Sandy!
On page 20 of the text, Woodford presents the view that, "In the absence of criticism and without at least the possibility of dissent, there can be no freedom of musical expression and no real understanding or productive change, just sentimentalism, self-indulgence, dogma, passive acceptance, or complacency." To a point I definitely agree with this, but it is always necessarily such a bad thing, to not have criticism? Is it a problem to just sing or play an instrument simply because you love to do so, to perform or practice simply for that sentimentalism? I think this quote really ties in to the discussions that we have had both in CPIII and Practicum about performance based music education versus non-performance based music education. Do you think its possible to produce a change in the music if we don't have criticism? The way that this quote says "...just sentimentalism, self-indulgence.." to me seems like it is almost negating the importance of of sentimentalism and self-indulgence in music, which to me is so much of the point of music. How do you feel about this quotation?
posted by Ben @ 6:11 PM
3 Comments:
Actually, I feel exactly the same. Criticism can often be a good thing in terms of reflection of music and music performance. However, I do not think it is always necessary for music to be critiqued. I think there is benefit for individuals to just enjoy music and its performance. If there was no time to just enjoy, then there would be no moments of rest in which to be inspired towards positive musical change. It is often the times when an idea is put away that an improvement upon it comes along.
At the bottom of page 33, there is a block quote discussing how individual lives are ultimately in the hand of experts, even to the point of telling individuals what compositions and performances they should be listening to. I personally think this is a cynical point of view of the world and how individals function as a society. What I cannot decide is, as cynical as it may be, whether is it true or not. Because ultimately, if it is true, then there is no individuality left and no one has their own thoughts or ideas. Is it a naive belief that people can think for themselves?
I think that to a point, there is some truth to this quote. With classical music, there are guides on what to listen to, what performers to hear, what orchestras to go and see. If you really stop to think about it, radio stations in a way, work like this. The DJs (or their supervisors) decide what music should be played, what the people listening to the station should be hearing. I think that this is where the individual can take charge to listen to what they want to listen to. Going and picking out CDs of things you have never heard before will help a person to find what it is they like to listen to. Though at the same time, the music that is on CD is music that someone, some expert or producer, wanted you to listen to. I don't think that it is naive to believe that people can think for themselves, however at the same time I think that it is very common for people to just go with what has been discovered already. I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing. I believe that people create their individuality by why they enjoy certain music and listen to certain things, while two people may be listening to the same music, they may not be listening to it for the same reasons, which I believe still makes them individuals. There will always be people recommending works to listen to, but why you choose to listen to them is what makes you an individual.
Post a Comment
<< Home