Have no idea who these people are, and am not much wiser when I click on the links! So my answer is - whatever the girl says, cos girls is always right :)
3 of your 5 choices point towards a dicussion of movements, something that makes me fidget a bit. Nonetheless, as I can't resist tick box polls...
I answered "who?" for John Cage. I know Nic Cage and handful of Johns but no one of this particular combination. I thought maybe John Zorn but he's someone else.
John Cage is a composer and highly experimental - I think his most famous piece is probably 4'33" (where a musician sits still for that long and the only demarcation between "movements" is him/her fidgeting). I find a lot of it very interesting, but on the verge of what I would typically call music.
Cage did great things for percussion but even some of that leaves me going "bleh". The "Constructions" are nice. Three of them in total. Honestly don't know very many other works by him.
Duchamp really does nothing for me. The Wiki article has the picture of the Nude Descending the Staircase and that was kind of cool, but everything after that, who cares? It's a bicycle wheel on a barstool. Whoop-de-do. I could have done it and it wouldn't have been worth shit because I don't have a name for myself in the art world. So i guess he does nothing for me but make me angry that people will spend money for a urinal because he put it on a pedestal.
I've not heard a lot of Cage, but almost everything I have has been interesting in one way or another. I'm not sure that all of it is music per se, but I definitely see where he's going (or at least think I do).
I think the worst part of Duchamp was going to the Martian exhibit at the Barbican and seeing how many later artists took that as license to be totally and utterly stupid.
I'm with the marimba on Duchamp. In fact I almost wrote his second paragraph verbatim.
As for Cage, he is a necessary reference point. He wrote intellectual music that must be thought about for it to make sense. For some people that defeats the point of music, but that SHOULD NOT be the case for musicians, especially composers. Some of his music is over the top, some of it is mostly worthless.
It should also be remembered that every piece he ever wrote, he was paid for. He was being paid to write the music that he wrote and in many cases only wrote when he was under commission.
It should also be remembered that every piece he ever wrote, he was paid for. He was being paid to write the music that he wrote and in many cases only wrote when he was under commission.
See, I didn't know that. I guess once you make a big enough name for yourself, the rest starts to matter less? No idea what that means honestly, but it does shift the perspective of his work a bit.
You know, it's funny. Since coming here and being exposed to lots of different kinds of music (including the stuff that one is totally exhausted after listening to - oddly enough most of this in modern opera) I've started to appreciate some of the more complex stuff. Not that I think I could discuss it intelligently with a composer or other serious musician, but it has started to make sense in context.
Not that I like it, mind you, but at least it is interesting.
Duchamp - not interesting and utterly banal. And I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly where to draw that line.
Modern music (like modern art, classical music, sushi, haggis, etc) is an acquired taste. To really comprehend it fully you need a strong grounding in what was happening musically before WWI, between the wars and post WWII. You can do this either by studying ALOT or listening ALOT. The more you listen the more you understand. In one of my grad classes (taught by the 18th century music professor) this was described as the "stockholm syndrome" of modern music.
I suppose it is the music theorist in me that likes him so much. It's interesting enough to listen to, for short periods (kind of like Schoenberg), but it's so much more fun to try and analyze (kind of like Schoenberg).
I didn't notice there was a choice 'who?' because that's what I would have said for John Cage but having looked him up I do know who you mean! I'd heard of the 4,33 thing- in fact I seem to remember learning about him at The Tate Modern.
Yeah, somehow Cage and the Tate Modern sound like a perfect fit. So long as I don't have to spend too long with Duchamp at the same time of course. . .
Comments 17
Reply
Reply
I answered "who?" for John Cage. I know Nic Cage and handful of Johns but no one of this particular combination. I thought maybe John Zorn but he's someone else.
Duchamp - some of his stuff I like, some I don't.
Reply
Duchamp, totally not my thing.
Reply
Duchamp really does nothing for me. The Wiki article has the picture of the Nude Descending the Staircase and that was kind of cool, but everything after that, who cares? It's a bicycle wheel on a barstool. Whoop-de-do. I could have done it and it wouldn't have been worth shit because I don't have a name for myself in the art world. So i guess he does nothing for me but make me angry that people will spend money for a urinal because he put it on a pedestal.
Reply
I think the worst part of Duchamp was going to the Martian exhibit at the Barbican and seeing how many later artists took that as license to be totally and utterly stupid.
Reply
As for Cage, he is a necessary reference point. He wrote intellectual music that must be thought about for it to make sense. For some people that defeats the point of music, but that SHOULD NOT be the case for musicians, especially composers. Some of his music is over the top, some of it is mostly worthless.
It should also be remembered that every piece he ever wrote, he was paid for. He was being paid to write the music that he wrote and in many cases only wrote when he was under commission.
Reply
See, I didn't know that. I guess once you make a big enough name for yourself, the rest starts to matter less? No idea what that means honestly, but it does shift the perspective of his work a bit.
You know, it's funny. Since coming here and being exposed to lots of different kinds of music (including the stuff that one is totally exhausted after listening to - oddly enough most of this in modern opera) I've started to appreciate some of the more complex stuff. Not that I think I could discuss it intelligently with a composer or other serious musician, but it has started to make sense in context.
Not that I like it, mind you, but at least it is interesting.
Duchamp - not interesting and utterly banal. And I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly where to draw that line.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment