7 ms·

I have only limited formal music education, but I am an ardent amateur performer and listener. But I agree with the person who ran down the aisle at the 1970 pe

I have only limited formal music education, but I am an ardent amateur performer and listener. But I agree with the person who ran down the aisle at the 1970 performance, yelling "Stop! I will confess!" 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]

scarecrowbob 8y ago
As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. 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.
- will4274 8y ago
  > As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. 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?
  - bllguo 8y ago
    1. that shouldn't matter. you don't need to be "trained" to produce art. Where even is the threshold? Is it only art if you're a professional, i.e. getting paid? If you took classes? There are so many problems with this definition. Art is creative expression; unskilled creators tend to create bad art. that should cover all the bases. 2. performances are art though.. so that distinction is meaningless.
  - scarecrowbob 8y ago
    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.
- jackhack 8y ago
  But you're making the argument. You have skills and training and surely thousands of hours of practice, of course you can play plenty of pieces. 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.
trhway 8y ago
That is the definition of craft, not of art.
dsrftyjdrtyn 8y ago
Your litmus test for art relies on a definition from... Rush Limbaugh..? Powerful art is primarily experiential; perceived effort is irrelevant if the work moves you. I suspect Rush ignores an infinity of small, everyday beauties if his definition of art is so limited. Or perhaps he has a vested interest in maintaining the value of his collection. ;) 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.
jlg23 8y ago
> I can throw paint on a canvas. 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.

scarecrowbob 8y ago

As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. 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.

will4274 8y ago
> As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. 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?
- bllguo 8y ago
  1. that shouldn't matter. you don't need to be "trained" to produce art. Where even is the threshold? Is it only art if you're a professional, i.e. getting paid? If you took classes? There are so many problems with this definition. Art is creative expression; unskilled creators tend to create bad art. that should cover all the bases. 2. performances are art though.. so that distinction is meaningless.
- scarecrowbob 8y ago
  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.
jackhack 8y ago
But you're making the argument. You have skills and training and surely thousands of hours of practice, of course you can play plenty of pieces. 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.

trhway 8y ago

That is the definition of craft, not of art.

dsrftyjdrtyn 8y ago

Your litmus test for art relies on a definition from... Rush Limbaugh..? Powerful art is primarily experiential; perceived effort is irrelevant if the work moves you. I suspect Rush ignores an infinity of small, everyday beauties if his definition of art is so limited. Or perhaps he has a vested interest in maintaining the value of his collection. ;) 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.

jlg23 8y ago

> I can throw paint on a canvas. 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.