Scruton's Preferences

My second question is whether or not Scruton ranks certain forms of contemporary music superior to other contemporary forms, or if he just ranks all contemporary music as equally inferior to classical music. For example, he could dislike rap music even more than he dislikes rock music.

Although I could never be sure without actually asking Scruton, I do believe that there are some forms of contemporary music that he would believe to be more acceptable than other forms. As I stated in my previous blog, I do not believe Scruton bases his judgments solely on the time period in which certain music is popular. He bases his judgments on the quality and complexity of the music at hand. Therefore, I can't really say that he would prefer, in my opinion, music from a certain decade over music from another decade. I can't say that he would probably prefer the music of the 1980's over the music of the 2000's. That would imply that he is judging music based on the time in which it was produced. He just believes that music has a tendency to decline in quality and complexity as more time goes by. He believes this is just an accurate, negative correlation.

I can, however, say that Scruton might prefer one genre over another. In my question, I said as an example that maybe Scruton prefers contemporary rock over contemporary rap music. I am not claiming that this is true, but it very well could be the case. Scruton could claim that rap is far too simple compared to classical music to be considered "good" music. He might claim that rap music doesn't have harmony, melody, tone and rhythm. It might have some, but not all of these characteristics. He might prefer rock music because at least most rock artists use musical instruments.  

In class, we discussed how some contemporary music incorporates orchestras into their music. We discussed whether or not Scruton would enjoy this type of music. I believe that although he might not consider this kind of music something breathtaking, he would probably appreciate it at least somewhat. For example, the song "Bittersweet Symphony" by the British band the Verve incorporates an orchestra into its performance. Although I have a feeling that Scruton would definitely have some critiques about how repetitive the violin is, I do believe he would at least somewhat appreciate this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-p7h2ANRsk
^ "Bittersweet Symphony" by the Verve, live on BBC Television

Mozart v. the Beatles v. Nirvana

         My first question is where Scruton draws the line which separates good music from bad music. For example, he compares Nirvana to the Beatles, claiming that the Beatles are superior. However, would he claim that Mozart is superior to the Beatles, because the Beatles are contemporary compared to the music of Mozart? 

     
      After our discussions in class I have realized that yes, Scruton would claim that Mozart is superior to the Beatles. However, I don't think he discriminates solely based on what year the artist started making music; he discriminates based on the quality of the music, in his opinion. For example, if a contemporary orchestra performed new and original music with the same style as classical music, I believe he would have no reason to consider it inferior. If the new music has tone, melody, harmony and rhythm, he would really have no reason to dislike it. 

      Therefore, Scruton doesn't claim that the Beatles are superior to Nirvana just because the Beatles started making music in the 1960's and Nirvana the 1990's. He believes the Beatles are superior because their music is superior. He believes they do a better job than Nirvana in incorporating tone, harmony, melody and rhythm in their music. He believes the music of Nirvana is less complex, and more dehumanizing. He also dislikes the fact that contemporary music forms idols of the artists. He doesn't like how Kurt Cobain is idolized by so many people, and thought of so highly. He would prefer people to praise the actual music more than the artist performing it, and he believes that most contemporary music is too simple for people to idolize it, so they idolize the musician instead.

The Composer's Opinion

Question:  Would the original composer of a musical piece be flattered to see other musicians performing their work, or slightly annoyed? For example, I wonder how musicians feel about their tribute bands, if they have any.

From what we have discussed in class, I have realized that different musicians will no doubt have different opinions about other musicians performing their work. I would like to believe, however, that most musicians would be flattered, rather than annoyed, by seeing people perform their work. I also wondered in my question how these musicians feel about their tribute bands, if they have any. I think the musicians should be, and probably are in most cases, flattered by this. They are called "tribute" bands, after all. They are performing as a tribute to the original band, which they must truly idolize to put their time into forming a tribute band. 

As we also discussed in class, some musicians might even believe that some covers of their songs are actually better than their original versions. In class we discussed an interview with Paul McCartney. When asked how he felt about other musicians performing his music, he said that he enjoys it, when it's performed well. If it isn't performed well, however, he doesn't enjoy it. Overall, if someone as successful as Paul McCartney is flattered by musicians performing his work, then I assume most other musicians don't mind that much either.

Song Covers

Question:   When musicians “cover” songs by other musicians, are they usually trying to make the piece authentic or are they more concerned with interpreting the song in their own way and putting their own spin on it?

Based on our discussions in class, I have concluded that although some musicians do think it's important to make songs that they are covering somewhat authentic to the original, they usually are more concerned with interpreting the song in their own way. The cover of the song might not be as successful if the artist covering the song tries to mimic everything about the original piece perfectly. It would not be viewed as creative. Different artists also have different interpretations of pieces of music, which is why they want to cover the song in the first place- to show what it means to them, personally. 

I do believe that some artists that cover songs by other artists will try to make the piece as authentic as possible, and I see nothing wrong with that. However, I think these artists are most likely more interested in creating successful performances than authentic ones. After all, most artists that are covering other artists' songs are trying to become known as musicians themselves. Therefore, it might be a technique of theirs to cover other musicians' music in order to be recognized. Audiences might be more apt to give these new artists a chance if they recognize the songs they are singing, and appreciate the creative spin they put on it. If the audience is already familiar with the song, they can sing along and enjoy it. If they aren't familiar, they might not pay as much attention to the new artist.

Personally, I enjoy a lot of covers of original songs. I almost always enjoy the original song as well, but I appreciate the differences in the two versions. For example, if the original song is slow, and the cover of the song is faster, they are both enjoyable for different reasons. Another factor for me is that sometimes I hear cover songs before I even hear the original. Usually when this happens, I tend to favor whichever version I heard first. This is probably because I'm just more used to that version. However, I usually end up enjoying both versions, just not equally.

For example, I first heard the song "Mad World" at the end of the movie Donnie Darko. "Mad World", the cover by Gary Jules, played at the end of the movie as the credits began. I fell in love with the song and its creepy style. I didn't find out until later when I looked up the song online that the version I loved was a cover of the original song by Tears for Fears. I listened to the original and enjoyed that version as well, just not as much as the cover by Gary Jules. I like both versions, but I still favor the cover by Gary Jules, both because it's more haunting to listen to, and because I heard it first. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFsHSHE-iJQ
^ "Mad World" by Tears for Fears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4&feature=related
^ "Cover of Mad World" by Gary Jules

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

We mentioned in class how different pieces of music can be made with the same notes or chords by making slight changes. I just think this video is a good example.

The Art of Food: Part 2

My second question regarding Telfer's essay on the art of food was whether or not food has to be expensive to be considered art, or to even give an aesthetic reaction. I wondered if cheap, unhealthy food, such as pizza, would even be considered. After our class discussions, I have concluded that food like pizza, or fast food, would not, in most cases, be considered art. The reason for this is because cheap, unhealthy food is almost always being created with the predominant intention of it being eaten, not appreciated as an art form. The other predominant intention this type of food is usually being created with is to make money. I do, however, think that there can be exceptions. If something is made out of cheap food, but is predominantly intended to be viewed aesthetically, then it would be considered art, although a minor form. For example, someone could make a sculpture out of cheap food to make a statement about the eating habits of Americans. For example, the pictures below show two sculptures by artist Christopher Chiappa. Both sculptures are made entirely of fast food. Both sculptures are edible, but it is clear that the predominant intention of the artist was for the sculptures to be viewed aesthetically, not eaten. Therefore, I would consider these sculptures as minor forms of art.

Sculptures made entirely of fast food by artist Christopher Chiappa.

The Art of Food: Part 1

My first question regarding Telfer's essay on food as art was whether or not a piece would be considered art if it was made entirely out of food, or meant to be edible. For example, if someone makes paintings using chocolate as paint. From our discussions in class, I have concluded that yes, this would be art because the piece was predominantly intended as art by the creator. The fact that it is also edible is just an added bonus. I would, however, consider it a minor art as opposed to a major art because I don't think all types of edible art could evoke such emotionally aesthetic reactions such as fear, as major art forms could. For example, the picture shown below is a chocolate painting done by artist Sid Chidiac. The painting is edible, but the predominant intention of the artist was for this piece to be viewed aesthetically, not eaten. Therefore, I would consider Sid Chidiac's chocolate paintings as a minor art form.

Portrait of Barack Obama painted entirely with chocolate

by Sid Chidiac