The cute idea was my title (I think) ... while your perfume is obviously a masterpiece!
... anyway, I had a hunch. Look Red, for me this work of mine is a terrible piece of junk, it's true that great artists are always dissatisfied... I have just produced another one, related to the world of Sommeliers, I'll let you just imagine what I have in mind... it's my style by now, I am almost recognizable (if not predictable).
At this rate, I could even produce a couple of masterpieces a day...
B
BackSpace
Member
Reply 42 by BackSpace
Posts
181
RedScharlach wrote:
It is not at all a current logic; it has been this way for a long time (at least six centuries, if not more!) and one only needs to study a bit of reception history to realize it. See, for example, the case of Josquin, rightly considered since his era as Princeps musicorum: one of his motets performed at court was blissfully ignored by everyone, until word spread that it was his work, and from that moment on everyone boasted in praises (see Il Cortegiano, II, 35).
Another significant case, regarding art history, is the market for forgeries, which certainly was not invented in the twentieth century! As you can see, the matter is quite complex.
Of course, of praise... not of money. That is current.
Anyway, there is also (conversely) the infamous case of Caccini's Ave Maria... a mediocre piece that only gained widespread recognition because it was believed to be by Caccini, but in the end... everyone knows it is mediocre, so the argument remains the same.
We wouldn't even talk about it if it hadn't been attributed to Caccini, but its value is zero, and not because it isn't by Caccini... because it doesn't matter. Or is this also a masterpiece? In fact, even the Russian who wrote it has made his way...
Sometimes, some people even have too much time, and too much of this latest is spent talking about what they have or have not done; in certain cases, ignoring it is the best thing, because as far as I am concerned, whether I am ignorant or not, some "findings" are ridiculous even if the greatest living composer (to give an example) is the one making them; in fact, they take on even more of the value of bullshit. This is what I think of "4:33", which I can also understand from the point of view of provocation (I am not an idiot), but it remains bullshit if understood within the musical context in a strict sense. Even if it can be traced back to various interpretations, for example to the discomfort that the audience may feel given the persistence of silence, the immobility of the performer (not interpreter), to the "variety" of reactions that every audience can contribute to giving, it remains nonetheless a non-piece, so for me from this point of view it has also had too much publicity, and being remembered for (even) this non-work, I don't think is the best thing for a composer.
Cage's was a philosophical work; its importance lay in the ideas and not in the musical result of these ideas. His work was oriented towards revising musical perception. Furthermore, 4' 33" was a theatrical operation... more than a musical one.
In this light, Cage's work should be evaluated; someone might wonder why it is being discussed in a musicians' forum... probably because musical perception is an aspect to keep well in mind, in every sense.
Just because painting was mentioned, perhaps the work of Robert Rauschenberg could also be explored.
