Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall
theamericanscholar.org
theamericanscholar.org
Western music requires rhythm, melody, harmony. (though rhythm may stand nearly on its own.) Beauty can be subjective to a degree (some non-Western cultures do not find dissonant notes to be objectionable in an otherwise harmonious piece) but coherence of chord progression and melody are fundamental.
This "Four Organs" piece is to my ear a timing algorithm, far less interesting than a perpetual canon ("song in rounds") because it implements only rhythm - melody and harmony are missing. Frère Jacques... no, scratch that, even "Happy Birthday To You" seems a grand compositional achievement by comparison. It is a meager elevation beyond the sort of finger and timing exercises every music student performs -- play a scale in eight notes. Now dotted eights, now triplets, etc. This sort of timing-coherence pattern is pretty common in percussion -- two musicians playing in different time signatures so that the beats periodically align. But the arrogance of four organs playing a monotonous note stretches this simplistic exercise beyond any value, and to raise it up as a great achievement is absurdity equal to the art world's all-black canvas, empty box, or filled rubbish bin.
I'm going to use Rush Limbaugh's definition of art : (paraphrase) "Art is what I can't do. I can throw paint on a canvas. I can glue litter to a floor. I can pound the keys of a piano. That's not art. I cannot carve a statue of David from marble. I cannot paint the Mona Lisa or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel nor compose an orchestral work. These are all art." [edit: added last sentence]
Like, there are plenty of musical pieces I can play; that doesn't make them not art.
I enjoy drawing though I am not great at it; that doesn't make my drawing not art... that just makes my drawings mediocre art.
So, at the very least, I don't think that's a sustainable definition of art.
For what it's worth, if you can accept that argument, then you might want to go a step further and question what does qualify as "Great art", and I feel like it's not just way out in left field to say that in addition to execution, the difference is in how it treats ideas.
Hypothesizing that people are responding to formal ideas would give at least an account that avoids a redunctionist and cynical "the emperor has no clothes" account of why people who seem to know a whole lot about their respective art forms like things like free jazz, abstract paintings, and strange performance art.
I think you've misunderstood, on two fronts. First, the definition given was "what Rush Limbaugh can't do." More generally, it's what laypeople, those untrained in art, can't do. If you're a "semi-professional musician," then your ability to perform a work of music is a non-factor. Second, I read Limbaugh as focused on creation rather than performance. Sure, you can play those pieces. But could you have composed them, or pieces of similar quality, from scratch? Could Limbaugh have?
2. performances are art though.. so that distinction is meaningless.
Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star...
It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best.
And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like.
Of course this is a facile take on art, but there's a nugget of a question in there... if exhibits were anonymous and selected by lottery, how many famous artists who got the space would be recognized as genius vs. unknown artists vs. cranks out to show that art appreciation is a joke?
Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star...
It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best.
And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like.
-=-=-=-=
But here's a response to the question you ask:
So the question begged by your question: given the importance of context, why does the provenance of a piece of art matter outside of that context?
For instance, s there a difference between the mona lisa "original" and a copy you hang on your wall?
If there is a difference, then the who produced it and the context does matter regardless of who can tell a "fake".
If there is no difference, why would your hypothetical lottery be relavent to the status of art as art... wouldn't the art be in the eye of whoever is trying to judge the work?
I think that the nature of the context can vary a lot. Some art speaks to people on a primal level, and the context is shared human experience. Other art needs more shared cultural context. Then there's art that requires the context of the artist's life to really move you.
In short, I concede your point that context matters. I think it can and does vary quite a bit.
I still don't want to conflate works requiring the context of knowing and understanding the artist with thinking a work is deep because the artist is well regarded.
Limbaugh's point was that he is utterly without art and music talent/training yet can re-create some of these highly praised "works of art." Of course it was hyperbolic, and it's not a rock-solid scientific definition of art -- perhaps no such thing can ever exist -- but it's a great practical working definition. Perhaps it would be better stated "if everyone can do it, it's not art."
Luciano Pavarotti once called singing "shouting, but on pitch." I think he was understating his gift.
Really (in my opinion) everything we do to express ourselves is some form of art, and the works that we consider 'great art' is that something that represents a combination of something humans can do (draw, write, sing, design, ...) and something that contains a meaning found within the content of the physical application that draws a reaction from either the artist or audience.
The real beauty of art is that everything can be art to someone, no matter how bad technically or lacking in content it can be. My favourite example of a great piece of art that has no content (and is fully participatory!) is Cage's 4'33" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAbXwr3qkg). To people who aren't interested in experimental music or musique concréte, a pre-warning, there's 0 technique or musical skills required to play the piece.
If I didn't know how to read, I'd say that the squiggles on a page are just squiggles that anyone with a piece of charcoal could make.
I remember a particular work of art in MOCA in Los Angeles once upon a time that was a strip of fur on the wall that extended from eye level down to the ground, then ran out along the floor for a short distance. My friend and I were simultaneously amused and outraged by that little work! Surely a nine-year-old could have done that!...
I disagree that the only thing we get from experiencing art is "oh wow, that look hard". IMO the appeal of art is that it either makes you feel or think in a certain way. This "definition" feel closer to the reasons one would want to experience the creations of others, it also gives some explanation for why one would enjoy the oft ridiculed avant-garde stuff.
Plus every designer I've listened to has told me that the "weird stuff" eventually feeds into and enhances the "normal stuff".
Recreating something is worthless. Who cares if you can recreate something. He can splatter paint on canvas, but never thought to do it until he saw other people get popular from it. So sure, he can splash some paint on canvas, but he can't think of doing it, and that part is the art. A painting is more than just the paint on the canvas.
If I buy a machine-cut perfect 1:1 replica of the statue of David, does that make my statue as much a masterpiece as the original? What if I pay a human to make it instead of a machine?
Kids will sometimes fling pant on canvas as fun, but it's not art.
And this isn't directed at you - but let me just make this clear. Orchestral performances are art. Shockingly, it seems like a lot of commenters think that music is just about the composition. Performances involve the composer and the performers' interpretations of the work, their technical skills, their styles. These are nontrivial. These add to and elevate a piece.
Sure. Playing Beethoven doesn't make you Beethoven. A song is more than the sounds it takes to make it. It's nice to hear played but it doesn't mean the performers could have written it. And even if they could it doesn't mean they did.
> Kids will sometimes fling pant on canvas as fun, but it's not art.
I disagree. Or do parents not sometimes hang this on their fridge. I'm not saying you have to call it good art.
For a more exaggerated example, I can type the entirety of any great book. Or even handwrite it in pen if we want to be picky because maybe computers didn't exist at the time it was written. Does that make it as much of an achievement as the original writing of it? Is that art?
But you did not throw the paint in a context that turned it into a statement. In fact, you did not at all. That's the point.
There was some artwork created before I was born: An artist made a statement on commercialization of art. "You could sell shit in cans." So he defecated into cans. About ten years ago the can/one of the cans was auctioned off for some 5-digit amount. That's when I learned about the whole story. Yes, for me that is art - even though I can shit into cans as well.
Beauty is absolutely subjective and does not conform to Western or Eastern standards. Melody, harmony, rhythm, and dissonance - or lack thereof - can all be manipulated to great effect outside of their established roles. Silence can be beautiful. Passive listening can be beautiful. Could one then suggest that these elements be used as the basis for an expanded definition and appreciation of music? As a fellow ardent listener I implore you to explore beyond the confines of the dominant modes of musical expression - there is a vast, wondrous world of sound and experience that awaits.
Then I saw a comment mentioning the link in the article. I stopped the playback of the remastered version, and started the video from the article.
Then I switched from watched the embedded video in the article to watching that video on YouTube itself.
It turns out that I botched stopping the playback of the remastered version, and botched the switch to the YouTube page, so I actually had three copies of the piece playing, at different places within the piece (and possibly one going at a different tempo).
It took me something like a minute with all three going to realize that something was wrong. I only noticed because I rewound the one I was actually watching back to the start, and the intro sounded wrong, prompting me to check the other tabs.
I think it says something (not sure what) about this work that I could have three copies at different points within it playing simultaneously and not quickly notice.
I often wonder how society will make progress on truly divisive issues when moderately deviant works like this one remain controversial 45 years onward. How will we embrace the proverbial other, and react to difference with compassion when we can't even exercise these principles through our reception of art?
The boorish, self-centered behavior of certain audience members would have made it very difficult to appreciate anything of the work at its premiere. Unfortunately, this is increasingly so even for public performances of works firmly in the classical canon.
Is it the audiences or the composers & performers who are boorish & self-centred? This quote from the article is a bit revealing: ‘For sure, by tomorrow, everyone in the world is going to know about you and your music.’
Good music isn’t about being known; it’s about good music. No doubt someone could release 40 minutes of flatulence and get everyone talking about it — but that wouldn’t make it good music. When audiences reject music, maybe it’s bad.
If you go to a concert of new works, I think you have a obligation to not interfere with the rest of the audience's attempt to appreciate it, even if you do not.
It seems that the objectors' rejection of the work was not shared by the whole audience, or even a majority.
Here's part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DbqNlUNqc
I love electronic music and the history of electronic music. But as I was delving into that history, particularly its early history when it was known as tape music or avante garde, I discovered that the rift between east and west coast synthesis goes back much further than I realized.
I am unabashedly turned off by west-coast/avante garde/tape music. When I tried to enjoy, for example, the seminal work of the west coast school of synthesis (which is to say, the album which brought it into the public consciousness), Silver Apples of the Moon, no matter what attention I gave it, or lack thereof, it was just noise to me. It could not enjoy or appreciate it, even on a technical level.
I had the same reaction as I listened to early tape music. The following is my opinion alone. I know it will rankle those who love this stuff: I can find no beauty here, nor anything that pleases the ear or elevates the spirit. The emotional chord this music strikes in me differs from nails on a chalkboard only in degree.
This is not because I can only enjoy the modalities of western diatonic music. I have learned to appreciate and enjoy a lot of eastern, middle-eastern, and african music, even in scales decidedly bizarre to western ears. But what all those schools of music have in common is an internal cultural unity and structure. Each speaks with its own language, and this language can be learned.
Avant Garde is deconstructionist by its very nature, rejecting all unity, structure, and modality as too constraining to the composer. But the result (again, my opinion) is not an expansion of expression, but a lack thereof, and a decent into chaos.
Recall that serialism, which is practically the first thing that comes to mind for many people when they think of avant-garde music, was essentially a _structuralist_, not a deconstructionist, movement. The deconstruction of the tonic system was what came before, in the music of the late 19th and early 20th century. Serialism encompasses various attempts to build a new musical language from the remains.
So it is with Steve Reich. Rather than focusing purely on what Reich's music takes away, you will get more from his work if you look at what he is trying to _build._
For example, I could see this piece fitting right into a contemporary museum setting. It wouldn't be at all out of place as an exhibit in the annual "Garden of Memory" that takes place in Oakland every year. It seems to me to invite both casual and meditative experiences, neither of which an orchestra hall is ideally suited for.
What would it be like if I were hearing it in surround sound, with significant spatial separation between the speakers? Or a binaural recording on headphones? Would it come off as more of a kind of heterophony?
Even better: can you imagine a piece like this being pulled off at one of those great Baroque cathedrals in Europe where there are antiphonal organs positioned around the cathedral? I've been dreaming of the possibilities ever since I visited one...
One piece of Steve Reich’s in particular though grabbed me when I first heard it 15 years ago, and I don’t think it will ever let go: Music for 18 Musicians. An acquaintance lent me the disc and said he thought I might like it. I put on my headphones and hit play, and after a short period of acclimation was blissfully lost for the next hour. Despite feeling ambivalent about a lot of minimalism, 18 is my favorite piece of music, hands down.
Take the musical ideas behind Four Organs (steady pulses, phase shifting, slow evolution, others) and then replace the rigorous organs with singers and players of instruments with widely varying textures (strings, pianos, clarinets, marimbas). Give the whole thing a rich harmonic structure. Divide it into sections with melodies that expand and collapse, or build up in surprising ways. Make it cathartic and uplifting and human.
It’s still not for everyone, but adventurous listeners should give it a try when you have an hour or so to spare. Don’t commit to the whole piece necessarily—the full hour is just in case it catches hold of you—but do commit to listening past the “Pulses” section. That’s just the intro, and what sounds at first like a frantic hammering quickly mutates into a framework to hang the larger, wavelike movements on. It really starts to kick in around the 15 minute mark, when Section 3B begins.
There used to be several good recordings of it on YouTube that have all since disappeared, which is a shame because it raises the barrier for entry; I would have loved to link one here. It’ll really take you for a ride though, if you let it.
'The Desert Music' is also very good composition, as well, more organic and almost score-like in its structure, if you want his take on something more traditional.
You like the music? Fine. You don't? That's also fine. But personally, reading stuff like "the final resolution of the cadence sounds like nothing less than a great Amen" reminds me why I don't go to classical music concert anymore.
My vote? Noise, not music.
The truth is, any time you try to draw a bright line between what is and isn't a form of art, someone will try to bisect the line in hopes of creating something new and interesting.
I think when teenagers' music starts to sound like noise to me, it just means I'm getting old.
So I disagree with you on it not being music, there are certainly more conventional pop/rock songs with noisy sections like this piece that don't stop being music when those sections begin. But I won't add it to any playlists.
A noise that conveys a feeling, no matter that feeling, is music.
Sure, I don't sit around jamming to John Cage, but I similarly feel vaugely ambivilant about much pop music. Is it any different? Much good hiphop is atonal, much jazz does not repeat, and much popular techno has but a faint hint of "humanity". And yet they are not just music, but wildly popular styles. there are few qualifiers you can put on music, art, etc. without drifting dangerously into 'I know it when I see it' territory.
That is not to say that all music must follow some prescribed form or another, but the distinction between sound and music is, at a minimum, structure and intent.
And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic, which is the impression I get listening to Four Organs.
Structured noise can certainly evoke an emotion — in this case for instance, confusion and disgust, and likely this is intentional. It may be an artform but I don’t think the noise is meant to be musical so much as it is meant to provocate.
This is artwork, and your impression is largely irrelevant.
This sentiment that it's too simple or too unintentional reminds me of how I felt when I was 12 and laid eyes upon Clyfford Still's 1951-52 at the Chicago Art Institute. It didn't seem like art to me at the time, but now I see that it is- and that I don't get to define what art is or isn't.
I never said it wasn’t performance art through noise. It’s definitely performance art through noise.
It’s just that if there is any meaning to the word “music” above and beyond “structured noise” then I’m not sure this hits the bar.
@jedimastert commented below that in fact it was precisely this threshold which the artist was exploring in this piece, so instead of foreclosing on the discussion outright as somehow diminishing their work, maybe appreciate that there’s an interesting question here which actually isn’t just a matter of “turn off that god awful noise!”
Cage is performance art certainly but not, IMO, music. Again it’s something certainly up for debate. [2] But such debate reminds me of a particular South Park episode based in SF.
[1] - http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=...
No it isn't.
That's exactly the kind of questions and feeling people like Steve Reich and John Cage were trying to explore with their music.
What would you say the bar is?
If they are intentionally exploring the line between noise and music, then clearly there is one, and it is up to each of us to decide where to draw it.
I would say, from the 60 odd seconds of track I listened to, they are asymptotically approaching noise from the musical side of the equation. Which is probably why the audience had such a negative reaction.
You could just say it's bad music. As in you don't like it.
No, because half the readers would close the browser or click Back before they finished reading the post.