This is Part 1 of a post which I made the other night – then de-posted because I sensed that my intent was not clear. That was confirmed later. My ponderings seem to relate to those of Chris and Mike. Part II will follow soon.
Each of us came into this class with a unique aesthetic filter developed over years and which continues to evolve – the lens through which we see, hear, and experience the world around us – and which influences our aesthetic response to and “judgment” of the music we have listened to during this class. The music we heard in our homes, the types of art we saw, the ideas and thoughts shared, the general world view of our larger and smaller cultural circles, spiritual and religious practices, our elementary school background,* middle and high school background, early personal musical experiences, later musical experiences, undergraduate musical experiences and music exposure, the musical tastes of our friends – and the list of influences could go on and on. The list would be different for each of us. We attempted to discuss this early on specifically in regard to Charles Ives – and what in his background influenced his compositional voice.
There may be some of us who grew up in areas similar to what was referred to in class Tuesday as a “cultural desert.” [I would like to be on record as saying I do not subscribe to the idea that one culture is superior to another – or that a lack of particular influences which may be deemed by some as “higher” than others marks a given culture as being “drier” than another. I believe it marks it as being different. I do, however, believe in cultural sharing – which is how so much of the music we have listened to developed.] In other words, we may not have had exposure to a wide variety of musical styles, visual art styles, theater, etc. As conservative as my home was in some ways, my parents gave my sister and I an incredibly varied artistic environment. We also grew up around people from all over the world so were exposed to their music and art from a young age.
Most of us probably spent time with a standard music history text and anthology focused on The Canon – being guided in what makes “representative” music. I do not think any of us would have chosen to take this class if we did not have filters which allow our taste to stretch and take in new and varied music. It could be possible that some of us felt we needed or wanted to consciously expand and adjust our filters. However, there will be some sounds which some of our filters will reject as being sounds we are not currently in need of hearing again any time soon. Throughout this semester, I have wondered from time to time which of the pieces we have listened to will be adopted into The Canon as representational of what are now current trends – which pieces will endure the “test of time.”
I do know that the more I have listened to music representational of the various styles and composers we have been exposed to this semester, the more my own aesthetic filter is open to accepting as music I “like.” Some of the music we have listened to, I appreciate on a level other than “like” – and feel no qualms about that. When I was little, I did not like broccoli; I like it now. I do not anticipate “liking” Brussels sprouts anytime soon – even though I might eat them sometime because I know they are good for me. I hesitate to say, however, that I will never like them. “Never” is a dangerous word.
*I grew up in a "Dewey"-influenced school where the arts were integral to our daily routine. We had pianos in every classroom and sang every day. We drew our own pictures to color. We wrote and illustrated poetry and stories. In the upper grades [4th through 6th], we had visual art class everyday as a regular class for half of the year -- we had music everyday for the other half. In all we learned, we were encouraged to respond creatively and with our own artistic "voice."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I missed the term "cultural desert" in class but I think that that term is so appropriate to our views in music (or in life in general). We just tend to like the music that we grew up to, and to the familiar sounds that were constantly around us. I grew up on a tobacco farm in rural NC and you can just imagine the cultural desert that was there. I didn't have a music class until I was in the 11th grade. And horrors to me if anyone found out that I (a male) played piano! It just wasn't done. I never heard a live orchestra until I entered college. You would imagine that the music I listened to would have been country (being rurual), but my family listened to the top pop songs on the AM radio. I do remember my brother breaking away from the family trend and listening to music from Gregg Allman, Black Sabbath, Molly Hachett and Pink Floyd.(I had heard of the name Pink Floyd at least 7 yrs before they came out with their album The Wall).
ReplyDeleteI didn't grow up in "Dewey"-influenced school. Rather, it was probably more related to the "Fred Flintstone"-influenced school, even though they had such stars as Stoney Curtis and Cary Granite. I was very thankful when the county consolidated 3 high schools and create a new high school, where the arts were added in its curriculum.
So you can imagine how my musical standards were challenged when I entered college and had to exposed to Ives, Cage, Schoenberg, and Cowell. I will say it was interesting. I didn't care for the serialism but somehow I really enjoyed Ives. Maybe it was the way that his music seems to stick its tongue out to the musical society, tauting his audience with the music that he grew up with. What a bold thing to do, especially when the listener was an introverted music student.
Over the years my musical tastes and standards have been challenged. I remember "discovering" Philip Glass after I had graduated from college. His music seemed to pull me in. Presently, I like to listen to various types of music, from Broadway to Bluegrass, from symphonies to songs from the pop charts. To me, the defining measure of interest is how the music can "perk" my attention. If it's interesting and quirky, then I'm interested. There's been several "quirky" composers in this class and I've become interested.
Right now I don't think I'm living in a cultural desert, but rather, I'm in the middle of a huge pond where lots of stepping stones are visible. Right now I can simply step on any of the stones and listen to a particular type of music. As my interests change, I can change the stone that I step on. I may step on a stone and decide it is not the one for me, so I will simply step off and stand on a the stone of my liking.
Once again, we seem to coming back to the notion, in a general way, of Postmodernism, i.e. that no one perspective is superior to others. While I can agree that I appreciate and enjoy exposure to sound experiences I've never heard before, I find it difficult to say that certain aesthetics are not superior to others.
ReplyDeleteThat is not to say that I think my aesthetic preferences are the superior ones. I listen to a great deal of music (and enjoy it, by George!) that I would consider inferior to truly worthwhile art music. Conversely, I hold the intellectual stature musical value of Schönberg and Babbitt in the highest regard, but I do not enjoy listening to most of their music, and I even avoid prolonged exposure to it. So, for the purposes of my contribution, let us acknowledge that personal aesthetic and value/quality judgments can remain independent.
I tend to balk at the assertion that all musical genres and styles and backgrounds are equal. I suppose I am likely to be alone in this position, but there it is. Perhaps it is because of my intense interest in harmony that leads me to prize the achievements of western music over most others. Don't misunderstand me—I am utter fascinated my the rhythmic complexity, melodic content, and timbral differences of non-western music, particularly those of Asia. As the world becomes ever more globalized, these non-western influences increase in importance. But generally, one recognizes their rising import in relation to how they affect western music, because in many respects, these non-western elements have remained relatively unchanged for a long time.
It would seem that this is due mostly or entirely to the fact that western culture has pervaded the entire world, particularly because of the mass dissemination of American culture. English is now the trade language.
It is an interesting question Cheryl asks: ". . . which of the pieces we have listened to will be adopted into The Canon as representational of what are now current trends – which pieces will endure the 'test of time[?]'" I have wondered the same thing on many occasions—referring of course to art music, not popular, since popular music tends to require a different sort of test to find out if it will endure. My sense is that pieces that are already becoming more widely accepted. I have little doubt that music such as much of Eric Whitacre's choral and band literature, will become standard repertoire. Some of it already is, by some reckoning. Music that young musicians play and enjoy is likely to have a longer life, because they will continue to come back to that literature when they are older (sans the typical high school band fodder— as much as I like James Curnow as a person, I highly doubt his music will ever appear in the Burkhart Anthology).
Interesting comments! Thanks! I like Doug's picture of stepping stones. Sometimes, I step right off the stone and stand in the ever moving stream. I still contend that a culture without art music is still a culture -- it just happens to be one without art music.
ReplyDeleteMy contention was never meant to be that all aesthetics are "equal" -- just that we all have a different filter through which new sounds reach us. We each have an inner iPod of other sounds beside which we hear the new sounds. We have different ideals of what "sounds good" to us -- of what makes "good music." This is what I mean by aesthetic filters.