[Fmpro] a new world odor...

[Ted Peterson]

On Jan 27, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Mark McKee wrote:

> 1.  In American public schools basic music appreciation was  
> eliminated almost 20 years ago.  How does this affect what actually  
> happens when this new audience hears carefully composed music?

This is true but not as dire as one might think. Music needs to  
survive in a marketplace of ideas. Educating anyone to one way of  
thinking isn't understanding that marketplace and subsequently leads  
music into the black hole of academia. In other words, enthusiasts  
writing for enthusiasts. This was hardly the ideas that Hayden,  
Mozart, Beethoven, Bach (all of them) and other composers embraced.  
They wrote so much music that it spans the intellectual listener to  
the common listener. Verdi did the same thing. One of Verdi's arias  
was stolen during all of his closed rehearsals and as he was walking  
to a cafe during a rehearsal, he hears a street organists playing the  
theme. He went ballistic. But he understood that he was writing for  
people not writing and expecting people to learn a vast system and  
come to him.

The line where composers separated from the public may be traced to  
De Gasset's "Art for Art''s sake." He posited that artists no longer  
needed to base their music on identifiable cultural themes like folk  
music but could base their art on the sustaining ideas from previous  
work of the same artists. We revere J.S. Bach's output and his vast  
manipulation of music. But few realize that in the Cantatas he wrote,  
he used theme and songs from the church music catalog. In other  
words, he themes were recognizable by those who listened to the music.

I hired a plumber one time and he was surprised that I did what I  
did. He turned out to be very bright and we had some good  
conversations. His contention was that art music of the experimental  
nature like all experimental art catered to a very small audience;  
one that had the leisure time to indulge in exploring "new" art  
adventures. The common guy had to work too hard and wanted immediate  
gratification from his experience.
>
> 2.  The newest generation of American film makers are also products  
> of this system.  With few notable exceptions, visual artists as a  
> group, have historically been developmentally disabled as far as  
> music goes.  So you've got directors, the studios and the audience,  
> who are actually physically incapable of appreciating anything you  
> are doing.

People are looking for cultural identity in their art. Ok, call it  
utilitarian but that's the way it is. In our society, culture is  
transmitted vie film and tv. In the '60s it was through music  
primarily but those days are gone. We can decry the movement towards  
popularization but the same thing was said about Beethoven. Many  
detractors indicated that his music was meant for the masses and not  
intellectual enough. He ended up writing the Grosse Fugue to counter  
arguments he couldn't write counterpoint.  Our system is what it is.  
Good or bad, artists like the present and play with it. I think it is  
a mistake to make it look like people are idiots or some kind of low  
intelect to embrace popular music and film. Are we cultural morons?  
Probably. But out of that will come new directions. The Wagnerian  
ideal of the university being the shining light illuminating the  
community from ivory towers clad with greenery just doesn't hold a  
lot for the average person.
>
> 3.  And as for Peter Jackson...jeez...I finally saw Kong and it was  
> as bad as I predicted, on every level.  The guy is not a filmmaker,  
> he's a glorified manager of special effects.  He claimed to  
> understand LOTR for example, then cuts out the most important  
> character in the trilogy, Tom Bombadil, who laughs at the ring, and  
> makes it disappear, explaining that he is the master of nothing,  
> and nothing is the master of him.  How can anyone take Peter  
> Jackson seriously, when he doesn't even have a clue about his own  
> medium?  Good luck working with a guy like that.

Ok, so how does one use a form like film to recreate a novel? It  
can't be done and would be boring. Pasternak wrote "Dr. Zhivago" as a  
sprawling epic in the manner of Tolstoy but there are mystical  
elements found in the book that place B. Pasternak as one of the  
great mystics of his time. If you watch the movie, you see none of  
this. Does this make the movie bad? I don't think so. Film is a  
specific art form and it's up to the director to develop a concept  
for the movie he is working on that transcends the basics of "the  
story." If you want, pick out some movies and follow the transitions.  
How does the director get from one scene/episode to another? You will  
find some incredible art in those moments. Even in such seemingly  
mindless films as the "American Pie" comedies, you can find artful  
moments that transcend the overall foolishness of the film. But  
before you put down such fancies, remember that some of the greatest  
artists have indulged in the same. Look at Mozart's "The Magic  
Flute." It has all kinds of thing going on and when it was staged,  
was staged as a farce. These were very broad comedies like  
vaudvilles. He couldn't even get them performed in the royal opera  
houses of his day and had to resort to the public theater. The movie  
houses are our public theater.
>
>
> I take great solace in what is happening now to the major music  
> labels.  They are getting what they deserve.  I believe this new  
> internet paradigm will actually be the salvation of serious  
> composers, who someday will be able to reach that narrow band of  
> listeners that have some appreciation for monumental works that you  
> create.  Here's to You Tube and direct licensing.  Here's to making  
> our own game.

Indie development has shown the greatest promise at freeing the  
artist from an imposing system. However, if you look at what is done,  
it is all very similar in the sense of audience. That doesn't make it  
bad.  We have to work in the environment we find ourselves and if we  
want to eat regularly have to decide how to do that. When music  
became an academic enterprise, a lot of what made music interesting  
left. What left was an immediacy to the culture. Some of the works  
produced by academic composers are very good but there are few who  
transcend the environment at the "school" they are teaching.

I attended Cal. State Northridge during the '70s and got a great  
education. Today, the students call that era "the golden years." It  
was really a good school. Now I live by Cal. Poly San Luis Obispo and  
the music department is considered rather poor. There is no vision  
for the department and it is probably more like most music schools in  
most public universities. So the artists is hampered by the  
intellectual circle around him or her. To do anything original, the  
artist must reject what is expected and break out alone. If the  
artist goes too far, audience is lost, not far enough and it is  
considered pandering.

In film music there is no pretense: Film composer pander to the  
audience and some have made quite good careers and written some very  
good music in the process. Otto Preminger directed "Laura" with music  
by David Raksin.. I met and talked with Raksin a number of times and  
he was a fantastic intellect and a great composer. Go on to:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000710/

and check out his credits. They are daunting.

Ted Peterson

>
>  Mark McKee
> Multimedia Development Specialist
> Course Development Group
> New Media & Extended Learning
> The University of New Mexico
> 505-277-0691
>
> "We are a nation of laws, poorly written and randomly enforced."
> Frank Zappa - American Composer
> _______________________________________________
> The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music Magazine -   
> http://www.filmmusicmag.com
>
> Best of FMPRO: http://www.fmproquotes.com - Quotes site  by Billy  
> Hale Music
>
> To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro