Stratification of Art... And Therefore of Music

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

then I asked him a question: "so, according to what you're saying, would you put 'the society of freeloaders' on the same level as 'Beethoven's 5th Symphony'?". he answered me yes.

...everyone has the music they deserve.

I just want to clarify that in my opinion, one thing is the validity of music in relation to the historical, aesthetic, political and cultural period in which it was written... another is the reason why a work has resisted the passage of time.

It is interesting to understand why certain popular melodies have reached us... because of the strength of the popular melody itself or because they were carried forward by tradition/by art music?

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

HIM: believes that any genre of music (pop, ethnic, jazz, art music, lowbrow, etc.) should be considered at the same level of a hypothetical hierarchy; or rather, if one must speak of hierarchy, it is the individual subject who, based on their own tastes, defines a pseudo-hierarchy of music on an exclusively personal level.

I didn't understand what the hierarchy is

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

ME: I believe that in art in general and, specifically, also in music, there is a stratification, that is, to put it somewhat brutally, there is music more important than other; just as for example in painting, there are graphic works more important than others. all this, however, not on a subjective level, but in an objective sense

I'm provoking: who decides?

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

, in an aesthetic and universally recognized sense. I mean to say that a musical work, regardless of whether it may or may not be pleasing, should have its proper place in an actual hierarchy, based on its objective aesthetic elements

Re-Provoking: who decides?

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

i have attempted in vain to convey to him the concept of 'objective aesthetic sense'

...perhaps I am missing something or haven't framed it correctly, if aesthetics is pop, there is a top for that field... on par with Beethoven's fifth for classical.

Now I say, is the comparison between peaks or what?... I mean, Beethoven against the Beatles... to name one?

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

"go away, everyone who studies music at the conservatory thinks they're better than everyone else!"

And how has he argued this theory "objectively"?

I think that the ear takes into account many more parameters than what can be theorized; to be clear, a grid of rules does not make good music.

Or rather, a good ear goes looking for something interesting which is then dissected, theorized, and catechized at the conservatory... in this "circuit" one should sense when something is off... well!

What exactly was he/she referring to?

The title: "Stratification of Art... And Therefore of Music" pleases me very much.

With rare exceptions, everyone has struck roots in tradition and has added something ... which is why one speaks of stratification. I quote

"Every art has the right to strike its roots in the preceding era; nor is it merely a right, because it is also a duty" Béla Bartók

in my haste I believe I expressed myself poorly:

HIM: he does not consider and categorically rejects the stratification of music, regardless of its genre, and places it universally, beyond historical period, function, etc., all on the same level. It is then the listener who creates their own 'hierarchy' based exclusively on their personal tastes.

ME: regarding the antithesis between 'società dei magnaccioni' [the freeloaders' society] and 'Beethoven's 5th Symphony'... I simply cannot consider them on the same level, universally, beyond time and space. Because speaking exclusively on a MUSICAL level, 'società dei magnaccioni' develops along a very simple and predictable path; the instrumentation is of a popular type, at most just a guitar would suffice, but exaggerating, one could add an accordion and a tambourine; but unless a certain type of arrangement is studied at a desk, 'società dei magnaccioni' is born like this: spontaneous, without pretensions, for convivial purposes. Beethoven's '5th' is something more: in that incipit, 'pa pa pa paaaaa..... pa pa pa paaaaaaa', a high philosophical concept is contained: destiny knocking at the door; and this concept is then transposed into various aspects of musical discourse: orchestration, phraseological structure, etc. I repeat: I am not a good listener of classical music.... I work myself to death day and night with jazz.... and every now and then out of curiosity I like to explore new genres. Lately I have turned to the avant-garde, exclusively to try to understand if it is truly Music or not. I listen to little classical music and rarely. But I cannot help but observe that Beethoven's '5th', OBJECTIVELY and, universally, AT AN AESTHETIC LEVEL, is evidently and incontrovertibly higher than 'società dei magnaccioni'. And this is not something I am saying, nor the greatest of musicologists..... it is simply what the facts say.

i hope I have been clearer now

In my opinion, time doesn't certify anything at all

Given that I love Beethoven and the fifth, I didn't understand which facts are being referred to...

the facts are the objective musical elements of which each piece considered in my example

I understand the need to object to the glass being half full or half empty, but I really don't understand what there is to object to here...

Comparing Beethoven's Fifth to 'the society of freeloaders' is simply ridiculous just to say it.

Objectivity practically doesn't exist in almost anything, especially when talking about tastes, but here a kindergarten child's drawing is being compared to a fresco by Michelangelo. And with that, I have said it all...

But instead, I would like to analyze—speaking with respect since I don't even know him—the psychology of your friend... With someone who tells me that academic musicians are stuck-up and compares Beethoven's Fifth to 'the society of freeloaders,' I wouldn't even waste my time explaining my points of view, primarily because claiming such a thing while being convinced that the Fifth Symphony and a society of freeloaders are on the same level demonstrates great cultural ignorance, and for a second reason, I would think it is useless to reason with madmen... I have said what I felt. I hope I haven't indirectly insulted anyone.

TheSimon wrote:

here a drawing of a nursery school child is compared to a fresco by Michelangelo.

Interesting, let's talk about Picasso ....

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

i hope to have been clearer, now

Crystal clear, history is the great equalizer and puts everything in its place ...

Certainly, my dear, Picasso did not dedicate himself only to cubism, defined by many as 'smudges on a white cloth'. Picasso knew all painting techniques very well and demonstrated this in his early paintings; only later did he decide to opt for a new style because, like all innovators we can find even in music, the pictorial reality in which he lived felt too restrictive. As in all arts, innovations arrive because authors need new ways to express themselves; certainly, if Picasso had only done 'smudges', he would not have been Picasso, just as in music John Cage would not have been John Cage if he had composed only 4'33"... It also happens in other fields, not just artistic ones. But in my opinion, everything is resolved by asking yourself a question... And this time I would like you to be the one to answer, hoping that my response, which only briefly touches upon the Picasso school, has nonetheless addressed your perplexity.

If we place the 'society of freeloaders' [società dei magnaccioni] on par with Beethoven—I feel ashamed just writing this—then we must think whether Beethoven had the potential to compose music on par with the society of freeloaders, and I believe he did... Would the opposite be true, i.e., would whoever wrote 'the society of freeloaders' be potentially capable of writing a symphony???

TheSimon wrote:

If we place the 'società dei magnaccioni' on par with Beethoven, I feel ashamed just writing this thing; then we must consider whether Beethoven had the potential to compose music on par with the 'società dei magnaccioni', and I truly believe he did... Or perhaps the opposite is true: would whoever wrote the 'società dei magnaccioni' be potentially capable of writing a symphony ???

...one proof could be the Ode to Joy ...

thanks TheSimon, your intervention encourages me quite a bit. I must say that the discussion with my friend was so absurd (just as absurd was the example that I had to give against my will, in order to highlight as much as possible the gap between the two pieces).

don't worry, no one can consider themselves insulted by your interventions.

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

thanks TheSimon, your intervention encourages me quite a bit. I must say that the discussion with my friend was so absurd (just as absurd was the example that I had to give against my will, in order to highlight as much as possible the gap between the two pieces).

don't worry, no one can consider themselves insulted by your interventions.

Whether it is an unbalanced person is established, the problem is that if you tell him so, you are precisely seen as a snob ... and in the end he proves himself right, because you went to the conservatory

...wasted breath, if he is convinced ...

Marzapane wrote:

That he is unbalanced is a given, the problem is that if you tell him so, you are precisely seen as a snob ... and it ends up with him being right on his own, because you went to the conservatory

Great point of view, which I also thought of but didn't mention... And I'll tell you more, in the face of such arguments anyone, not just those with musical training, would come across as a snob and that also reveals the reason why he has it in for those with an academic background, precisely because without a shadow of a doubt everyone will have gone against them! Ergo, they are stuck-up... Why?? Because for obvious reasons they don't think like him.

The discussion is not easy at all. And when you say that the guy is unbalanced but that it's difficult to disagree with him because otherwise one comes across as a snob, in reality, you are underlining a heavy problem with a red pen. The problem isn't coming across as a snob; the problem is that TRYING to prove the superiority of one music over another is impossible (logically, because "proofs" in art do not exist). ARGUING the superiority of one music over another is difficult. But even worse is talking about "musics" rather than "works," or single pieces.

Making a general discourse for you would be long and complicated, so I will tell you directly what I think. And eventually, we can discuss it later.

I think that REPERTOIRES all have artistic dignity. A tavern song can be a masterpiece, just as much as a symphony. The issue is finding "that" specific tavern song that is one, because it is obvious that not all tavern songs can be. But the same thing applies to symphonies; not all of them are masterpieces. This leads to a kind of paradox that, in my opinion, should be useful for understanding part of the problem: can we say that all symphonies are superior to the society of gluttons? Because the snobbery of classicists lies not so much in asserting that Beethoven's fifth is superior to pop, but in asserting that ANY classical composition is. And this does not hold up, neither for reasons of taste nor for historical reasons. The historical weight and aesthetic complexity of many Beatles songs (which always come up) surpass the historical weight and aesthetic complexity of many classical compositions.

I partially agree with what you are saying. Sometimes I think that to solve a problem there is no need to complicate one's life on a microscopic level when the macroscopic is already clear in itself and does not require particular additional considerations. If I have to cross the street, I don't write down the equations of my motion and those of the cars and set them into a system to find the time t to avoid colliding with the cars. I observe at what speed the cars are moving and, by eye, I can afford to cross. Here, the argument seems very similar to me. It is useless to find proofs that certify the superiority of one music over another if, to the ear, the context already makes us laugh. I do agree with you when you maintain that all repertoires have artistic dignity; in fact, it doesn't seem to me that I spoke ill of the 'società dei magnaccioni' [society of freeloaders], let alone me, who lives in Ariccia, the town of Roman fraschette where this stornello is sung continuously. On the other hand, repertoires categorize the society to which they refer; stornelli, in particular, playfully exalt the leisure and vices of Romans in a playful atmosphere. It is also true that some songs by famous groups, such as the Beatles for example, surpass some classical compositions that do not have great historical importance. But the 'società dei magnaccioni' vs. Beethoven's fifth symphony...