Klarinet Archive - Posting 000680.txt from 2001/09

From: "Tony Wakefield" <tony-wakefield@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Silence is Golden
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 06:21:00 -0400

I believe my criticism of Cage`s silences to be non intellectual, and yet
not narrow-minded. I try to appraise the 'Arts' in a way where I may be able
to keep my feet on the ground, without falling into a common trap of
bestowing greatness - a human weakness(?) which distorts much in our world.
I have found part of Tony Pay`s brief, (in his reply), difficult to
comprehend. I think he is comparing silence to sound, and what others might
find more or less pleasurable to 'listen' to, or perhaps 'experience', and
for others who find that to be strange, to non-the-less respect the artistic
value,
if there be any.

I believe that the 'Arts' has too much intellectualism within. I almost
believe that there is no room whatsoever for intellectualism in the arts.
Engineering, farming, interior decor, music, painting to me all form an
<equal> part of life`s rich or poor pattern. They all must have first and
foremost, the same approach, an approach which combines 'know how' with
common sense. I can admire and look at a beautiful and well cared for
bullock just as much as a Beethoven symphonic score.

How does intellectualism creep into the 'Arts'? Is it intellectualism when
someone thinks of 'silence', or is it an original twist/angle/thought
process which is made, and then placed upon a higher plain by others,
creating a false intellectuality, a 'work of art', which otherwise a vast
majority would consider to be quite plainly normal, or indeed rubbish? Why
should an
original thought process/idea be thought of as intellectual. A new bridge
design can be thought of as <artistic>, but it`s not considered to be
intellectual. The
whole design came from within the practical/calculating side of the human
brain. If music and art stem from the 'creative' area of the brain why must
those two
areas of the brain be considered to be intellectually different to one
another?

I am a realist, and as such I will try to expose falseness within the
'arts'. I believe that the arts administrators, critics, and to a large
extent some of the general listening public have much to answer for in
falsifying what is mearly a good tune, by introducing a false
intellectualism, thus creating difficulties for others, who mearly wish to
enjoy a 'good night out' then into a bar afterwards for a few beers. Music
and art is therefore in my opinion nothing more than entertainment.

Why should the arts be subsidised by arts councils and governments? Why
should not the arts be able to stand on it`s own two feet. Why cannot we
look at something and comment in a most outrageous and critical way, (but
yet
constructively)? If we were to practise this more widely, would not we
eventually have 'better' music, better art to appreciate by a <wider> number
of people. And of course would we then not have the creators of art more
able to be
appreciated as one of the community, also able to pay his/her own way, not
just shut away in a turret somewhere deep in a forest or mountain.

We have nevertheless come to move in this direction a little. But some art,
'rubbish' as a lot of us call it is still revered to a ridiculously silly
extent by the 'establishment'.

My music, in reply to Tony P`s comment, is nothing more than 'tunes'. I
think to some extent we are living in a minimalist society, so that is bound
to some degree to influence what composers write for their fellow musicians
to perform - in past times I may have come up with a few symphonies. But my
thought processes were taxed and exercised in exactly the same way as
Beethoven`s. He may also have considered his music to be intellectual - a
lot of concert goers on his first performances did not. I don`t consider my
music
to be of any intellectual variety at all. It is what I enjoy doing as part
of how my own id is put together. I try to write for the enjoyment of
others. If there are any ulterior motives like encouraging notoriety, then
this can only be dishonest. Yes, dishonesty is part of the human way of
life, but I cannot bring myself to introduce it into my music. When playing,

I do very frequently have to deliberately decide to bluff a difficult
clarinet passage - that is indeed being dishonest to my listening audience,
and I do say this to other musicians as well as to myself, that bluffing
<IS> the only way. (You may remember that I have spoken to composers, then
passed
this onto the list to say there is such a thing as intelligent and practical
orchestration.)

Finally, I think we should look at how this 'jeering' at Cage has taken a
turn for the worse tho`. My wishes are for silliness which has crept in to
be moderated, but yet for us to nevertheless seriously think at how we come
to view 'art', and how much value we place on it, because bridges, clothing,
animals, care in disposing of industrial waste is just as interesting and
important to me as disposing of artistic waste - any waste. We do not
deserve to have it forced upon us.

Best Wishes,

Tony W.

From: "William Wright"

<><> Tony Wakefield wrote:
New Composition with world premiere about to commence as soon as
everyone on klarinet opens this e-mail. After reading said mail,
everyone is to sit silently for 3 years listening to their own ambient
body sounds, whilst I utter the following word repeating constantly for
1/2 minute "Rubbish", then disappear to the nearest bar for lunch with
my beautiful wife, come back home and play one eighth note on clarinet.

<><> I welcome critical reviews.

...well, I have just returned from a trip in my time machine, and I
enjoyed your playing, Tony, but.... I really think that you should've
played the single 1/8-note in 9/8 time rather than 3/4. (the
accelerando with diminuendo was delightful, however)

Cheers,
Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------