“John (Jacobson) is the founder and president of America Sings, Inc., a non-profit, charitable organization that creates non-competitive choral festivals. These festivals provide young performers with the opportunity to utilize their talents in service projects and worthwhile causes. Since 1989, more than 100,000 young people have attended these events.”

http://www.musicexpressmagazine.com/aboutJohn.jsp

Eric I totally understand that need for there to be a reason behind something even if you already think it may possibly be true… In my paper I define aesthetically beneficial as a work that meets a certain criteria to be determined by anyone but I go on to say that you should only participate in the works and projects that you deem aesthetically beneficial, the caliber at which you execute that project is not really discussed. Although I do think that playing to the best of one’s ability is a moral issue it is not within the scope of the matters addressed in my paper. On the other hand playing a piece of “bad” music, as determined by the artists performing, or writing or whatever, no matter how well you do at it, is what i see as wrong. Most people would probably agree with my statement but have a really hard time as to who gets to decide what is good and what is bad because they are such subjective determinants. What I am trying to make a case for is that it does not matter what the population thinks or what even other artists think when it comes down to you playing or writing, if you think it is not beautiful than you should not be doing it. I think the point from Col. is a really good one and one that should be discussed but my paper is more pointed toward the artists who not do the best they can, but more towards the artists who use their abilities and talents in a knowingly inappropriate way.

I didn’t get the impression that the premise (quoting from the original post: “A musician has an obligation to only create works that best express their aesthetic judgment”) meant one shouldn’t compose or perform unless he/she was completely pleased with the result, but it did make me rethink my criteria for performance.

So, are you the author of the paper in question? You commented, “Using your artistic abilities for in non-artistic ways, defined as anything you think is really bad, for personal gain is morally wrong.” While I tend to agree with that statement, I’m one of those concrete-sequential people who want everything clearly delimited (OK, so I know the world doesn’t work that way, but…), and that definition of “non-artistic” is annoyingly subjective. What is “really bad”?

You implied that it would be a problem if the artist placed financial gain ahead of personal aesthetics. What if I’m just lazy? Suppose I know the result isn’t the best I can do, but I’m not willing to take the time to work at it - is there a place for “good enough”? Or suppose I agree to play a concert of music that I personally think is “really bad”, but I play it really well. Does that pass the test? Yes, that’s a quasi-rhetorical argument.

In an earlier post, Michael wrote, “The phrase “making bad music”, for the purpose of this student’s thesis, has a very specific meaning during the act of creation. It can only mean “making art that is contrary to the artist’s best aesthetic judgment.” That put me in mind of Colossians 3:23:

Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men…(NIV).

But we wouldn’t know anything about that personally.

This could easily be outweighed by a number of financial obligations, such as feeding one’s family. But I suppose I am stating the obvious. (?)

The phrase “making bad music”, for the purpose of this student’s thesis, has a very specific meaning during the act of creation. It can only mean “making art that is contrary to the artist’s best aesthetic judgment.” After it has been created, a whole new set of criteria emerge for evaluating it’s worth to others. This thesis argues that the second criteria should never substitute for, or even interfere with, the first criteria during the act of creation.

By the way, Eric, welcome to the blog. I’m glad you found us!

I didn’t get the impression that you were in complete agreement with the thesis. And, there will always be a substantial subjective component where aesthetic judgments are concerned.

I also don’t want to give the impression that I agree with this student’s argument. It would be pretty hypocritical of me, given how I’ve made most of my money in music. It was not, how you say, “Art”. Artfully done, I hope, but not towering works of aesthetic wonder. More along the lines of “Loop it, delay it, autotune it, bop it!”

Dorothy Sayers addressed this question of artistic integrity in her novel “Gaudy Night.” Over dinner, Lord Peter raises the case of an “artist whose works are so original that they fetch very little money” (or something like that), and asks rhetorically if he should paint “pot-boilers” and become commercially successful or continue to paint in his highly original style and let his family starve. One of the academics immediately replies that there is no question, he must cease painting immediately - he would violate his artistic integrity if he painted for popular appeal, and he “mustn’t let his family starve.”

I found myself wondering what the fictional Edwardian artist would do instead to support his family. Probably as art director for an advertising agency, which might arguably be considered another form of artistic prostitution. I agree that framing the argument as a choice between artistic integrity and survival presents a false dichotomy, but (hmm…I always get in trouble when I type that word…) that can present a very difficult choice, and not just between basic survival and a more comfortable lifestyle.

Perhaps in Kant’s Kingdom of Ends the choice is not between integrity and survival, but I’m not entirely ready to accept that the issue is as simple as wanting to earn money in a chosen profession. Charles Ives had the luxury of heading a very successful insurance business to underwrite his artistic integrity. Would he have written anything at all if he was supporting his family as a day laborer? Since the thesis specifically parallels the sacrifice of artistic integrity with prostitution, does one imagine that the sex trade is the preferred profession of most of those engaged in it? No, I wouldn’t accept the argument of survival from a maker of pornographic films, who has a certain position of power, but I would be less quick to condemn the actors (if you will).

I feel blessed.

I think that’s a false dichotomy, a presentation of a seemingly impossible choice that makes the action seem inevitable. To argue “But my kids needs to eat!” seems like survival and compromise are our only two choices, but that’s only true if we accept that music is the only possible way this person can provide for the basic survival of those depending on him or her. Only in that case can we invoke the idea of duty to survival first, and only then to everything else that follows.

I don’t think that’s ever the case. The choice is not between compromise of aesthetic integrity and survival, the choice is between compromise and taking up a different job. We wouldn’t accept that argument from a pornographer who says, “But my kids need to eat! I have no choice but to keep making these films.” It’s not an issue of survival, it’s an issue of wanting to earn that money in a preferred profession.

The second question (solo vs. ensemble) is an interesting one, and something I think he’ll need to deal with in his paper. I think he’ll address it by suggesting a sliding scale between the amount of individual creative input a person has in a project, and the amount of their aesthetic obligation. In the case of a large symphony, there is a low level of individual aesthetic contribution, identity, discretion, whatever. In the case of a bubble-gum pop songwriter, a very high level. The obligations shift on that basis, I think.

And, now that I’ve done his work for him, I kind of hope they DON’T come by to comment.

Re #6: I’ve always had a little trouble with Kant, but that’s probably my imperfect understanding.

I can accept the argument that I have a perfect duty to create compositions or performances that best express my aesthetic judgment, but when I have to balance that against my imperfect duty to pay the bills, well it gets pretty fuzzy. Could it be a difference of degree? As long as I have enough to eat, I can agree that it’s wrong to make musical choices based on popular or commercial appeal - I’m not looking to get rich, or I wouldn’t be in this business - but when money is tight, I become a bit less scrupulous. A slippery slope, eh?

What if I’m part of an ensemble, but not the one who calls the shots? If the conductor asks for something with which I strongly disagree, I am violating the second formulation if go along? I think there is a violation of the first formulation hiding there somewhere.

I’m still hoping some of my students will actually stop by and comment.

The only thing of real value that I can have true knowledge of is my own happiness. Therefore, my only obligation is to act in ways that serve my own self-interest. The only reason I shouldn’t knife you in the gut and keep your kidneys in my freezer on the off chance I might enjoy eating them is because I might suffer punishment.

It’s creepy when the freaky guy is right.

I’m off to Google “Atlas Shrugged”…

I think it’s perfectly fine to say “A,B, and C were significant factors in Z occurring” without having to say that any individual thing A, B, and C were the single, sufficient cause. The same can be said of the other factors that led to the Columbine tragedy - there are plenty of kids who are mocked, ignored, and have insufficient parental care or oversight. For almost all of those kids, those things aren’t sufficient cause to tip them over the edge to murder.

Have you read any of Manson’s actual writing? Oh man. It reads very much like a 13-year old kid who just finished his first reading of “Atlas Shrugged” and only understands the parts that mean he gets to do whatever the hell he wants.

Ramon and I were just listening to F*ck Tha Police the other day. I turned to him and said: “I wonder how many people in this crowd (who you can hear enthusiastically singing the lyrics) became cops?” Ramon replied that he imagined that many people in the crowd WERE cops, and right there with NWA. “You think all cops believe that they’re morally unassailable as an institution?”

Anyway, I’m interested, and am, as always, only speaking from the rare and valuable origin of Talking Out of My Ass 101, so…

I’m one of those “historically informed performance” geeks, and I’ve made a career out of trying make “best guesses” about the original intent of composers LONG dead and gone. I’m not sure if this is what your student was thinking of, but as a composer, I’d like to assume that a performer would always approach my music with my intentions firmly in mind (as, naturally, it’s all about ME), but as a performer, I know that doesn’t always happen, even if I’m around, and that sometimes the resulting performance is better than what I had in mind.

Stravinsky was once quoted as saying that for him, the correct tempo for his music was as obvious “as if it were painted blue.” If that’s the case, he must have been color-blind, because the tempi of performances that he conducted almost never match the printed tempo indications. While there are plenty of composers who wrote music considered “unplayable” because that’s what they wanted (like the double bass part of the Scherzo from Beethoven’s 9th Symphony), there are many others who changed or simplified parts so that a particular performer could play them (manuscripts of a number of Vivaldi’s concerti have simplified versions of difficult passagework written in, presumably because the soloist couldn’t hack it). So which represents the composer’s original intent? What he heard in his head? Or what he settled for because it sounded good?

And, even though I’m one of those weirdos who thinks that Bach always sounds better on the harpsichord than the piano, does that mean pianists shouldn’t play music by one of the greatest composers who ever lived?

Somehow I feel a vague connection between proposition 5 (original intent) and number 6 (musical prostitution, if you will). If a composer arranges his music for forces that are available to him/her, rather than what he originally conceived, is that a choice based on commercial viability? And if the result (though different from his/her original intent) is aesthetically pleasing, surely popularity doesn’t invalidate the outcome. Nice work, Professor Lee.

Eric

http://ottobib.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfuum3R190&feature=related

Shostakovich wrote the 5th to say F U to his critics. The whole piece is fantastic, but the last few minutes of the finale are an awesomely subtle middle finger to his haters. Some conductors take the tempo at the end pretty quick, but it seems obvious to me that Shostakovich was thinking of a terribly slow tempo for some gloriously victorious music.

Here I will steal from Wikipedia about the 5th symphony finale:

In the words of the composer: “There is a feeling of rejoicing, but it is one of forced rejoicing. It is as if someone is beating you with a stick and telling you ‘your business is rejoicing!’ over and over again. Eventually, you walk away muttering ‘my business is rejoicing.’”

Here are two very different recordings of the finale.

Bernstein (very fast) listen at about the 8 minute mark to the end.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KlXfiTqREAw

Paavo Järvi (very slow) The big difference is at the 2:00 mark to the end.

I am really glad that I don’t have to turn these thoughts into a formal academic paper with citing and footnotes and me turning to the dumb book that shows you how to cite your sources.

#5 reminded me of a piano lesson with Dr. Sage, if I remember correctly. There was a G arpeggio that went up so high, then continued to ascent from two octaves below. He said the composer likely would have continued the chord had his keyboard been as wide as our modern keyboard. In other words, the composer had maybe a 5-octave keyboard. So that leads to guessing at the composer’s intent.

I’m not drawing any conclusions here, just chewing on the thought I guess. Now I’ll read the rest…

When I was first out of school, I played for quite a few of these things. It’s one step below a wedding gig. They all made me sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HwbzOh6epU

(sorry about the link thing.)

The mindset of preparing for a competition can have immense educational value.

But then, I think about show choirs, and I get sad all over again, and I agree with him.

My current experience is that they are one in the same (the educational value and competitive value). I am helping prepare a great middle school choir for competitions in a month, and they have a healthy fire lit under them. They wouldn’t be working this hard if they were doing it to look in the mirror.

I understand this premise - don’t teach to the test - but it’s not like we’re going to the No Child Left Behind convention or anything… ;)

Having taught all subjects, this is the fun part about teaching music. Bad curricula (scripted, for example) can suck the creativity out of teaching, but when you teach music, no one can take that from you. Even when you’re competing.