From: mclaren
Subject: correcting misinformation
--
As I've mentioned on other occasions,
a small handful of forum subscribers seem
to have made it their job in life to deny
documented facts whenever possible, and
to purvey instead a blizzard of misinformation.
The instant anyone posts a statement of
straightforward fact on the order of "1 + 1 = 2,"
such subscribers seem to take great delight in
immediately writing: "Of course that's
not true, that's ridiculous. Everyone knows that
1 + 1 = 9, this is merely an example of [so-and-so's]
mathematical ignorance..." yadda yadda
yadda.
In most cases these preposterous "rebuttals" are
so self-evidently false that there's no need to
clear up the misinformation. However, in
other cases these individuals attack in
groups, like a cloud of mosquitoes, and the
cumulative result can be a significant
distortion of the truth.
The distinguishing characteristic of these
misinformed subscribers is that they *never*
cite checkable references, they *never* offer
hard info or quotes complete with source,
date, author, etc. Instead the typical
purveyor of misinformation will merely
write: "That's ridiculous, everyone knows
it isn't so." Such unsubstantiated claims
ought *not* to influence anyone but it remains
a fact of human nature (as elections show)
that if someone hurls dung at you long enough,
eventually some of it sticks. Alas, sheer persistence
can often substitute for facts and truth. (Hitler
called this principle "The Big Lie," and unfortunately
it *does* work. A lie repeated often enough, loudly
enough, will eventually be taken as the truth unless
it is shown with hard evidence to be false.)
And so it's periodically necessary to do exactly that.
--
To my statement: "Inevitably, all movements
stake out a place in the musical spectrum--IRCAM
has consistently placed itself in the post-Webern
serialist camp..."
Ronald Bruce Smith replied: "Crap."
Smith did not bother to cite quotations or offer
facts in defense of his claim.
That's peculiar. In the "Rhetoric," Aristotle points
out that "A speech has two parts. You must state
your case, and you must prove it. You cannot either
state your case and omit to prove it; or prove it
without having first stated it..." [Aristotle,
Rhetoric, section 13, boustrophodon 30-33]
Like a handful of other naysaysers on this forum,
Ronald Bruce Smith has stated his case and omitted
to prove it--he could not be troubled to adduce
facts in support of his claim, so we shall to
look at the facts ourselves.
And what are those facts?
On page 7 of the IRCAM CD booklet for the CD
containing Denis Cohen's music, we find
the following words: "Denis Cohen's music...
actually occupies a rather singular position
within new French music, not least of all
on account of its Germanic traits (Cohen
cites Stockhausen and Bernd Alois Zimmerman
as notable influences). This is not so much
a matter of sound, even if the sonoroties and
even gestures of an early work like
Transmutations often recall Stockhausen's
Gruppen..." [Richard Toop, IRCAM CD liner
notes for CD "Denis Cohen," page 7]
--
Stockhausen's "Gruppen" is one of the best
known works of post-Webern serialiasm,
and Stockhausen is one of the most faddish
post-Webern serialists. If Denis Cohen's
music resembles and is influenced by
Stockhausen and Stockhausen's composition
"Gruppen," clearly the IRCAM composer
Denis Cohen falls into the post-Webern
serialist camp.
--
Again:
"Frederic Durieux uses to his advantage
[the methods] of the pioneers of the
50s as well as those found in older
traditions. Therefore he can situate
himself in the line of Boulez, Berio
or Carter, and uses as a twentieth
century reference point Webern's
purity and Berg's relationship to
musical gesture." [Michel Rigoni,
IRCAM CD liner notes for CD
"Frederic Durieux," page 6.]
--
Pierre Boulez is a post-Webern serialist.
Elliott Carter is a post-Webern
serialist. Webern and Berg were
classical Viennese serialists.
Every one of the influences cited
for Frederic Durieux is a serialist
of the 2nd School of Vienna or
a post-Webern serialist.
--
Again:
"Magnus LIndberg burst upon the
international new music scene...
with a series of bold energetic
pieces brilliantly synthesizing
such diverse techniques and genres
as total serialism, aleatoric music,
musique concrete..." [Julian Anderson,
liner notes for IRCAM CD "Magnus
Lindberg," page 5]
--
Total serialism is by definition
post-Webern serialism.
--
The other IRCAM CD on my shelf
contains music by Philippe Hurel,
who is *not* a post-Webern serialist.
He is, rather, a spectral composer in
the tradition of Tristain Mureil and
Gerard Grisey.
--
So let's see what we've got here...
To review:
Ronald Bruce Smith described as
"crap" my statement that "IRCAM
has consistently placed itself in the
post-Webern serialist camp..."
Yet 3 out of 4 of the liner notes of the IRCAM
CDs I have cited above *specifically* identify
these IRCAM composers as being post-Webern
serialists.
That's 75% post-Webern serialists out of
the IRCAM composers on CD.
Clearly, Ronald Bruce Smith's statement
is "crap."
Clearly, Ronald Bruce Smith has demonstrated
his profound ignorance of the music being
made at IRCAM.
Clearly, Ronald Bruce Smith is arrogant as
well as clueless, which turns out be a wonderful
godsend in helping me prove one of my most
controversial claims. Namely, that the PhDs
who run the music departments of the
most prestigious universities nowadays
are a callow, shallow lot, distinguished
by their hubris, their ignorance, and
their incompetence. These people know
little even about conventional 12-tet music,
and next to nothing about microtonal music--
and they don't care. To them, the words
of the Balliol Song apply: "I am the master
of this college/if I don't know it, it isn't
knowledge."
As to the question of *which* particular
subgenre of post-Webern serialism the IRCAM
composers follow like lemmings, that is
a distinction without a difference. Forte/
Rahn/Babbitt or Boulez/Stockhausen... This
is merely a distinction between two different
flavors of sewage. In the end types of serialism
the same, they both come out of the same
abysmal tradition of pseudo-scientific
augenmusik, and nattering about differences
between Babbitt/Rahn/Forte and Boulez/Stock-
hausen serialism is on the same level as
nitpicking about which branch of the SS
actually killed more Jews during WWII. Such
meaningless pseudo-distinctions are utterly
immaterial to the basic issues, and Ronald Bruce
Smith knows it.
The only conclusion to which we can come
after reading Ronald Bruce Smith's spectacularly
misinformed and remarkably surly post is
that his false statements were due to
dyslexia.
Either he couldn't read the liner notes on the CDs
issued by IRCAM, or he doesn't care what they say.
On this basis alone we know that Ronald Bruce
Smith must be a professor of music at Berkeley.
You can't make statements as ignorant as his
without a doctorate in music; for such unusual
ineptitude, special training is required.
Keep it up, PhDs. Your reputations are dropping
so fast they're experiencing *time dilation.*
Time after time, when I make a statement it
is proven correct by hard cold evidence. Time
and again, when PhDs sneeringly claim my
statements are "crap," the PhDs are proven
incorrect and ignorant.
How many more times must this occur
before it becomes pellucidly clear that there's
a pattern here?
--mclaren
