Robert Clements wrote:

>Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>I suppose it depends on how one uses the expression avant garde.  One
>>could look at the Ars Nova as being avant garde for its time.
>
>No you can't... what Ars Nova was looking for was novelty; which is a very
>different concept to avant-gardism.

Why can't I? I do.  And so does the New Grove, "In the West there have
always been such venturers: the Ars Nova revolution, for example, could
be ascribed to an avant garde whose innovations met with disapproval in
the highest quarters but whose work made a lasting contribution to musical
thought." Volume I, p.743.

>It's like claiming that Beethoven's Battle Symphony was an avant-garde
>exercise because he wrote it for a precursor of the mighty Wurlitzer...
>this bit of the old Ludwig van was written to make a bigger, louder,
>newer impact on the public audience; not to explore some philosophically
>questionable aesthetic imperative.

I guess I don't see any similarity.

Perhaps if you were to provide your definition of avant garde.

>...the great occupational hazard of avant-gardism) rejects the preferences
>of the popular audience; & generally patronises those preferences to boot.
>Name me one true avant-gardist who has achieved real popularity on the
>basis of his (& we're almost exclusively talking about a macho philosophy
>here; so i'll use the sexual provocatively here) avant-garde studies
>(Debussy doesn't count by this definition)...  there isn't one.

I often think many of those revolutionist's statements are needed by the
artist who is trying to find their way and their way isn't the norm.  It
just seems to me to be human nature.  When you sense your position or
expression is under attack, you look for something to solidify your
position, just as I quoted the New Grove above.  If you don't have
something to quote, you make up a quote or a manifesto.

As for a composer who was "avant garde" and eventually became popular...I
guess I would need to know your definition of avant garde and have a sense
of what popular would be in this context.

For me the use of the "avant garde" is about as meaningless as the use of
the expression, "post modern." I see these labels being contrived by those
who have some need to organize trends.  From my perspective such attempts
to label have hindered human expression.  At certain times in the 20th
Century, a composer who did not use the 12 tone technique was considered
old hat.  Consider a composer like Barber.  His music was not performed as
much during the hey day of the 12 toners.  He had a "bad" label.

>The mere fact that people can name names on a relatively specialist list
>such as this is no indication of real popularity...  it just says that
>some people here are prepared to support these names publically (& almost
>as many are inclined to demonise them just as enthusiastically).  Go out
>on the street & ask the civilian population how many of these composers
>are; & you'll find that apart from the occasional hardcore metalhead who
>recognises the name Stockhausen, the sheer irrelevance of this art is
>pretty total.

I find the use of the word popularity, within the context of art music,
problematic.  For that matter how many on the street have ever heard
the music of Haydn or Brahms.  Maybe they know the names of Mozart or
Beethoven, but if they do, I would wager they do only because of the
marketing of classical music.  I would be surprised if the general
population in this country had ever heard a Mozart symphony.

I would also wager that some rock and rollers have heard Stockhausen and
have been influenced by his music and that in a sense, Stockhausen may have
a significant influence on the more popular music of today than the music
of Beethoven.

When you write that "the sheer irrelevance of this art is pretty total,"
I do not understand the context, nor do I understand your use of the word
irrelevant.  Irrelevant to the general population, well so is Mozart, other
than the use of Mozart as an icon for classical music.  Yet, looking at
another notion of relevance, I would suggest that much of the music of
Mozart could be relevant to most of society.  Stockhausen has, from my
perspective, an immense relevance to much of the intellectual thinking of
his time.  Further, for me,while I am not a great fan of his music, I find
at least three his pieces, Telemusik, Stimmung and Kontakte to be highly
relevant.

>Compare this ignorance with the public importance of more traditional
>artistic figures like theodorakis in Greece & Xian in China; & you'll
>see how much damage we have to undo here....

Ignorance, now there is another concept that I wish I understood better.

Karl