working on those thought
if you are interested in when i'm going to answer question 2, don't worry. i'm just really tired so i don't have a lot of energy to write a lot down at one time. but i've got a draft going, so it will be up someday!
Monday, June 27, 2005
Thursday, June 23, 2005
so about liszt
well, what i was thinking about in regards to Liszt was that what I know about Liszt from class is that he seemed to use Hungarian folk songs, styles, etc in his music. But no one seems to care why this is. the reason for this is that Hungary was under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Liszt lived during the 19th century and was influenced by the new idea of 'nationalism', no doubt. but the point is that Liszt was influenced by his environment to write more nationalistic music. He believed that Hungary should be its own nation.
The more I write this, the more I wonder if this is exactly what I mean at all. I am a bit tired of typing right now. I think I've posted too many entries in one day (I am also posting on a group web log that is called 'the 10 most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century' it's a book club and we're reading these harmful books.). i'll try to give some better examples of what i mean when i answer question 2 tommarow.
The more I write this, the more I wonder if this is exactly what I mean at all. I am a bit tired of typing right now. I think I've posted too many entries in one day (I am also posting on a group web log that is called 'the 10 most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century' it's a book club and we're reading these harmful books.). i'll try to give some better examples of what i mean when i answer question 2 tommarow.
here is another example.
i was just reading about imperialism and world war I (taking a world civ class, i think i mentioned it) and it mentioned something about the Austro-Hungarian empire. it gave me another example. that is Liszt. see what you know about Liszt and his music and I'll get back to you later.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
lets get positive...positive.
positive musicology. what does it mean to you? what does it mean to me? well, for a while i thought it was something that maybe carl and i had made up. however, it seems that it is not. it has been suggested that i cover three points in my discussion of the topic:
1. you should explain what it is.
2. what you have experienced as a student and
3. what it means to you, and how you would like to change it.
let's start with number 1: what is positivist musicology?
well, i do not know the true definition. maybe i'll look it up and post it at another time. but this is what it means to me (and i think it is more important this way since i may or may not have re-defined it):
positivist musicology is the analysis of music from a historical analytical perspective. actually, that is what musicology is. what makes musicology 'positivist' is the fact that musicologists refuse to take into consideration the society that the music developed in. when we study history, we should always look at the socio-political-economic impact. let us take for example, the developement of communist theory. there are several ways we could analysis this but we want to do so from a historical perspective. so, we would probably try to take into consideration what was happening in the world at the time that Engels and Marx were forming these ideas. we would probably be interested in where Marx and Engels fell in the society, were they members of the elite? or were they propety-less and members of the poor class of society? of course, we would probably try to understand exactly what communist theory means in and of itself. we might also ask how it effected society throughout history. this, in a nutshell, in a historical analysis. i think i could be leaving stuff out, but that's the basics.
in musicology, we tend to forget to to focus on the social atmosphere of the times. take for example Jean-Baptiste Lully. Lully is known as the father of French opera style. we are familar with his music. in a music history class we might learn about how he used dotted rhythms in his overtures because it reflected the fact that the king and nobles would usually walk in at this time. oh and by the way the king was Louis XIV, but thats not really important. or is it? in positivist musicology it really makes little difference where the music came from. it's just music. oh yes, there are some differences in choice of rhythm or structure or forms, maybe you might find a frotolla in italy but not in germany. however, that is all.
in my opinion, the study of music, if we are going to do it from a historical prespective should include the actual history. i go back to my example about Lully. if we knew anything about the french court during the 18th century we might understand why Lully uses the dotted rhythm in his overture. yes, the king would come in a sort of procession. but, Louis spent a lot of money on entertainment and indulged his court by putting on elaborate operas, performances, etc. however, he did not do this just because he liked all of the entertainment. it was because Louis knew that his nobles were concerned simply with status and reputation. by keeping them entertained with operas and ballets, they would not be concerned with what Louis XIV was doing politically. the question is whether or not that shows up in Lully's music. the answer is yes. often Lully and the librettist Moliere teamed up to promote ceratin views on the kingdom. for example, early on, Louis wanted to appear as though his monarchy was very strong militarily and so through the operas by Lully and Moliere, we find themes that might reflect military success. furthermore, the fact that Louis was a ballet dancer played a significant role in this opera-ballets. Louis was often cast as a Greek God or as a paternal figure.
does this make Lully a bad person? no, not really. I mean, Lully was probably just trying to make a decent living. however, he allowed himself and his music to become a political tool. this is important. in positivist musicology, such information is seen as irrelevant. i claim that it is not irrelevant. i claim that in order to fully under music and it's place in history, we must first discover what influenced the composer to write such music. in the case of Lully, he was influenced by the king of France to write in a specific way.
i think that there are musicologists/historians that do focus on the socio-political aspect of music history. however, i find that it is not widely accepted view. i do not think this problem is something common throughout history. i think it has its root in the 19th century, with so many other thing that i have problems with...
what i mean is that much of what we are seeing now, in the world, is a result of many actions the empowered nations of the world took place during the 19th century.
i know my views on the subject are fragmented and have some faulty reasoning. but it's a topic that i have a lot of difficultly with and i am still trying to suss it all out.
i'll read this over tommarow maybe and see if i can clear things up or try to tighten it up a bit. here are some final remarks:
i think that many people do not want to think of music as being influenced by the world that it lives in. i think that people want to believe that all music is beautiful and created for the sole purpose to be beautiful. i think that people think of music as an escape from reality. however, i think that music is not anything like that. i think that music is not always beautiful and i do not think music is created so that it makes people think, "oh that was pretty." i think that music, like other forms of entertainment, is a reflection of society. i think that when we can start focusing on how music reflects society, it is then that we can fullly understand it.
look for my next post as i answer question number 2: what have i experienced as a student in regards to positivist musicology?
by the way, the blisters from my sunburn are going down. still rather painful though. oh and yes, i really am enjoying those recordings! thanks again paul!
1. you should explain what it is.
2. what you have experienced as a student and
3. what it means to you, and how you would like to change it.
let's start with number 1: what is positivist musicology?
well, i do not know the true definition. maybe i'll look it up and post it at another time. but this is what it means to me (and i think it is more important this way since i may or may not have re-defined it):
positivist musicology is the analysis of music from a historical analytical perspective. actually, that is what musicology is. what makes musicology 'positivist' is the fact that musicologists refuse to take into consideration the society that the music developed in. when we study history, we should always look at the socio-political-economic impact. let us take for example, the developement of communist theory. there are several ways we could analysis this but we want to do so from a historical perspective. so, we would probably try to take into consideration what was happening in the world at the time that Engels and Marx were forming these ideas. we would probably be interested in where Marx and Engels fell in the society, were they members of the elite? or were they propety-less and members of the poor class of society? of course, we would probably try to understand exactly what communist theory means in and of itself. we might also ask how it effected society throughout history. this, in a nutshell, in a historical analysis. i think i could be leaving stuff out, but that's the basics.
in musicology, we tend to forget to to focus on the social atmosphere of the times. take for example Jean-Baptiste Lully. Lully is known as the father of French opera style. we are familar with his music. in a music history class we might learn about how he used dotted rhythms in his overtures because it reflected the fact that the king and nobles would usually walk in at this time. oh and by the way the king was Louis XIV, but thats not really important. or is it? in positivist musicology it really makes little difference where the music came from. it's just music. oh yes, there are some differences in choice of rhythm or structure or forms, maybe you might find a frotolla in italy but not in germany. however, that is all.
in my opinion, the study of music, if we are going to do it from a historical prespective should include the actual history. i go back to my example about Lully. if we knew anything about the french court during the 18th century we might understand why Lully uses the dotted rhythm in his overture. yes, the king would come in a sort of procession. but, Louis spent a lot of money on entertainment and indulged his court by putting on elaborate operas, performances, etc. however, he did not do this just because he liked all of the entertainment. it was because Louis knew that his nobles were concerned simply with status and reputation. by keeping them entertained with operas and ballets, they would not be concerned with what Louis XIV was doing politically. the question is whether or not that shows up in Lully's music. the answer is yes. often Lully and the librettist Moliere teamed up to promote ceratin views on the kingdom. for example, early on, Louis wanted to appear as though his monarchy was very strong militarily and so through the operas by Lully and Moliere, we find themes that might reflect military success. furthermore, the fact that Louis was a ballet dancer played a significant role in this opera-ballets. Louis was often cast as a Greek God or as a paternal figure.
does this make Lully a bad person? no, not really. I mean, Lully was probably just trying to make a decent living. however, he allowed himself and his music to become a political tool. this is important. in positivist musicology, such information is seen as irrelevant. i claim that it is not irrelevant. i claim that in order to fully under music and it's place in history, we must first discover what influenced the composer to write such music. in the case of Lully, he was influenced by the king of France to write in a specific way.
i think that there are musicologists/historians that do focus on the socio-political aspect of music history. however, i find that it is not widely accepted view. i do not think this problem is something common throughout history. i think it has its root in the 19th century, with so many other thing that i have problems with...
what i mean is that much of what we are seeing now, in the world, is a result of many actions the empowered nations of the world took place during the 19th century.
i know my views on the subject are fragmented and have some faulty reasoning. but it's a topic that i have a lot of difficultly with and i am still trying to suss it all out.
i'll read this over tommarow maybe and see if i can clear things up or try to tighten it up a bit. here are some final remarks:
i think that many people do not want to think of music as being influenced by the world that it lives in. i think that people want to believe that all music is beautiful and created for the sole purpose to be beautiful. i think that people think of music as an escape from reality. however, i think that music is not anything like that. i think that music is not always beautiful and i do not think music is created so that it makes people think, "oh that was pretty." i think that music, like other forms of entertainment, is a reflection of society. i think that when we can start focusing on how music reflects society, it is then that we can fullly understand it.
look for my next post as i answer question number 2: what have i experienced as a student in regards to positivist musicology?
by the way, the blisters from my sunburn are going down. still rather painful though. oh and yes, i really am enjoying those recordings! thanks again paul!
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
music in times of war
well, i'm listening to lloyd rodger's score to the "little prince", check out paul bailey's blog for more information on that. carl, my boyfriend, got a copy of the score from paul and has it on his computer. it's really great music. i've mostly heard lloyd's modular stuff, which is alright but i tend to think modular music does not always work, only in limited circumstances. and even then, there might be a problem. if you've ever heard any of lloyd's work, or anything he has had influence on, such as paul bailey's compositions, sean fergusons, etc, you have a good idea as to what the feel of the music is. i'll have to add more to this post when i have a chance to delve into details. but it's nice music to listen to.
i went fishing on sunday, i may or may not have mentioned that. the point, however, is that i got badly sunburnt on my ears, particuarly my left ear. i'm a native californian and you would think i would be used to the sun. but my left ear is blistered all over the back. i can't see it, but carl has confirmed this. it's very painful. and very red. why does this matter? when i've got ear phones on my ears and it makes my ability to enjoy the music a bit painful. ooh yeah baby, i love pain. (not really)
i went fishing on sunday, i may or may not have mentioned that. the point, however, is that i got badly sunburnt on my ears, particuarly my left ear. i'm a native californian and you would think i would be used to the sun. but my left ear is blistered all over the back. i can't see it, but carl has confirmed this. it's very painful. and very red. why does this matter? when i've got ear phones on my ears and it makes my ability to enjoy the music a bit painful. ooh yeah baby, i love pain. (not really)
Monday, June 20, 2005
so the music plays in the background and i sit here.
alright. i have been passed the baton. the baton for what, you ask? well, it is a complicated baton. a baton that has many facets. However, it turns out i am free to choose which facet i wish to spend the rest of my life in. well, perhaps not the rest of my life, but some good time.
what am i talking about? i think i am talking about music. i think that is exactly what i am talking about. i think i am talking about new music and the world it exists in and the who, what, where, when, and gosh darn it WHY!--of it all.
paul bailey is the ringleader of an emsemble known as the paul bailey ensemble. he is also someone with a lot of good things to say about music. somehow, he got the impression that i have good things to say about music. well, i have things to say about music that a lot of people do not want to hear. it's to the point that it's caused problems in a few of my classes. i do not regret the things that i said in these classes because whether i am right or wrong, i said it. i made people interested in the topic. i stirred up controversy. i think that was important.
there is a huge problem with the discussion of music from a historical analytical perspective. there is something called "positivist musicology" which means fairly much what you think it means. musicology that looks at all music as just fine. they refuse to take into consideration the social implications of the music that has been created. it is outrageous to think that music is without consequence and without influence from society. well, there you have it. the tip of the iceberg.
ok paul. ok paul. here i am. here i go. let's see what happens.
what am i talking about? i think i am talking about music. i think that is exactly what i am talking about. i think i am talking about new music and the world it exists in and the who, what, where, when, and gosh darn it WHY!--of it all.
paul bailey is the ringleader of an emsemble known as the paul bailey ensemble. he is also someone with a lot of good things to say about music. somehow, he got the impression that i have good things to say about music. well, i have things to say about music that a lot of people do not want to hear. it's to the point that it's caused problems in a few of my classes. i do not regret the things that i said in these classes because whether i am right or wrong, i said it. i made people interested in the topic. i stirred up controversy. i think that was important.
there is a huge problem with the discussion of music from a historical analytical perspective. there is something called "positivist musicology" which means fairly much what you think it means. musicology that looks at all music as just fine. they refuse to take into consideration the social implications of the music that has been created. it is outrageous to think that music is without consequence and without influence from society. well, there you have it. the tip of the iceberg.
ok paul. ok paul. here i am. here i go. let's see what happens.
i think i found the baton...
hm. someone has passed a baton to me? well, that makes me think. think that i need to rethink my blog. alright paul, i'll take it.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
a jedi knight
well, so continues our star wars marathon. my sister and i decided a few weeks ago that we would watch the star wars triology in order. however, we only managed to watch episode I just before june started since i was busy moving into my new apartment by campus. however, we finished episode II just now and so we are trying to catch up by watching episode III later on today. we really don't need to rush except that we asked our father to come see episode III with us in the cinema. for that reason, we do not wish to break our promise. we do not get to spend a lot of time with him anyhow, and it is hard to do things with him since his stroke. so we have to make the most of it.
last night i saw the dodgers play at dodger stadium with my sister and mother. it was a fun evening, i thought. the dodgers lost, sadly. they sell subway sandwiches at the stadium, now. i was excited because i thought perhaps i could find something edible at the stadium that was not beef (i follow the vegetarian diet nowadays). unfortunately, they only sold chicken and turkey sandwiches. very dissapointing. i suppose from now on, i will have to bring something to eat.
well, i am now a member of a book club. the set of books we are reading at the top 10 most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century, according to an online United States conservative magazine. Our first book on the list is Mein Kampf, which in English means "My Struggle", it was written by Adolf Hitler while he was in jail in the mid 1920's. http://harmfulbooks.blogspot.com/ check it out. Posting on the books begins June 20th. Check it out. If you want to join in, feel free to do so!
last night i saw the dodgers play at dodger stadium with my sister and mother. it was a fun evening, i thought. the dodgers lost, sadly. they sell subway sandwiches at the stadium, now. i was excited because i thought perhaps i could find something edible at the stadium that was not beef (i follow the vegetarian diet nowadays). unfortunately, they only sold chicken and turkey sandwiches. very dissapointing. i suppose from now on, i will have to bring something to eat.
well, i am now a member of a book club. the set of books we are reading at the top 10 most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century, according to an online United States conservative magazine. Our first book on the list is Mein Kampf, which in English means "My Struggle", it was written by Adolf Hitler while he was in jail in the mid 1920's. http://harmfulbooks.blogspot.com/ check it out. Posting on the books begins June 20th. Check it out. If you want to join in, feel free to do so!
Thursday, June 09, 2005
i think i am really angry
maybe i shouldn't be so worked up over an A-. but unlike some people i've had to work extra hard this semester to make up for the fall semester. i did very poorly fall semester because i was really ill and had to drop a class, which didn't get dropped as a W but as WI because the stupid department chair wouldn't sign my slip. i had enough proof that i was ill but he wouldn't accept it (that's a story in itself, so just trust me).
so my gpa fell to a 3.29. so i worked really hard so i could get straight A's this semester. which i didn't because I got a B+ in piano and a B in my lessons because I totally blew my jury. but at least i would have a high enough gpa to bring my overall gpa closer to a 3.4 so that after i finished my summer classes (hopefully with all A's) and hopefully do very well in the fall, I would have a 3.5 overall gpa going into the spring '06. i'm graduating in the spring and my grades up to the fall '05 semester matter the most. so i'm running out of time.
my asshole professor in music history gave me an A- which brings my gpa down slightly for the semester which makes a different on my potential for getting closer to a 3.5 for graduation. i don't deserve an A-. i never ever dispute grades, for one thing. so obviously, this really hits a nerve. i'll take an F if i think i deserve it (which i have, once in high school). i generally feel that i deserve the grades i get. whether i like them or not. but i do not deserve an A-. i really think he did it on purpose. this professor and i have some conflicts of interest. and i'm deeply sorry that i cannot possibly see eye to eye with him. i refuse. i e-mailed this professor as soon as i saw my grades.
i might seem like i'm over reacting. but unlike some people, i'm graduating in the spring. so i don't have the extra time to waste to try to boost my gpa. i would really love to, but i don't have the luxury. my parents, specifically, my mother pays for my schooling. therefore i can't just sit around as an undergrad for 5 or 6 years, wasting her money.
i'm counting on my grades for the summer classes i'm enrolled in to boost my gpa so i can get closer to a 3.5. how can i get accepted to a decent grad school without a gpa at least in the 3.5's? what is even more annoying is the fact that your last semester hardly matters because applications are evaluated way before the second semester ends.
if only i had done better in the fall, i wouldn't be in this jam. i would probably have a 3.6 by now. i went into the fall semester with a 3.4. i should be getting close to a 3.6 right now. i would have graduated with a gpa probably very close to a 3.7, but now, all i can do is aim for a 3.5.
i wish i wasn't so obssessed with these stupid grades and numbers. i hate that i am. i hate that it makes me so angry. i can't help it. i just want to be the best and i'm not the best. i feel like i've been programmed to behave this way and even though i recognise this fact, i cannot change it.
school is an institution of evil. it is entirely wrong. education, as it is in the united states, is the result of a society overrun by capitalism. capitalism in the united states is a destroyer.
so my gpa fell to a 3.29. so i worked really hard so i could get straight A's this semester. which i didn't because I got a B+ in piano and a B in my lessons because I totally blew my jury. but at least i would have a high enough gpa to bring my overall gpa closer to a 3.4 so that after i finished my summer classes (hopefully with all A's) and hopefully do very well in the fall, I would have a 3.5 overall gpa going into the spring '06. i'm graduating in the spring and my grades up to the fall '05 semester matter the most. so i'm running out of time.
my asshole professor in music history gave me an A- which brings my gpa down slightly for the semester which makes a different on my potential for getting closer to a 3.5 for graduation. i don't deserve an A-. i never ever dispute grades, for one thing. so obviously, this really hits a nerve. i'll take an F if i think i deserve it (which i have, once in high school). i generally feel that i deserve the grades i get. whether i like them or not. but i do not deserve an A-. i really think he did it on purpose. this professor and i have some conflicts of interest. and i'm deeply sorry that i cannot possibly see eye to eye with him. i refuse. i e-mailed this professor as soon as i saw my grades.
i might seem like i'm over reacting. but unlike some people, i'm graduating in the spring. so i don't have the extra time to waste to try to boost my gpa. i would really love to, but i don't have the luxury. my parents, specifically, my mother pays for my schooling. therefore i can't just sit around as an undergrad for 5 or 6 years, wasting her money.
i'm counting on my grades for the summer classes i'm enrolled in to boost my gpa so i can get closer to a 3.5. how can i get accepted to a decent grad school without a gpa at least in the 3.5's? what is even more annoying is the fact that your last semester hardly matters because applications are evaluated way before the second semester ends.
if only i had done better in the fall, i wouldn't be in this jam. i would probably have a 3.6 by now. i went into the fall semester with a 3.4. i should be getting close to a 3.6 right now. i would have graduated with a gpa probably very close to a 3.7, but now, all i can do is aim for a 3.5.
i wish i wasn't so obssessed with these stupid grades and numbers. i hate that i am. i hate that it makes me so angry. i can't help it. i just want to be the best and i'm not the best. i feel like i've been programmed to behave this way and even though i recognise this fact, i cannot change it.
school is an institution of evil. it is entirely wrong. education, as it is in the united states, is the result of a society overrun by capitalism. capitalism in the united states is a destroyer.
