Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:35:09 -0300 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
There are some intriguing issues in this thread:
1) The term "avant garde" in itself. Stirling Newberry began this thread
as if this term have some meaning nowadays. And the true is that this word
is empty since the 70's. Let's remember the original military sense of
"avant garde", and we will see how useless is it in our contemporary
artistic context, which resembles a guerilla war.
2) He criticized Griffiths, among other things, for his admiration (replace
this word for a rougher one) for Boulez. Boys: Boulez is just another
head in Madame Tussaud's museum. All we know that he is a great director,
and a composer whose music is respected and liked by many people (not me
among them)...but he is retired. Boulez was the avant garde of my baby
years (and I am 30 now!!!).
3) Our fellow listmember David Burton went to Stirling's page, listened to
his music, compared it with his own works, and got a bit surprised because
that music was as tonal as his own...What has this of surprising?. I don't
think that any musical form, way, procedure or aesthetic needs to struggle
nowadays for his "legitimacy" (in the old sense of this word). Legitimacy
implies a mainstream line, which is broken periodically by avant garde
movements. Now we are in the jungle; we have only little cells spread on
the field, whose members hardly knows each other's movements: there's no
place to go, nor line to break. You can be tonal, atonal or whatever mix
between both.... and nobody will say nothing about it.
Pablo Massa
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|