnote in most universities text This is not music of an upper
class and so will be ignored since it inspires no conversations over tea!

>
>
> dante
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
www.anaphoria.com

Kraig Grady wrote:

> > > on information and
> > >attitudes that are there only to justify there own existence.
>
> That what makes a piece of music great is 1) found in only those elements than
> can be analyzed 2) its historical innovation in example being the first. With 1
> we find the subject of melody suppressed to harmony and with 2 we have only
> those elements picked up by others usually there immediate peers. This came to
> its greatest flowering with serial music in that it was the most analyzable
> style at the time, regardless of the sound. By promoting this style the justify
> them teaching such nonsense!
>
>[snip]
> >
> > >This is the same
> > >group that promoted pure ugliest as a standard.
>
> Serialism and related number games!
>

Be careful here--serialism is not a _style_ but rather a technique, or
procedure/process for organizing music. To say that serialism is a
style would be to lump the musics of Webern, Dallapicola, Berg,
Maxwell-Davies, (late) Stravinsky, Johnston, and (Keith) Emerson
together. That would be like lumping the fugues of Bach, Beethoven,
Bartok and Webern together; or the sonatas of Corelli, Mozart, Brahms,
Schnittke, Schoenberg, and Boulez. "Number games", as you put it, have
been a part of music since the very early Renaissance (or even ancient
Greece, for that matter--the Pythagorean tuning, as well as any tuning
system, could easily be characterized as a "number game"). The term
"number games" may be an accurate term for some composers' music (those
for whom theory comes first), but I would argue that the "number games"
you refer to are actually time honored techniques of variation for
creating highly organic music, which is not just a characteristic of
great Western Classical music (incl. Bach, Beethoven, Bartok,
Schoenberg, Maxwell-Davies, Crumb, Stravinsky, Sweelink, Messiaen, and
countless others) but also of musics elsewhere in the world, even
improvised music where a theme is varied through various manipulations
and glossings. Composers have always been looking for ways of
organizing their music, whether it be cantus firmus, fugue, dance forms,
the so-called sonata-allegro form, passacaglia, stochastic methods,
I-ching, dice, serialism, "controlled"-improvisation, total chance, but
it is the composer who, in the end, stamps his or her "style" on the
music.

In order for this message to not be completely off-topic I have a
question that relates serialism to Just Intonation. Not too long ago, I
heard a recording of Johnston's String Quartet No. 2, which as you may
or may not know is a serialized piece with a scale of 43(?) tones. More
accurately, the vertical intervals are serialized. Are there any good
references out there that deal with this sort of application of serial
techniques to the pitches/intervals of a Just Intonation tuned system?

Cheers,

Jon Southwood
noj@cedar-rapids.net

Jon Southwood wrote:

> Be careful here--serialism is not a _style_ but rather a technique, or
> procedure/process for organizing music. To say that serialism is a
> style would be to lump the musics of Webern, Dallapicola, Berg,
> Maxwell-Davies, (late) Stravinsky, Johnston, and (Keith) Emerson
> together. That would be like lumping the fugues of Bach, Beethoven,
> Bartok and Webern together; or the sonatas of Corelli, Mozart, Brahms,
> Schnittke, Schoenberg, and Boulez. "Number games", as you put it, have
> been a part of music since the very early Renaissance (or even ancient
> Greece, for that matter--the Pythagorean tuning, as well as any tuning
> system, could easily be characterized as a "number game"). The term
> "number games" may be an accurate term for some composers' music (those
> for whom theory comes first), but I would argue that the "number games"
> you refer to are actually time honored techniques of variation for
> creating highly organic music, which is not just a characteristic of
> great Western Classical music (incl. Bach, Beethoven, Bartok,
> Schoenberg, Maxwell-Davies, Crumb, Stravinsky, Sweelink, Messiaen, and
> countless others) but also of musics elsewhere in the world, even
> improvised music where a theme is varied through various manipulations
> and glossings. Composers have always been looking for ways of
> organizing their music, whether it be cantus firmus, fugue, dance forms,
> the so-called sonata-allegro form, passacaglia, stochastic methods,
> I-ching, dice, serialism, "controlled"-improvisation, total chance, but
> it is the composer who, in the end, stamps his or her "style" on the
> music.

I am referring to the process of number divorced from the ear. Take Elliot Carter
who is not a serialist and has done some things I have liked in the past. I can
think of few composers who scores are so easy to analyze as far as individual
instruments having set interval "personalities. Even knowing this I find it
impossible to hear these structures when I am listening. If I like such a piece it
is because of nothing to do with this structure! What happens a piece is successful
despite the lack of success of the composers intention! I have never really resolved
this one! What good is a Doomdays machine if you don't tell anyone about it. It is
true that other cultures use variation techniques of high complexity. Tabla
subdivisions come to mind and sometimes ,I hate to say it comes across as more
acrobatic than musical. I have seen and know of of too many composers who put the
notes down before they know the sound. In the case of Cage, I do believe though that
he was quite aware of what "chance" is and what the sound would be.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
www.anaphoria.com