To make something beautiful is revolutionary (not low class, not easy, not just a sign of low cleverness). In it, I said, “The relationship of feminism to my work and the advancement of the form of my music are in violent flux.” They are, but the dust is settling. The basic idea that beauty is revolution is a revelation to me.
And of course, it’s a problem, too. At differing times in my own life I’ve appeared out and determined that Grieg’s music was the most beautiful… that Schoenberg’s music was the most beautiful… that Cage’s music was the most beautiful… that Oliveros’s music was the most beautiful. Now Personally I think as if my very own music is the most amazing, and the feeling is one of experiencing jumped off the cliff with my wings on. I don’t know if they’re heading to work, but it’s too late now.
This deciding about the “most beautiful” is necessary, and I believe composers make decisions like this all the time. How else could they choose a style to work in and stick with it for fifty years? Beauty means perfect to me, but it has an additional meaning having to do with being pleasurable also, than painful rather. Beauty is hard to make. The making is painful and involves a certain amount of craft, and a relaxation of the right area of the brain that says, write that “Don’t.
- 8 years ago from Untited States
- The Light Between Worlds, by Laura Weymouth
- How often should I shampoo my beard
- Today is Yours (Emilie Loring)
- Precision clean
- Lip Wrinkle Cream with AHAs (Alphahydroxy Acids)
X published those four notes in 1542 or 1979 or 1825 or whatever period you come to mind about being inspired by.” You have to say yes from what comes out. You can scoot it around a little, however the basic material that jumps out of you is you. In the event that you say, “That appears like a raisin commercial,” you are telling yourself you are trashy. You are allowing others to tell you what real artwork is.
Real music soars above class society. Musical careers have a whole lot regarding class and money, however they don’t influence society’s acceptance of the music, following the stuff has been transmitted to the people. Composers are people who create music-not concepts, not machines, not posters, not parties. It requires just as much (maybe more) intelligence to invent a synthesizer or even to make a crowd-pleasing poster for your concert, as it does to make beautiful music.
But doing those other activities does not make you a composer, though they could add to your career or savings account. Being an author of playable music does not assure beauty. That’s a problem you have to resolve for yourself. Beauty got a negative name after the First World Battle sometime.
Musical build (ear training, orchestration, the real reasons for tone of voice leading, etc.) was even taught in the 1960s and ’70s barely, probably because of the revolt against a custom that could allow the war in Vietnam to happen. Beauty seemed a minimal value with regards to life itself. But life continues on and absence and ugliness of skills and nihilism are no reason.
The destruction of the world would not improve social conditions, and making painful, unattractive music will not redistribute the wealth. Beauty is a revolution of the spirit. The euphony of the animating principle of humanity has the revolutionary power of recovery, growing, and revitalizing. Life will probably be worth living and beauty will probably be worth making and, in relation to current behavior, these historic ideas are radical.