Classical Music Forum banner
81 - 100 of 310 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,309 Posts
Adorno is maybe the historically most important figure of cultural marxism. But it is widespread. I heard that some exhibition rooms are allocated by ethnic quotas today for example. Or there is a thread in this forum called "Did you know that "Classical Music is Inherently Racist?""

This way of thinking has its roots in marxism, but it don't has to be closely connected in every case. "Cultural marxism" is maybe not the best scientific term, but it is a good battle term.

It is important for music because cultural marxism promotes modern art and hampers classical art.
How "widespread" can"Cultural Marxism" be if the only name you can dig up is Theodor Adorno, a composer/philosopher that almost no one has ever heard of, whose been dead for more than 50 years? Then you say that you "hear" that some exhibition rooms are allocated by ethnic quotas. I'm asking for specifics not hearsay. And even if museums are making sure that a certain percentage of their display represents minority groups what does that have to do with Marxism, again an economic philosophy; and why wouldn't American art museums want the art of oppressed minority groups represented in their museums in the first place, and why should anyone be upset by it?

The one thing you've said that makes perfect sense so far is when you say that "'Cultural marxism' is maybe not the best scientific term, but it is a good battle term."

So in other words the term is a fabrication; but remains a good way to label someone or something as "Marxist" ("communist") just because you oppose it for other reasons, and what those other reasons REALLY are is what I want to know. If it's not Marxism, then what is it?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,952 Posts
I've discovered, that many members here have 'politicized' modern music.

It has never been my intention to consciously "politicize" modern music, but apparently those who already have will say otherwise. It seems that a political undercurrent has been uncovered. Some members probably knew this all along.

The question arises: is the dialogue of "traditional forms of art and music vs. modern art" political by nature, since it is perceived by some as being liberal, leftist, Marxist, non-traditional, and even destructive of tradition?

Is this an attitude of those traditionalists who feel their tradition is being threatened?

Does "modernism" equate to "liberalism?"

Will we ever be able to discuss such a thing without it having political resonances, intended or not?
Yes, modern can be explicitly political. Here is an example of a degenerate art, Petra 2010 by the German artist Marcel Walldorf. It comes with a puddle of synthetic urine.

Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra_(sculpture)

Apologies for the explicit imagery, it is what the artist intended if you Goggle the images of Petra.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
How "widespread" can"Cultural Marxism" be if the only name you can dig up is Theodor Adorno, a composer/philosopher that almost no one has ever heard of, whose been dead for more than 50 years? Then you say that you "hear" that some exhibition rooms are allocated by ethnic quotas. I'm asking for specifics not hearsay. And even if museums are making sure that a certain percentage of their display represents minority groups what does that have to do with Marxism, again an economic philosophy; and why wouldn't American art museums want the art of oppressed minority groups represented in their museums in the first place, and why should anyone be upset by it?

The one thing you've said that makes perfect sense so far is when you say that "'Cultural marxism' is maybe not the best scientific term, but it is a good battle term."

So in other words the term is a fabrication; but remains a good way to label someone or something as "Marxist" ("communist") just because you oppose it for other reasons, and what those other reasons REALLY are is what I want to know. If it's not Marxism, then what is it?
In a similar fashion, Žižek asked Peterson to name him personal names of "postmodern neo-Marxists" in Western academia and from where he got the statistical numbers because according to him the over-the-top political correctness is opposed to Marxism, on which Peterson did not mention any names.[2][10][11] Some view this exchange as evidence that the idea of "cultural Marxists" had been invented by Peterson and other members of the intellectual dark web without any evidence of its existence.[12] In the end, they both agreed that happiness is rather a byproduct of life itself.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson–Žižek_debate
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,021 Posts
Discussion Starter · #84 ·
Here in this forum, I realize now that modernism has been long politicized. I used to think that people here could approach art and music without all the baggage they seem to carry around. Now I know what John Cage meant by "baggage" most people bring to music.

I love music and sound. That's me. I don't try to "convert non-believers" like I used to. Listen to what you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chu42

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,270 Posts
How "widespread" can"Cultural Marxism" be if the only name you can dig up is Theodor Adorno, a composer/philosopher that almost no one has ever heard of, whose been dead for more than 50 years? Then you say that you "hear" that some exhibition rooms are allocated by ethnic quotas. I'm asking for specifics not hearsay. And even if museums are making sure that a certain percentage of their display represents minority groups what does that have to do with Marxism, again an economic philosophy; and why wouldn't American art museums want the art of oppressed minority groups represented in their museums in the first place, and why should anyone be upset by it?

The one thing you've said that makes perfect sense so far is when you say that "'Cultural marxism' is maybe not the best scientific term, but it is a good battle term."

So in other words the term is a fabrication; but remains a good way to label someone or something as "Marxist" ("communist") just because you oppose it for other reasons, and what those other reasons REALLY are is what I want to know. If it's not Marxism, then what is it?
Have a look ar Mark Fischer's work for example, I just dug out Capitalist Realism. He looks at how contemporary culture serves to entrench the idea that there is no alternative to capitalism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,270 Posts
That's me, too. I've almost given up on this forum, but then I see a post like this.
You can't resist getting into arguments with people who IMO are not very interesting to argue with - I mean they don't bring reasonable or imaginative thinking to the table. So I can imagine that if I did the same I'd feel that I was banging my head against a brick wall and getting no gain in return for the pain.

But you know, my own experience on this forum has been positive over the past 48 hours -- I've been encouraged to explore the link between Ives, Cage and Cowell on the one hand, and to think about improvisation and ragas on the other.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,021 Posts
Discussion Starter · #88 ·
You can't resist getting into arguments with people who IMO are not very interesting to argue with - I mean they don't bring reasonable or imaginative thinking to the table. So I can imagine that if I did the same I'd feel that I was banging my head against a brick wall and getting no gain in return for the pain.
You're always fun to argue with.

But you know, my own experience on this forum has been positive over the past 48 hours -- I've been encouraged to explore the link between Ives, Cage and Cowell on the one hand, and to think about improvisation and ragas on the other.
"...my own experience on this forum has been positive over the past 48 hours..." :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
You can't resist getting into arguments with people who IMO are not very interesting to argue with - I mean they don't bring reasonable or imaginative thinking to the table. So I can imagine that if I did the same I'd feel that I was banging my head against a brick wall and getting no gain in return for the pain.
This is how I've been feeling. Some of the people arguing for absolute objective "greatness" in music make the same easily deflatable arguments and I find myself repeating the same point over and over.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,021 Posts
Discussion Starter · #90 ·
This is how I've been feeling. Some of the people arguing for absolute objective "greatness" in music make the same easily deflatable arguments and I find myself repeating the same point over and over.
Yes, it can "great" on your nerves...:lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: chu42

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
The ideological motivations are not necessarily obvious. It's like astrology--if there is no evidence to support "value'' inhering within works of art, beyond individual or polled group opinions, then ideology doesn't enter into it.
- Value always depends on individuals or groups. It doesn't make sense to search for evidence for objectively inhering value within something.
- It is a matter of fact that things have (different) values for people, while there is no evidence for astrology.
- It doesn't make sense to state that different art pieces have the same value, because it is impossible that they have exactly the same value for living beings, and apart from that nothing has any value objectively.

Strange Magic said:
Anybody with functioning ears or eyes has his/her/their own unique opinions of any given piece of music or art. No Sale.
And now? Should we take no opinions seriously because everyone has a somewhat different opinion?

Why is the most played classical music so different from the recently created classical music? This sounds very unhealthy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
Yes, modern can be explicitly political. Here is an example of a degenerate art, Petra 2010 by the German artist Marcel Walldorf. It comes with a puddle of synthetic urine.

Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra_(sculpture)

Apologies for the explicit imagery, it is what the artist intended if you Goggle the images of Petra.
That's just an update on "Manneken Pis", the 1619 sculpture of a pissing boy (famous Brussels statue).
pictures =>https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manneken_Pis_van_Brussel
(This wikipedia post also contains a picture of Manneken Pis dressed as a cadet of the US air force.)

In 1987 "Manneke Pis" got female company when in a nearby street the statue of a little girl urinating was unveiled : "Jeanneke Pis"
=> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanneke_Pis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
How "widespread" can"Cultural Marxism" be if the only name you can dig up is Theodor Adorno, a composer/philosopher that almost no one has ever heard of, whose been dead for more than 50 years?
I am more familiar with the situation in Germany than in America, but the results everywhere in the West are similar. I have found an interesting article about cultural marxism that does not necessarily represent my opinion but the conclusion is: Cultural marxism exists: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/01/cultural-marxism-is-real/

Coach G said:
And even if museums are making sure that a certain percentage of their display represents minority groups what does that have to do with Marxism, again an economic philosophy
Not just economic:

Wikipedia said:
Marxist philosophy or Marxist theory are works in philosophy that are strongly influenced by Karl Marx's materialist approach to theory, or works written by Marxists. Marxist philosophy may be broadly divided into Western Marxism, which drew out of various sources, and the official philosophy in the Soviet Union, which enforced a rigid reading of Marx called dialectical materialism, in particular during the 1930s. Marxist philosophy is not a strictly defined sub-field of philosophy, because the diverse influence of Marxist theory has extended into fields as varied as aesthetics, ethics, ontology, epistemology, theoretical psychology and philosophy of science, as well as its obvious influence on political philosophy and the philosophy of history. The key characteristics of Marxism in philosophy are its materialism and its commitment to political practice as the end goal of all thought. The theory is also about the hustles of the proletariat and their reprimand of the bourgeoisie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy

Coach G said:
; and why wouldn't American art museums want the art of oppressed minority groups represented in their museums in the first place, and why should anyone be upset by it?
Because the purpose of museums is art and they should not be abused for political purposes.

Coach G said:
The one thing you've said that makes perfect sense so far is when you say that "'Cultural marxism' is maybe not the best scientific term, but it is a good battle term."
You can propose a better term. For now I keep using "cultural marxist".

Coach G said:
So in other words the term is a fabrication;
Every term is fabrication.

Coach G said:
but remains a good way to label someone or something as "Marxist" ("communist") just because you oppose it for other reasons, and what those other reasons REALLY are is what I want to know. If it's not Marxism, then what is it?
It is destructive. For music and politics. But the topic of this forum is music. Tell me: Why is the most popular classical music centuries old and so different from the most recent classical music?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,309 Posts
I am more familiar with the situation in Germany than in America, but the results everywhere in the West are similar. I have found an interesting article about cultural marxism that does not necessarily represent my opinion but the conclusion is: Cultural marxism exists: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/01/cultural-marxism-is-real/...the purpose of museums is art and they should not be abused for political purposes...You can propose a better term. For now I keep using "cultural marxist"...Every term is fabrication...[Cultural Marxism] is destructive. For music and politics. But the topic of this forum is music. Tell me: Why is the most popular classical music centuries old and so different from the most recent classical music?
OK, so let's start with the "Frankfurt School" that existed at the time of the Weimar Republic in Germany between the wars (1918-1933). What did they do in Germany that was so bad? How did Germany suffer because of them? Hitler didn't like them, and put a stop to them and since almost all of them were Jews they all ended up having to eventually leave Germany. But what did these stodgy old professors DO that was THAT bad, so bad according to you and your "James Martin Institute" that to this day, long since they're all dead and buried, their legacy continues to soil modern art and music?

Next item: You say that the art museums don't exist for political purposes, and the example you used earlier to characterize "Cultural Marxism" in art was that some museums you "hear" are employing quotas in order to make sure that certain ethnic groups get a set percentage of representation at museums. And I don't see the problem there, why it should make me fearful, or worried about the state of art, or creeping socialism. If you could provide another example, one where you might be more specific, that may be helpful.

You want me to give you a better term for "Cultural Marxism"? How about using whatever it REALLY is that is getting you upset? If it's political correctness, diversity, or multiculturalism, then say so; but it's cheap and essentially a lie to use a term that is loaded and charged with all sorts of negative connotations that don't apply. You say "Marxism" and you automatically conjure images of dictators, gulags, mass executions, churches being destroyed, famine, and such; and then you apply it to the museum that wants to make room for an African-American or Latino-American art gallery? But then you make the term so vague, so fluid, so (if you will excuse the expression) abstract, that when pressed you can make it mean anything you want it to mean, claim that you're not REALLY lying, even though you got your message and image through loud and clear.

Why is old classical music so different from today's? Because styles change. Musical ideas become exhausted. It's human nature to invent, to innovate, and to create new things, to break through walls and discover new lands; as Captain Kirk used to say: To boldly go where no one has gone before! Isn't that what Beethoven did with Symphony #3 Eroica; what Wagner did with The Ring cycle; what Stravinsky did with Rite of Spring, and what Schoenberg did with his 12-tone works? A talented enough musician could write in the style of Mozart but it wouldn't be original, so what would be the point? And what does it have to do with "Cultural Marxism"?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,952 Posts
That's just an update on "Manneken Pis", the 1619 sculpture of a pissing boy (famous Brussels statue).
pictures =>https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manneken_Pis_van_Brussel
(This wikipedia post also contains a picture of Manneken Pis dressed as a cadet of the US air force.)

In 1987 "Manneke Pis" got female company when in a nearby street the statue of a little girl urinating was unveiled : "Jeanneke Pis"
=> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanneke_Pis
All degenerate materials.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,963 Posts
- Value always depends on individuals or groups. It doesn't make sense to search for evidence for objectively inhering value within something.
- It is a matter of fact that things have (different) values for people, while there is no evidence for astrology.
- It doesn't make sense to state that different art pieces have the same value, because it is impossible that they have exactly the same value for living beings, and apart from that nothing has any value objectively.

And now? Should we take no opinions seriously because everyone has a somewhat different opinion?

Why is the most played classical music so different from the recently created classical music? This sounds very unhealthy.
You are attempting to have your cake and eat it too.

Of course values always depend on individuals and groups. And surely, surely there is no point in seeking for value within things (art, music, or astrology) if none have been shown--through empirical examination--to contain value.

Of course art objects have "value", though, imposed upon or ascribed to them by the subjective emotions and thoughts of individuals and groups. The value is not found within the art object itself.

Nobody (not me certainly) is asserting that art pieces have exactly the same value. But once we get beyond music and the arts, and those other areas where opinion alone generates our responses, our "evaluation", we find (sciences, mathematics) areas where conformity to objectively measured and agreed-upon data or axioms can be a measure of "value"=adherence to the data or axioms.

In the arts and music, we are free to take any or no opinions seriously or not seriously as each individually chooses. Iconoclasts mostly prefer their own opinions exclusively. People identifying more with groups will more willingly share the group's shared values/opinions.

And the reason the most played classical music sounds so different from recently composed music is the same reason why vanilla ice cream is eaten more than zucchini ice cream--more people like it; it satisfies them better. Leonard Meyer worked out much of why some musics please more people than others, and there are other factors in neurology/physiology that are at play. But if one likes zucchini ice cream and prefers it to vanilla, there is cause for neither shame nor exultation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
OK, so let's start with the "Frankfurt School" that existed at the time of the Weimar Republic in Germany between the wars (1918-1933). What did they do in Germany that was so bad? How did Germany suffer because of them?
I think they had much more influence after World War II. An essay about what they did to music in germany was posted a few days ago here: The Agony of Modern (German) Music; Theodor Adorno and Formal Fascism

Coach G said:
Next item: You say that the art museums don't exist for political purposes, and the example you used earlier to characterize "Cultural Marxism" in art was that some museums you "hear" are employing quotas in order to make sure that certain ethnic groups get a set percentage of representation at museums. And I don't see the problem there, why it should make me fearful, or worried about the state of art, or creeping socialism. If you could provide another example, one where you might be more specific, that may be helpful.
The best art should be shown without looking at group affiliations of the artist. Quality matters not the artists groups. If the artists group affiliations matter there is also less incentive to create high quality art.

Coach G said:
You want me to give you a better term for "Cultural Marxism"? How about using whatever it REALLY is that is getting you upset? If it's political correctness, diversity, or multiculturalism, then say so;
Turning away from quality as criteria upsets me. I have no problem with art from another culture, but it has to be good like every art. No quotas. If it is good it will succeed. And I want to hear that. I like national styles in classical music.

Coach G said:
but it's cheap and essentially a lie to use a term that is loaded and charged with all sorts of negative connotations that don't apply. You say "Marxism" and you automatically conjure images of dictators, gulags, mass executions, churches being destroyed, famine, and such;
I don't think that these implications are compelling. Marxism exits since the Mid-19th century and the predicate "cultural" already implies that it is just one variety of many. And I don't think cultural marxism is harmless. The term should have a somewhat negative connotation. Overall I don't think that it is an unfair term. It has some pro and cons, but it is difficult to come up with a better term.

Coach G said:
Why is old classical so different from today's? Because styles change. Musical ideas become exhausted.
Nope. It wouldn't make sense that Beethovens 9th as an example is recorded like hunderts of times. But it is. So it is not exhausted. But rather few people want to hear modern classical music. Why not take popular old classical music like Beethoven as a starting point and invent and innovate from there? It is like driving from Paris to Rome but the avant-garde is stuck in a suburb of Norlisk.

There has to be a compromise between ambition and accessibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,254 Posts
I've discovered, that many members here have 'politicized' modern music.
What constitutes "politicization"?

It has never been my intention to consciously "politicize" modern music, but apparently those who already have will say otherwise. It seems that a political undercurrent has been uncovered. Some members probably knew this all along.
Very cryptic. Who "already has" politicized modern music (and which modern music)? Who "will say" that you have consciously "politicized" (why the quotes?) music? What does this "political undercurrent" look like?

The question arises: is the dialogue of "traditional forms of art and music vs. modern art" political by nature, since it is perceived by some as being liberal, leftist, Marxist, non-traditional, and even destructive of tradition?
I haven't noticed music being called liberal, leftist, or Marxist. Maybe I'm just not paying close enough attention. Who's calling music those things?

Is this an attitude of those traditionalists who feel their tradition is being threatened?
What "attitude" are you talking about? What tradition? A musical tradition? A political/social tradition?

Does "modernism" equate to "liberalism?"
First, neither word clearly specifies anything. Second, artistic tastes and political convictions need have no relation to one another, and when they seem to do so the cause is apt to be conditioning by a specific cultural milieu. But you can dislike rap and hiphop and believe that black lives matter, and you don't have to be a Republican to say "no no" to Nono.

Will we ever be able to discuss such a thing without it having political resonances, intended or not?
Such as what thing? Musical styles and eras? Of course we will. We do it all the time.

You often talk about "traditionalists" and "modernists" here, and your concern with advancing some definition which will distinguish (or pigeonhole) those categories of music listeners - in this case in terms of their politics - seems to be the underlying purpose of this thread. You might want to keep in mind that Modernist movements in art were freighted with ideologies before anyone here came along to like or dislike their products, and tended to be advanced by people who saw them as embodiments, and even tools, of radical social/political philosophies and agendas. This is an important part of the legacy of Modernism right up through at least the mid-20th century, to be vitiated and "deconstructed" by postmodernism (which, however, carries its own political tendencies). If modern art has been politicized, you might look first at what its creators and contemporary supporters thought they were up to, rather than try to deduce the political leanings of people unsympathetic to it a century later. You won't learn much of consequence about us by asking whether we prefer Bizet or Birtwistle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
What constitutes "politicization"?

Very cryptic. Who "already has" politicized modern music (and which modern music)? Who "will say" that you have consciously "politicized" (why the quotes?) music? What does this "political undercurrent" look like?

I haven't noticed music being called liberal, leftist, or Marxist. Maybe I'm just not paying close enough attention. Who's calling music those things?

What "attitude" are you talking about? What tradition? A musical tradition? A political/social tradition?

First, neither word clearly specifies anything. Second, artistic tastes and political convictions need have no relation to one another, and when they seem to do so the cause is apt to be conditioning by a specific cultural milieu. But you can dislike rap and hiphop and believe that black lives matter, and you don't have to be a Republican to say "no no" to Nono.

Such as what thing? Musical styles and eras? Of course we will. We do it all the time.

You often talk about "traditionalists" and "modernists" here, and your concern with advancing some definition which will distinguish (or pigeonhole) those categories of music listeners - in this case in terms of their politics - seems to be the underlying purpose this thread. You might want to keep in mind that Modernist movements in art were freighted with ideologies before anyone here came along to like or dislike their products, and tended to be advanced by people who saw them as embodiments, and even tools, of radical social/political philosophies and agendas. This is an important part of the legacy of Modernism right up through at least the mid-20th century, to be vitiated and "deconstructed" by postmodernism (which, however, carries its own political tendencies). If modern art has been politicized, you might look first at what its creators and contemporary supporters thought they were up to, rather than try to deduce the political leanings of people unsympathetic to it a century later. You won't learn much of consequence about us by asking whether we prefer Bizet or Birtwistle.
Spot on, Woodduck! Another excellent post...especially the last paragraph in bold.

Funny how a number of TC members who have lately been posting in a number of contentious, politically-favored threads seem to have no knowledge of this reality...or chose to ignore it.

Woodduck knocks another one out of the park!
 
81 - 100 of 310 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top