reality in art (was: Will I be able to finish Temperament?)

re: Isacoff's book _Temperament_

> From: jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 10:52 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Will I be able to finish Temperament?
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > It's real success is that he aims to amuse, and keep the reader
> > turning pages. It would be hard to counter, because the actual tuning
> > information content is stripped down to almost nothing.
>
> Bingo! And not unlike the liberties taken and motivations in the
> film "A Beautiful Mind". Entertainment trumps reality these days...

but why do you say "these days", Jon? "entertainment trumps reality"
has been a standard feature of opera since 1600.

i just read again recently (was it the New Yorker article about
Schoenberg?) the story about how Schoenberg's _Erwartung_ (which
i think is a stunning piece) has been so uncomfortable for many
audiences, because Schoenberg's actual music reflects uncannily
the madness of the protagonist; whereas in a typical opera where
the main character goes insane (Donizetti's _Lucia di Lamermoor_),
the audience is expected to suspend its perception of reality and
imagine all this tuneful music going along with the insanity.

i submit that this closer integration of music with actual emotions
is what Schoenberg achieved, and partly (due to the influence he's
had on modern music, especially film music) what makes us expect
movies and other art-forms to be so realistic, so that some of us
take it as an affront when we find that reality has been distorted
in order to achieve an artistic end.

seen in this light, Isacoff's work is nothing greater or lesser
than a successful piece of writing, which is the point Gene made.

what i think you and i -- and Gene and all rest of those who've
complained here -- find objectionable, is that we obviously feel
that a more factual story could have been told with just as much
entertainment. perhaps Partch did that already with _Genesis_?

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> but why do you say "these days", Jon? "entertainment trumps
reality"
> has been a standard feature of opera since 1600.

I mean these days because it becomes ever more omnipresent. Media
convergeance. Sport as entertainment (as marketing). The
Disneyfication of Times Square. A Starbucks in every pot, with custom
cd 'blends' of music designed to go with your latte'.

I stand by the statement that it is more prevalent than at times past.

No more Schoenberg, please.

> what i think you and i -- and Gene and all rest of those who've
> complained here -- find objectionable, is that we obviously feel
> that a more factual story could have been told with just as much
> entertainment.

I never said that. Frankly, I disagree: if you had made it more
factual, and got all the little details right, and inserted all those
various agendas, I'd wager that it would have had less chance to find
a publisher!

> perhaps Partch did that already with _Genesis_?

Hardly a comparison with Isacoff's book. Give it to 10 people who
know mostly nothing about music and see how far they get. Eyes will
glaze in no time at all.

I understand "Temperament" is flawed. I'm just calling for a reality
check is all...

Cheers,
Jon

hi Jon,

> From: jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:45 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: reality in art
> (was: Will I be able to finish Te>mperament?)
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> > but why do you say "these days", Jon? "entertainment trumps
> > reality" has been a standard feature of opera since 1600.
>
> I mean these days because it becomes ever more omnipresent.
> Media convergeance. Sport as entertainment (as marketing).
> The Disneyfication of Times Square. A Starbucks in every pot,
> with custom cd 'blends' of music designed to go with your latte'.
>
> I stand by the statement that it is more prevalent than at times past.

ok, well ... you've certainly made your point well there.
i agree with you 100%.

> No more Schoenberg, please.

what do you mean?

> > what i think you and i -- and Gene and all rest of those who've
> > complained here -- find objectionable, is that we obviously feel
> > that a more factual story could have been told with just as much
> > entertainment.
>
> I never said that. Frankly, I disagree: if you had made it more
> factual, and got all the little details right, and inserted all those
> various agendas, I'd wager that it would have had less chance to find
> a publisher!

well that's the art of making the big splash -- keeping enough
detail to make it really interesting but leaving out enough
so that it doesn't become a textbook.

> > perhaps Partch did that already with _Genesis_?
>
> Hardly a comparison with Isacoff's book. Give it to 10 people who
> know mostly nothing about music and see how far they get. Eyes will
> glaze in no time at all.

i should have been more specific: "... with the last
part of _Genesis_, the "Thumbnail Sketch of the History
of Intonation".

yes, i didn't mean _Genesis_ including all the dense
rational math.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Joe,

You were supposed to read msg 35158 to see how dated what you replied
to was (gad, what a bad sentence...).

Nonetheless,

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> > No more Schoenberg, please.
>
> what do you mean?

Oh, just hoping he doesn't become the reason for everything. I think
I'm on A.S.-overload right now. That said, you owe it to yourself to
read the Woody Allen piece in this week's New Yorker: I swear to god,
it looks like he wrote it for you - a musical based in Vienna
centered around Mahler, Schoenberg, Freud, you name it. Hilarious!

> yes, i didn't mean _Genesis_ including all the dense
> rational math.

I see. I still get the impression these two books are universes
apart, both in intent and thrust.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34832.html#35157

> Hardly a comparison with Isacoff's book. Give it to 10 people who
> know mostly nothing about music and see how far they get. Eyes will
> glaze in no time at all.
>
> I understand "Temperament" is flawed. I'm just calling for a
reality check is all...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

****I agree with Jon here. Regrettably, _Temperament_ is
entertainingly and engagingly written. I've been reading more of
it. I say, "regettable" of course, because of the shoddy scholarship
and point of view.

However, it's not that easy to write entertainingly. Those of you
who think you can easily do it, please send me a writing sample.

It's like Irving Berlin or Richard Rodgers. Some of the stuff is
simple, but does that mean there is no talent there? Or the Beatles?

They have more talent than *many* trained contemporary composers who
can read music. (Well Rodgers read music but the other's didn't)

I'm really not defending Isacoff, since the book is pernicious. I'm
just pointing to *writing talent* and it's obviously there, and it's
why the book is a success, regrettably.

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34832.html#35173

> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_34832.html#35157
>
> > Hardly a comparison with Isacoff's book. Give it to 10 people who
> > know mostly nothing about music and see how far they get. Eyes
will
> > glaze in no time at all.
> >
> > I understand "Temperament" is flawed. I'm just calling for a
> reality check is all...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
>
> ****I agree with Jon here. Regrettably, _Temperament_ is
> entertainingly and engagingly written. I've been reading more of
> it. I say, "regettable" of course, because of the shoddy
scholarship
> and point of view.
>
> However, it's not that easy to write entertainingly. Those of you
> who think you can easily do it, please send me a writing sample.
>
> It's like Irving Berlin or Richard Rodgers. Some of the stuff is
> simple, but does that mean there is no talent there? Or the
Beatles?
>
> They have more talent than *many* trained contemporary composers
who
> can read music. (Well Rodgers read music but the other's didn't)
>
> I'm really not defending Isacoff, since the book is pernicious.
I'm
> just pointing to *writing talent* and it's obviously there, and
it's why the book is a success, regrettably.
>
> jp

****An offlist commentator, who will remain nameless, has suggested
to me that, possibly, I might read the entire Isacoff book before
offering my assessment that it is "pernicious..."

That seems like a reasonable thought to me :) so I retract my
previous commentary.

(Not about the "writing talent" though, since I can see that already
in the first three chapters...which is all I have read so far)

jp