What Are You Listening To?

[brianvds]

Yes... there is the obscurantist BS... and there is a lot pushing for teaching based on standardized testing and data, data, data. The idea that the visual arts can not be reduced to objective standards and data goes against the desire of educational leaders and administrators to package everything neatly within a box. The child who goes off on a tangent and fails to meet the objective standards but achieves something really original is not something they can understand... or appreciate.

And in particular in art, it's something one actually wants to encourage, at least to some extent.

I have experienced both. I have seen/experienced teachers whose studies involved mostly "how to teach", and I have seen/experienced teachers who were primarily masters of a given field of study (Art, Literature, etc...) I have seen/experienced good and bad teachers in both groups. I had professors who were undoubtedly brilliant artists but miserable at communicating their knowledge to students... and brilliant teachers who were admittedly limited in their grasp of the discipline they were called to teach. I suspect that in teaching children, the teacher needs a good deal of knowledge in understanding child development and how to engage children. We have repeatedly had politicians suggest we confront the shortage in teachers by allowing those who are experts in a given discipline (Science, Mathematics, History, etc...) be rapidly certified to teach in the public schools... but quite honestly, I don't know how well such experienced "experts"... or even a college professor might do at teaching Math (for example) without any real idea of how to engage and maintain control and order in a class of 28 11-year-olds.

I suspect education just gets way too academicized. My brother taught me to read and write when he was ten. It ain't rocket science, but it surely is something of a craft. And thus, if we want more teachers, I would suggest getting subject specialists and have them undergo an apprenticeship under experienced teachers, in addition to some minimal amount of coursework in such subjects as child development, and the necessary legal stuff.

I have yet to meet a really good teacher who became good because he spent years studying "theories of learning."

We should also keep in mind: pretty much all teachers spent twelve years at school themselves, observing how teachers teach, and which ones are good at what they do.

But no. We have armies of academics, many of them university professors who have no or absolutely minimal experience of actually teaching kids themselves, who have learned theories about what ought to work. And if it doesn't work, they don't lose their jobs; they simply say "oops" and then move on to the next theory. And so public schools go through these fads, often to the detriment of the students.

Not to delve into the forbidden topic of politics, we have more than a few who seem eager to embrace censorship here. As an artist, I have always been strongly in favor of "freedom of speech and freedom of the press." My old studio partner used to bemoan the Internet because anyone could say anything without any editorial oversight. Initially, I wholly embraced this. Seeing what a monster social media has become, I must admit to having second thoughts.

I think our mods here will allow discussion of this important issue if we keep it civil, theoretical, and keep party politics out of it.

AI has added a layer of complexity: with the advent of such things as AI-generated images and video, we are getting to the point where you literally cannot believe even video footage. But not everyone knows that, it seems.

I do not pretend to have answers. Most governments do put limits on free speech. One of the big problems is that social media companies are now held liable if these laws are broken by their users. But it is pretty much impossible for a company like, say, Facebook, to police literally billions of users. And thus all manner of daft things happen, such as auto-censorship by machines.

It seems to me that in principle, the government should actually follow the exact opposite policy: social media companies should be expressly forbidden from censoring anything - it's the government's job to apply laws such as laws on hate speech or deliberate misinformation. Now if social media companies keep on deleting such stuff, it makes prosecution difficult. It may be better to have a system where whatever you put on Facebook stays there, so if you go and preach antisemitism or such stuff, Facebook keeps a copy of your post, into perpetuity, which makes it far easier for the authorities to prosecute.

But this creates a new problem: what to do about plain bad manners? It's not against the law, but if you don't control it, your social media platform will soon descend into chaos. I.e. social media platforms shouldn't censor, and they definitely should!

Same goes for the question of whether people should be allowed to post behind the anonymity of a screen name. I see Twitter, er, sorry, X, is considering requiring all users to submit a government-issued ID. But some users have quite sensibly pointed out that while there is nothing wrong with this in principle, it leaves users vulnerable to identity theft, should X's database ever be hacked (which is bound to happen sooner or later).

So you can't really force people to use real names either.

There is one point of light: you can actually sue people for libel for stuff they say online, and as far as I know, such cases have in fact happened. Also, here in South Africa, people have been successfully prosecuted for hate speech because of stuff they posted online. Some have even received prison terms. So the trolls and neo-Nazis and such are not completely immune.

For the rest, perhaps one should leave it to the private sector: let social media companies and message boards etc. make their own rules, though that is not without its own layer of complexity, because nowadays, social media companies have pretty much become essential services, and thus, they cannot really arbitrarily ban people from using their platforms, for the same reason that private bus companies cannot pick their passengers on the basis of race or religion or such. But that's a whole different question.

I have little doubt that social media can be extremely harmful. It is noteworthy that the CEOs of most major social media companies do not allow their own kids to have smart phones or social media accounts!

There is a general principle, referred to by Nassim Taleb as "skin in the game": the idea that there should be mechanisms by which people are held responsible for the stuff they do or say. It used to be the case, e.g. in Ancient Mesopotamia (if I remember correctly), if a building fell apart and killed its occupants, the builder could be put to death. That's perhaps a bit extreme, but the general principle holds. E.g. what if you go bankrupt because you followed the advice of a financial advisor? These people (the worst are university professors of economics) operate with complete impunity; they keep their tenure irrespective of whether the entire economy folds because of their advice or theories. In short, they do not have their own skins in the game.

Similarly, the reason why one sees such atrocious manners online is largely because people face no real consequences for rudeness, or lying, or insulting others. Stuff you wouldn't dare say to someone's face becomes easy to say online.

But I'm not sure how we can really set up a system in which users will be thus held responsible, not just for rude behavior, but also for such things as deliberate misinformation.

I haven't seen as much of the mental Onanism that resulted in 4-minutes & 33 seconds of silence or a banana duct-taped to the wall being championed as brilliant works of Art within the real of literature. There are literary critics whose works strike me as little more than gobbledygook... but I haven't come upon too many leading figures within the realm of novelists or poets that leave me baffled or thinking indeed, this is the Emperor's New Clothes.

Usually, time serves as a good filter: if something remains generally popular or highly regarded decades after its creation, there is likely going to be something of genuine value to it for at least some users. It's difficult to keep mere hype going for decades or centuries, though I suppose it's possible.

I have to agree with the critics who argue that Brutalism almost abuses the audience who must daily live with such. I think it was Frank Lloyd Wright who suggested that a bad sculpture can just be stored away in the closet somewhere, while someone has to live in a garish or ugly house or apartment.

That's the problem with all architecture: it's going to be very publicly around for a while. I thought I was very unique in my liking for brutalism, but I have noticed online that there is a smallish but not insignificant fandom out there.

 

[stlukesguild]

Sorry, Arty. I think my comment was poorly worded. When I spoke of those eager to censor "here" I was not speaking of Creative Spark, but rather of the US... and some of the current efforts at book banning and controlling what teachers are allowed to teach. I fully understand that this forum... like any forum... has rules. I participated in a few forums and online talk groups years ago that had no limits on free speech whatsoever... and these rapidly devolved into a chaotic free-for-all with lots of personal insults thrown about and even degrees of harassment verging upon abuse.

 

[Triduana]

Back on topic

 

[stlukesguild]

I suspect education just gets way too academicized. My brother taught me to read and write when he was ten. It ain't rocket science, but it surely is something of a craft. And thus, if we want more teachers, I would suggest getting subject specialists and have them undergo an apprenticeship under experienced teachers, in addition to some minimal amount of coursework in such subjects as child development, and the necessary legal stuff.

I have yet to meet a really good teacher who became good because he spent years studying "theories of learning."

I suspect this is true of many, if not most fields of study. My wife has repeatedly told me that little of what she studied in nursing school prepared her for what was involved in actual nursing. My older daughter will admit that her university studies in accounting prepared her for certain basics of her job as a comptroller, but far more was learned in on-the-job training/experience. Nothing in my education courses could have prepared me for walking into a classroom of 40+ students in an urban district with 12 or so on IEPs (Individual Education Plans... ie. Special Ed.) some 5 or more who had serious behavioral issues... and many of whom dealt with issues of abuse and neglect. I a way... I suspect the expectation that a qualified candidate for teaching... or any other field... has attained the required certification and degree is more about the student proving they have the ability and self-motivation to continue to learn and master the skills and knowledge needed in a specific place of employment.

We should also keep in mind: pretty much all teachers spent twelve years at school themselves, observing how teachers teach, and which ones are good at what they do.

This argument has been repeatedly raised by politicians, but it ignores the fact that there is a great deal that goes on behind the scenes (planning lessons, grading, keeping records of supplies, making parental contacts, etc...) that we as students never saw when watching our teachers. Most of us were shocked when we saw one of our teachers out at the grocery store or at a restaurant as we half-believed they lived in the school.

AI has added a layer of complexity: with the advent of such things as AI-generated images and video, we are getting to the point where you literally cannot believe even video footage. But not everyone knows that, it seems.

We have long had a great many who struggled to differentiate Art from "Reality". I have a family member who buys nearly every extreme conspiracy theory, from the coming Zombie Apocalypse to Hollywood celebrities draining the blood of children in order to maintain their youth... like some sort of twisted vampires. I cannot tell you the number of times someone has posted one of those AI-rendered nudes on social media and a slew of guys will drooling ask who she is or try to get "her" to respond to them. I have this image as the screen saver on my phone:

I have repeatedly had students ask me if that's a photograph of my wife or daughter. Of course, they are children... and in most instances, they are children with very little experience of imagery beyond what they see on social media... or in my art class.

It seems to me that in principle, the government should actually follow the exact opposite policy: social media companies should be expressly forbidden from censoring anything - it's the government's job to apply laws such as laws on hate speech or deliberate misinformation. Now if social media companies keep on deleting such stuff, it makes prosecution difficult. It may be better to have a system where whatever you put on Facebook stays there, so if you go and preach antisemitism or such stuff, Facebook keeps a copy of your post, into perpetuity, which makes it far easier for the authorities to prosecute.

But this creates a new problem: what to do about plain bad manners? It's not against the law, but if you don't control it, your social media platform will soon descend into chaos. I.e. social media platforms shouldn't censor, and they definitely should!

It does indeed seem we've opened Pandora's Box.

One thing that I always find intriguing is how music and literature and art from the past was often far more creative in how taboo subjects were dealt with when they did need to be careful about obscenity, pornography, and how obviously they stated or portrayed things.

Same goes for the question of whether people should be allowed to post behind the anonymity of a screen name. I see Twitter, er, sorry, X, is considering requiring all users to submit a government-issued ID. But some users have quite sensibly pointed out that while there is nothing wrong with this in principle, it leaves users vulnerable to identity theft, should X's database ever be hacked (which is bound to happen sooner or later).

So you can't really force people to use real names either.

There is something to be said for standing behind your posts as opposed to hiding behind a pseudonym... but yes, I question giving any social media company personal information. I used a pseudonym for years on Facebook to avoid students seeking me out online. Now Facebook is seen by the kids as something for "old people" and I have gone back to using my actual name. I continue to use "Stlukesguild" here and on other Art/Music/Literature forums because that is who I have been known as for a good many years.

For the rest, perhaps one should leave it to the private sector: let social media companies and message boards etc. make their own rules, though that is not without its own layer of complexity, because nowadays, social media companies have pretty much become essential services, and thus, they cannot really arbitrarily ban people from using their platforms, for the same reason that private bus companies cannot pick their passengers on the basis of race or religion or such. But that's a whole different question.

Although I'd never be quick to trust corporations to do the right thing, in some ways they have been better with regard to censorship and human rights than some of our politicians.

But let's turn this discussion back to music.

I fell in love with Rita Streich's old-school voice years ago. It remains perfectly suited to these folksongs and lullabies.

 

[brianvds]

YouTube recommended this:

Turned out well worth a listen. A pleasant little concerto in a general sort of way, and quite remarkable for a teenaged composer. Reminds a bit of Hummel and Chopin.

New conspiracy theory: Robert Schumann's works were actually all written by Clara, but they needed to attach a man's name to them, otherwise they would not be taken seriously.

 

[Artyczar]

Thanks for the clarification St. Luke.

 

[stlukesguild]

New conspiracy theory: Robert Schumann's works were actually all written by Clara, but they needed to attach a man's name to them, otherwise they would not be taken seriously....

And Brahms' symphonies were all written by Wagner, who needed to assign these lesser works to a pseudonym.

 

[Hermes2020]

Further to recent discussions in this thread: I would like to add my perspective, for what it is worth. I agree that many avant-garde works in fashion, music, and visual art are not in the same league as the more conventional products we all know and love. When I am taking a hot bath, I am more like to listen to Beethoven than Boulez; however, the choice between Beethoven and Rautavaara isn't so clear cut for me. Experimentation in all the arts is as necessary as in the sciences. Even of I wouldn't have some art on my wall, or wear some runway experiment by Rick Owens, there will be more accessible mainstream works that are inspired later by these exercises that push back the boundaries. I genuinely love to try and keep up with what's happening in the arts and sciences, so for me it is an interesting, and even at times an enjoyable, experience to listen to "outrageous" new music or look at art that the man in the street finds repulsive.

 

[brianvds]

New conspiracy theory: Robert Schumann's works were actually all written by Clara, but they needed to attach a man's name to them, otherwise they would not be taken seriously....

And Brahms' symphonies were all written by Wagner, who needed to assign these lesser works to a pseudonym.

On the contrary, Wagner's operas were all written by Brahms, who had unfortunately already publicly fumed against that kind of style and could not now back off, so he needed to publish them under a pseudonym. He got hold of a second rate melodramatic actor to become the public face of these works, but was frankly relieved when said actor eventually died (the man was insufferable, and constantly got into all manner of trouble).

"At last," he wrote in his diary. "Now I can finally get into those little clarinet pieces I have had in mind for a while. Should never have let Clara talk me into this pseudonym business..."

 

[brianvds]

Further to recent discussions in this thread: I would like to add my perspective, for what it is worth. I agree that many avant-garde works in fashion, music, and visual art are not in the same league as the more conventional products we all know and love. When I am taking a hot bath, I am more like to listen to Beethoven than Boulez; however, the choice between Beethoven and Rautavaara isn't so clear cut for me. Experimentation in all the arts is as necessary as in the sciences. Even of I wouldn't have some art on my wall, or wear some runway experiment by Rick Owens, there will be more accessible mainstream works that are inspired later by these exercises that push back the boundaries. I genuinely love to try and keep up with what's happening in the arts and sciences, so for me it is an interesting, and even at times an enjoyable, experience to listen to "outrageous" new music or look at art that the man in the street finds repulsive.

They say we get more conservative as we age. I never believed it, but alas, it's true: now that I am middle-aged, I find myself less and less adventurous in my tastes.

But I nevertheless agree with your sentiment above. It is precisely through its openness to new ideas and innovation that the west ended up running the entire planet. In such a culture, inevitably, a YUGE amount of utter horse manure will get produced, but it's the only way to ensure that the occasional nugget of gold is also stumbled upon.

 

[Hermes2020]

They say we get more conservative as we age. I never believed it, but alas, it's true: now that I am middle-aged, I find myself less and less adventurous in my tastes.

But I nevertheless agree with your sentiment above. It is precisely through its openness to new ideas and innovation that the west ended up running the entire planet. In such a culture, inevitably, a YUGE amount of utter horse manure will get produced, but it's the only way to ensure that the occasional nugget of gold is also stumbled upon.

Interesting what you say about becoming more conservative with age. I don't think that has happened to me to a large extent, but of course self-analysis is an almost impossible undertaking. However, my view of myself correlates very closely with how others see me. That has been measured a number of times by experts in the field. During the last evaluation, they were astonished that my results place me almost 99% in the middle of the Open Area quadrant of the Johari Window. My results were the highest they had ever seen, which means I don't have significant blind spots to my personality traits.

 

[brianvds]

Bernstein discussing Beethoven - StLukes, you may find this interesting:

 

[joe1It]

Bernstein discussing Beethoven - StLukes, you may find this interesting:

Is the film competing in Venice, Il Maestro, about him?
they talked about it on TV the day they presented it, it looks good.

 

[brianvds]

Is the film competing in Venice, Il Maestro, about him?
they talked about it on TV the day they presented it, it looks good.

I do know there's a biopic about him coming out. Don't know if it's this one. Hopefully it will do even better than Barbenheimer.

 

[stlukesguild]

Bernstein's take on the "inevitability" of every last note in Beethoven's compositions... in spite of the agony and struggle that he went through... sounds closer to what is said of Mozart; 's music... minus the struggle. There were very few incidents of scratching out and reworking passages in Mozart. As is stated in Amadeus, all of his scores are first and only scores... without any mistakes... as if he were simply taking dictation... directly from God. It is often wondered if Mozart simply worked and reworked his compositions out in his head. After all, he had that incredible musical memory. He could hear a piece once or twice and know it complete... all the orchestration.

 

[stlukesguild]

Mahler was a composer who grew on me slowly. Perhaps it is the length and breadth of his melodic developments that made his work more challenging. Ivan Fischer is one of the finer interpreters of Mahler, IMO.

Reiner's classic recording on RCA's "Living Stereo" is also brilliant... with the added advantage of the soprano, Lisa della Casa.

 

[Hermes2020]

Ivan Fischer's Mahler recordings are some of my favourites.

 

[brianvds]

Bernstein's take on the "inevitability" of every last note in Beethoven's compositions... in spite of the agony and struggle that he went through... sounds closer to what is said of Mozart; 's music... minus the struggle. There were very few incidents of scratching out and reworking passages in Mozart. As is stated in Amadeus, all of his scores are first and only scores... without any mistakes... as if he were simply taking dictation... directly from God.

I had that same thought when watching the video - it is perhaps more in Mozart than in Beethoven that one gets this sense of inevitability, and I would disagree with Bernstein on the issue of melody too: Beethoven wrote perhaps the single most famous melody in all of classical music (Ode to Joy). For the rest it is true that he often worked with relatively simple motifs rather than fully worked-out melodies like Schubert, but these are often very beautiful and memorable.

But what strikes me about Bernstein is something someone says in the comments there: whether one agrees with him or not, one can listen to him talking about music for hours.

As an aside, it was interesting to see how he and guest were smoking all through the whole thing. As they say, the past is a different country.

As I recall, Bernstein literally smoked himself to death - he died of emphysema.

It is often wondered if Mozart simply worked and reworked his compositions out in his head. After all, he had that incredible musical memory. He could hear a piece once or twice and know it complete... all the orchestration.

It would not surprise me. One of his famous feats of musical memory was when he wrote out the individual parts for his Don Giovanni overture without having first written a master score. And there was that little incident when he wrote out Allegri's Miserere from memory after one or two hearings, though apparently that might be somewhat apocryphal. But such tales tell me he just possibly could remember tunes fairly well.

 

[brianvds]

Mahler was a composer who grew on me slowly. Perhaps it is the length and breadth of his melodic developments that made his work more challenging. Ivan Fischer is one of the finer interpreters of Mahler, IMO.

Usually, reading about music will not necessarily help me enjoy it more, but in the case of Mahler, it really did help me make more sense of his work when I learned that he basically tried to put entire worlds into his symphonies, so that they would contain everything from the profound to the utterly banal, from glorious sunsets to cowbells.

This explains their seemingly rambling structure, and I listened to them in that way: as a world to discover, that doesn't necessarily need to "makes sense". It's like taking a walk through city streets, with all manner of things to see: a lovely street tree here, some kids playing a silly game over there, a young punk in a souped-up car coming roaring past. At the end of the street you enter the grounds of a cemetery, beautiful and serene and somewhat sad, but halfway through a police helicopter comes thundering overhead. And so on and so forth: endlessly varying and interesting; it's the perfect stuff for the musical flaneur.

 

[stlukesguild]

... there was that little incident when he wrote out Allegri's Miserere from memory after one or two hearings, though apparently that might be somewhat apocryphal. But such tales tell me he just possibly could remember tunes fairly well.

The details... coming from a letter written by Mozart's father... seem to have been exaggerated... but the tale doesn't seem to have been without merit. 14-year-old Mozart heard the Miserere in Rome... but also possibly in London where it had been performed during a visit. He may have seen one of the only three copies of the score held by Padre Martini in London... but his transcription of the score from memory was something far more impressive than merely having memorized a tune... something that was recognized by Pope Clement XIV.

Years ago... I think I was in my late teens... I saw a video of Bernstein discussing one of Tchaikovsky's symphonic works. He looked and had the audience listen to separate parts of the score. Each part had a unique melody. Then these parts were all put together and the resulting melody was something else altogether. This simply boggles my mind... and don't even get me started on Bach. I cannot grasp how a pop musician... such as Paul McCartney... could play one melody on the bass guitar... to one rhythm... while singing another melody/rhythm. As a teen, I knew I wanted to be an "artist"... but was uncertain which Art I should focus on. I quickly realized that for all my love of music, there was no way I would ever become a musician/composer.