reviewing other's works

First of all, I was honored to be on Lumma's essential list...thanks
a zillion. On the subject of using colorful words to describe people's
art, I don't have a problem with that...growing up in St. Louis, I
learned really funky talk at a tender age, and I still can use it
fluently. When Lumma says something sucks, I think I get the
picture...he reallyreally doesn't like it...pretty simple. On that
subject, here's a quote from Miles Davis's autobiography, where he's
talking about opening for the Steve Miller band (p 301)..."Anyway, Steve
Miller didn't have shit going for him, so I'm pissed because I got to
open for this non playing motherfucker just because he had one or two
sorry assed records out." Miles was definitely one of the 20th century's
greatest musicians, and was extremely intelligent, but talked that St.
Louis street talk really well...his critique of Miller is pretty
straightforward, I would say, and doesn't need any sort of explanation
to understand it. On p. 102, he also refers to Bird as "outrageous," and
a "bad motherfucker"...again, I understand what he's saying...he thinks
he's a great musician.
I think when one critiques another's work, it doesn't matter if you
like it or not...the important thing, for me, is to leave personality
out of it. I have had friends tell me point blank that they did not
certain pieces of mine....but, who cares, because they were not saying
they didn't like me as a human...who I am as a human was not the issue.
I don't care if someone likes my music, because we are all different
emotionally and spiritually, and I don't think for a minute that my view
of music will be identical to everyone else's...mutual respect is the
key when reviewing someone's art. With the forum CD, it was interesting
to me how some of the pieces that I did not care for, were other
people's favorites...that's life.
On the subject of critiques, I did not care for Terry Riley's music
the first time I heard it (about 1971)...it was a Rainbow in Curved Air.
I heard Shri Camel, and didn't like it either...no biggie, I'm sure he's
a fine feller, but it ain't my type of music. Again, who cares...for all
you folks who do like it, you have your reasons. I only have a problem
when musical criticism degenerates into personal attacks...that's a nono
in my book. For the most part, the forum has been a pretty peaceful
place, and I have a lot of respect for most of the participants, even if
we don't see eye to eye on personal likes and dislikes...that's what
makes life interesting...Hstick

> On the subject of using colorful words to describe people's
> art, I don't have a problem with that...

On that subject, I'd like to recommend a book that, despite its rather
dry, scholarly-sounding title, is really a screaming riot to read. I'm not
sure if it's still being printed, but its entitled, "Lexicon of Musical
Invective" by Nicklaus Slonimsky, on the University of Washington press.
It is a collection of scathing reviews by contemporaries of what are now
considered *classic* works of musical art. I especially enjoy the quotes
about Beethoven. One that I can't forget goes something like,

There is much to admire in Beethovens "heroic" symphony, but it
is difficult to keep up such admiration for three long quarters
of an hour. If it is not somehow abridged, it will soon fall
into disuse.

BZZZZZZZZZTT! Wrongola.

My paperback Slonimsky Lexicon dates to 1990 & I believe I've seen it on
the stands recently. Gary is absolutely right... I would add that it's a
one-volume lesson in humility for those who are quick to judge the
creations and tastes of others simply on the basis of their own personal
creations and tastes, no matter how unquestionably refined and brilliant
the latter. Here's a brilliant London reviewer from 1856:

"In certain of Dr. Schumann's Variations for two pianofortes, the
harmonies are so obtrusively crude that no number of wrong notes would be
detected by the subtlest listener."

[Perhaps the pianos weren't properly tuned ;-)]

For me there are two kinds of critiques (and I enjoy both very much, but
for different reasons). These are characterized in the following quotes
(only a few of the thousands).

1. Random (and usually ignorant) mud-slinging -- sometimes called by its
technical term "food fight":
"... negative criticism, because it lacks generative power, is
wrong ninety times out of a hundred...." (Schoenberg) [Of course AS slung
some mud of his own, but *usually* it was defensive mud]
"... the tried and tested cliches for the tried and tested
feelings" (Adorno)
"You are like a porcupine. When that animal has its spines erect,
it cannot eat. If you do not eat, you will starve. And your prickles
will die with the rest of your body" (said by Conchis in Fowles' The
Magus)

2. Generative criticism (a gourmet food fight?):
"... the aim of the critic, beyond that of saying what he thinks,
is to make two thoughts grow where only one grew before" (Jacques Barzun
in Science: The Glorious Entertainment)

By the way, I thought that "sucks" went out of style after it was
appropriated by Ross Perot?

--Steve

Stephen Soderberg
Music Division
Library of Congress
ssod@loc.gov

On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Gary Morrison wrote:

> From: Gary Morrison <mr88cet@texas.net>
>
> > On the subject of using colorful words to describe people's
> > art, I don't have a problem with that...
>
> On that subject, I'd like to recommend a book that, despite its rather
> dry, scholarly-sounding title, is really a screaming riot to read. I'm not
> sure if it's still being printed, but its entitled, "Lexicon of Musical
> Invective" by Nicklaus Slonimsky, on the University of Washington press.

In reply to Gary Morrison and Stephen Soderberg
First I would like to point out that Slonimsky was my first teacher
and have been familiar with the work you seem to quote. Frankly I find
it interesting to hear peoples likes and dislikes, after all it is a
free country and such knowledge in insightful to who they are. No one is
saying that their opinions are objective facts. That Paul Erlich for
instance doesn't like Terry Riley I find interesting in that he is the
first one I have met that doesn't. This changes my assumptions about
everyone else. Paul and I agree on practically nothing yet I understand
his view point and the merit of that viewpoint.
I bring up the Tenney mainly because I think it was a fraud. Maybe
someone out there will correct me which I wish they could. Maybe there
were no rehearsals, who knows. That we should not use the work "sucks"
because Ross Perot made it fashionable is illogical in that there
wouldn't be any words left that l Hitler hadn't used. On the other hand
, if we have individuals who won't express their opinions then maybe
they are the same way with their music, and the schools are filled with
this !
-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
www.anaphoria.com

The thesaurus of melodic scales is the only book I have read by the Master
Slonimsky. Well not really read bu t studied. I also am pretty sure he
coined the term Pan-diatonicism in reference to Igor. But maybe instead of
criticism we simplify and use terms "This Sucks" or This does not Suck".
When referring to peoples art or life work.

Kraig Grady wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
> to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
> select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

Patrick Pagano wrote:

> From: Patrick Pagano <ppagano@bellsouth.net>
>
> The thesaurus of melodic scales is the only book I have read by the Master
> Slonimsky.

This book is the reason I went to him in the first place. I had discovered
the book because Coltrane used it for practice and ideas. I was into Coltrane
at the time.I don't advocate sucks or doesn't suck but sometimes it fits with
what else is being said!

> -- Kraig Grady

> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island

www.anaphoria.com

Kraig Grady wrote,

>That Paul Erlich for
>instance doesn't like Terry Riley I find interesting in that he is the
>first one I have met that doesn't. This changes my assumptions about
>everyone else. Paul and I agree on practically nothing yet I understand
>his view point and the merit of that viewpoint.

I never said I don't like Terry Riley! You must be confusing me with
Neil Haverstick. In fact I said I wish I had the record but only have
the sleeve for Shri Camel. I don't think I've ever heard any Terry
Riley, although I know his "Rainbow in Curved Air" is considered almost
as influential as "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" on the
progressive movement. My comment about minimalism is based mainly on
Glass, Young, and other composers whose names I forget.

>I bring up the Tenney mainly because I think it was a fraud.

Has anyone heard his piece for 6 harps in 72-tET (near enough 11-limit
JI)? I read about this in Perspectives of New Music and it sounded
interesting.

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:

> I never said I don't like Terry Riley! .

Sorry If I misunderstood you. Riley I think stands apart from the others in
his great counterpuntal skill as well of avoiding the pitfalls of
predetermined repetition.

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