Somewhere, sometime, Miles Davis spoke about being able to play what
you can whistle or sing being restrictive; you had to learn theory to
know that you can (successfully) play some things like a half-major
and half-minor chord. In another interview _about_ Miles, Dizzy
Gillespie remembered Miles coming to him when they were a whole lot
younger and asking about a specific note: Where did you get that note
from? was the quote if memory serves me well. Diz went to a piano and
played the whole chord, then illustrated the single note, saying There
is the note, right there, in its place. Miles was satisfied - he was
always learning, always curious about putting the theory of music into
practice - but he had to know the theory first. (He learnt piano to do
just that, to extend his theory.)
Andrew
2009/5/13 Halvard Johnson <[log in to unmask]>:
> Welcome aboard, John.
>
> Your account reminds me of recently seeing a play (God of Carnage) here in
> NYC and suddenly "realizing" I was "only" watching Who's Afraid of Virginia
> Woolf? through a veil of farce. Fortunately that realization came to me
> after
> I'd seen the play, so my enjoyment of the play itself and four fine
> performances
> (yes, by movie and TV folks, as Broadway seems to require nowadays to stay
> afloat) was not much disturbed.
>
> Hal
>
> "My experience is what I agree to attend to."
> --William James
>
> Halvard Johnson
> ================
> [log in to unmask]
> http://sites.google.com/site/halvardjohnson/Home
> http://entropyandme.blogspot.com
> http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com
> http://www.hamiltonstone.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:15 AM, John Herbert Cunningham <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hello. I'm new to the group. I've been finding this discussion quite
>> fascinating. I'd just like to respond to both Judy and Jon by asking this:
>> If the application of theory to a work of art debases the viewing of that
>> work of art, is this a fault of theory or is it that our first perception
>> was innocent and without knowledge so that we saw the shiny surface of the
>> work without seeing beneath whereas, through being informed by theory, we
>> could see deeper and found it wanting? At this past Winnipeg New Music
>> Festival, the audience in which I sat watched the Scrap Music Ensemble. We
>> were mesmerized by all these bright lights shining on metallic surfaces and
>> all the frenzy taking place on stage as the musicians ran out from the wings
>> pushing brighter and shinier pieces of equipment onto the stage at times
>> dancing with it in pirouettes. Half way through the performance, I realized
>> that all I was watching was taiko drumming with a little more glitz and
>> glitter. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with taiko drumming and I can
>> quite enjoy it given the right context. But a festival that was supposedly
>> dedicated to the best of the new in classical music? My theoretical
>> knowledge of taiko drumming and classical music permitted me to see through
>> the veneer of the surface and question the appropriateness of this
>> performance in this context giving me, in essence, a much greater
>> appreciation of what constitutes new classical music.
>> John Herbert Cunningham
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Judy Prince
>> Sent: May-12-09 7:38 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Theoretically ... (corrected, what was I thinking)
>>
>> When Jon says 'Can we read poetry without theory?' he means 'Does "theory"
>> help or hinder us in appreciating art?', implying that either we can better
>> *appreciate* art 'with theory' or we can better appreciate it without
>> theory, or both, at different times and in different circumstances. In
>> other words, does 'theory' help or hinder us in appreciating art?
>> 'With theory' means two things: 1) having read/heard/seen explanations
>> and
>> analyses of various components of art; and 2) having experienced those
>> arts. We often mean both, of course, because theorists frequently give
>> examples of the art in their analyses, though some, unfortunately, do not.
>>
>>
>> If theory shows us the various things the artist is doing in creating, it
>> helps us understand what other artists are doing. Crucially, then, the
>> question becomes "Do we better appreciate an artist's work when we know
>> more
>> about what she has done to create it?" Yes, we better appreciate what it
>> takes for the artist to create the work; and this better appreciation may
>> lead us to like or to dislike the work [ie, more highly value or devalue
>> the
>> work].
>>
>> Now to what Jon *probably* was proposing: "We can sometimes [or always]
>> LIKE an artwork better if we have NOT first engaged with 'theory'."
>>
>> Damned if I know.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Judy the Libran
>>
>
--
Andrew
http://hispirits.blogspot.com/
|