Ah, but then we must decide if we want our musical lives to resemble something by W. A. Mozart or something by John Cage (to name just two possibilities among many thousands). That, of course, is a different discussion.
Cage lived one of the most creatively integrated and continuously creatively-organized lives of any artist of the 20th century. Everything he did was about making art, every day.
Mozart's life was chaotic, crazy, uprooted, full of clamor and controversy, escapades and his follies were numerous and well-gossiped about. The ONLY thing organized and serene about Mozart's life was his music.
I know which life I'd choose to emulate, and have already done so.
Of course, Art (and Frank), my allusion to Mozart and Cage was not based on lives of the musicians but on their styles of music. Perhaps I should have been more clear at the outset. Still, the comparison may not work for you as it does me.
The important thing is not that we may differ on details, but that we respect each other and - in St. Paul's phrase - think on these things. Dave Lull and I have been exchanging emails about loving God, how one can do that - these are the sorts of things that we must do to be human - think and feel and care. Not quarrel. Agreed?
Music, well composed, is not a quarrel. People, living as if they were music(al), would avoid quarrels and find instead compositional agreement and "a chord". Agreed. (Postscript: Sorry about the pun, which I could not resist.)
But there this analogy might break down, as living in discord (dis-chord) might simply be another kind of order, a perhaps Webernian order as opposed to a Mozartian order.
The "well-composed" life can be lived many different ways. The analogy to composer's styles of music is here a bit retrograde, and beside the point—okay, you like Mozart and you don't like Cage, that's fine—because Cage's compositions were just as carefully composed as Mozart's. (And Mozart wrote a piece to be composed using dice, so the indeterminacy angle was also something they shared.)
The problem is your analogy devolves to stylistic taste, nothing more. Which if fine as far as that goes. My point was that the musical life as lived often contradicts the surface appearance of the art produced.
No intent to offend. This is my chief area of expertise, so I like being precise rather than sloppy about it.
All of this seems beyond Frank Wilson's original point upon which I thought I had focused. Of course, I could be wrong. In any event, the thread of this "discussion" tends to confirm my belief that blogging is sometimes a frustrating medium for communication because conversations get reduced to point/counterpoint snippets without much progress. More to the point, it confirms my feeling that (for me) blogging is an inappropriate medium for communication. Of course, that says more about me than it does about blogging. Thus . . . -30-
Ah, but then we must decide if we want our musical lives to resemble something by W. A. Mozart or something by John Cage (to name just two possibilities among many thousands). That, of course, is a different discussion.
ReplyDeleteCage lived one of the most creatively integrated and continuously creatively-organized lives of any artist of the 20th century. Everything he did was about making art, every day.
ReplyDeleteMozart's life was chaotic, crazy, uprooted, full of clamor and controversy, escapades and his follies were numerous and well-gossiped about. The ONLY thing organized and serene about Mozart's life was his music.
I know which life I'd choose to emulate, and have already done so.
Of course, Art (and Frank), my allusion to Mozart and Cage was not based on lives of the musicians but on their styles of music. Perhaps I should have been more clear at the outset. Still, the comparison may not work for you as it does me.
ReplyDeleteThe important thing is not that we may differ on details, but that we respect each other and - in St. Paul's phrase - think on these things. Dave Lull and I have been exchanging emails about loving God, how one can do that - these are the sorts of things that we must do to be human - think and feel and care. Not quarrel. Agreed?
ReplyDeleteMusic, well composed, is not a quarrel. People, living as if they were music(al), would avoid quarrels and find instead compositional agreement and "a chord". Agreed. (Postscript: Sorry about the pun, which I could not resist.)
ReplyDeleteLiving in harmony is certainly musical living.
ReplyDeleteBut there this analogy might break down, as living in discord (dis-chord) might simply be another kind of order, a perhaps Webernian order as opposed to a Mozartian order.
The "well-composed" life can be lived many different ways. The analogy to composer's styles of music is here a bit retrograde, and beside the point—okay, you like Mozart and you don't like Cage, that's fine—because Cage's compositions were just as carefully composed as Mozart's. (And Mozart wrote a piece to be composed using dice, so the indeterminacy angle was also something they shared.)
The problem is your analogy devolves to stylistic taste, nothing more. Which if fine as far as that goes. My point was that the musical life as lived often contradicts the surface appearance of the art produced.
No intent to offend. This is my chief area of expertise, so I like being precise rather than sloppy about it.
All of this seems beyond Frank Wilson's original point upon which I thought I had focused. Of course, I could be wrong. In any event, the thread of this "discussion" tends to confirm my belief that blogging is sometimes a frustrating medium for communication because conversations get reduced to point/counterpoint snippets without much progress. More to the point, it confirms my feeling that (for me) blogging is an inappropriate medium for communication. Of course, that says more about me than it does about blogging. Thus . . . -30-
ReplyDelete