Forum Coffee Break: Musical Terrorism

At the WHC in Amsterdam, Lavinia Meijer played a world premiere of a piece
of 3 movements composed by Jacob ter Veldhuis, entitled Cities Change the
Songs of Birds (three urban songs for harp and boom box)
(1) Lying Piece of Shit about a drug addicted woman, homeless, in the      
streets of New York;
(2) From the time she was a Baby about a drug addicted mother, 31, and her
17 yr old daughter both just released from jail, and
(3) That's it your honour".

Lying Piece of Shit (the actual title of the piece), did not disappoint and
Ms Meijer's music lived up to every word of the title and then some!

It is a fact that there is protest music, and music that make statements.
However, what Ms Meijer hopes to prove by her music is beyond me. The music
had in stereo overhead (boom box), the voice of a woman who had been
deprived of her "fix" and in her erratic agitated state, was screaming
obscenities, which Ms Meijer duplicated in a high-strung voice like a
banshee.  Only difference was that this woman was screaming implicitly in
desperation for her "fix" but I fail to understand what the message of Ms
Meijer's music depicts, or what she was screeching for or against!
More surprising that this piece is funded by the Dutch Fund for the Creation
of Music.

The composer writes: "I analyse sound bytes from the media from people in
emotional situations regarding their melodic and rhythmical quality and
build my compositions around it.  In this case the subject is the fringe of
society, young American women, struggling to survive in a world of drugs and
crime, without home or in prison.  Urban songs about a harsh reality of
today.  The harp comments, plays a dialogue or just accompanies the voices
of these desperate women"...

In today's volatile world where violence and sex seems to dominate
(especially on tv and movies), Ms Meijer, who's bio reads "is always
searching for new music" is actually targetting the "fringes of American
society" by depicting this desperate woman in her state of frenzy, while in
Amsterdam, Holland's own drug addicts are in blissful oblivion of what's
happening while they snort, sniff or inject by needles also provided by the
Dutch Govt in a nearby park set aside especially for this activity!  This
kind of "shitty music" only propogates the hate towards Americans by
targetting their fringes of society. As she explained, this was aimed at
depicting "American" drug addicts, and the voice was an actual reality, not
done by an actor". She does not stipulate whether this in fact, reflects all of North American society or mainly the USA! But as the Lying Piece of Shit points out, it is in the "streets of New York".

It is unfortunate that new harp music by this world premiere has stooped to
this degree and brought the harp to the gutter. How low can you go Ms Meijer?

The harp as we all know, is an instrument of beauty, of worship (as depicted
in the Dun Huang caves in China & in the Bible).  To see it in the centre of
this atrocity just goes towards promoting more hate toward American society
and is, in my opinion, just another form of Musical Terrorism!

On the other hand, Gweneth Wyntink (also NL), gave a stupendous rendition of
Ginestera's concerto and brought the house to standing ovation! What a world
of difference between classy and class-less.

I sincerely hope that this "world premiere" of this piece will also be its
swan song and that we never have to be subjected to, nor have this type of
"shit" imposed upon us ever again.

Kathy Elarte

Kathy.... thanks for speaking up. The worst so-called harp music I've ever heard, and offensive to my musicality has been "world premiers" at WHC conventions.

My question... I read that Suzanne McDonald is the "artistic director". She is a world class harpist and harp teacher. Why is it that every time I hear this offensive harp music, Suzanne McDonald is the artistic director? Is this from the dark side?

It sounds like this piece was very offensive.  There is a lot of modern art that is offensive in all mediums. (painting, sculpture, film)  I think it is a cultural thing right now to see just how offensive you can be before you lose the audience.  You do not have to like it, but it does have the right to exist.  There is a place for this sort of expression.  Ms Meier is a brave harpist to go to this dark place.  Remember though that she did not actually WRITE this piece.  She agreed to play it.  Often one plays things that they do not agree with if that is what is required.  In this case it was a Dutch harpist playnig a work by a Dutch composer., at a Dutch WHC.  You can see how that may have been an interesting collaboration to get involved in.  Also remember that not all agree that the harp as to be all sweetness and light and angels.  I do not know of another instrument that self-limits its expression to only light colors based on religious allusions.    I am not defending the piece, I am just saying it has a right to exist.

  There is an opposite effect  in music composition for the harp as well, if  a composer does come along (who is not already famous) and writes something that is lyrical, and is well constructed, it is often not considered "modern" enough.  There is a prevailing opinion that it is not modern harp music if it does not involve torturing the harp in some way.  So, to get taken as a serious composer you have to write something that is ugly or exploitive.  If you wish to write something that is actually likable, then you get labeled as a popular composer and you are not taken seriously, unless you are already famous like LeGrande, Jenkins or Williams, who are considered as "lighter" style composers.   

I am looking at both sides of this argument. Maybe if artists were not judged harshly by their peers for creating works of beauty, then we would get more works of beauty from them?

Anyway, wouldn't a John Adams or Phillip Glass harp concerto be cool?

 

Hi Kimberly and Ann,

Your arguments are thoughtful and well reasoned, and I do agree with much of what you say.  I have heard firsthand the critical snobbery of something being "too commercial" (translation:  too slick or too pretty, and hence unworthy of our time).  

I certainly do not advocate censorship, but I think Kimberly is dead on--it seems that there are those who think that art exists to solely push the envelope of what is deemed acceptible.

I play with the Musica Nova Symphony, and one of our concert series was "Music Banned by the Nazis."  One piece was banned because it "contains every perversion known to mankind." 

It was New Orleans Jazz....beautifully written out (and with a funky harp part, to boot!)

Closed mindedness (and ideological goals) are poor reasons for censorship, but most those in society have a sense of self-limiting behavior, and for good reason.

Trust me, I used to deal with this on a daily basis when I was a full time film editor.  And I developed my own admittedly commercial and pragmatic guidelines:

In terms of Art:  I am reminded of the scene in BUTTERFLIES ARE FREE where Eileen Heckart has a conversation with a very avante-garde stage director.  He is insisting his admittedly tasteless nudity, et all, is "showing life and reality."  Heckart's retort:  "So is diarrhea...but I hardly consider that entertainment."

In terms of Commercialism:  I am reminded of a quote by Gene Roddenberry, creator of STAR TREK.  "Ultimately, you must always keep in mind that all of your art, hard work, and creativity is designed to sell hemmorhoid creme."  Meaning that, ultimately, you MUST satisfy your sponsors and producers.  AND YOUR AUDIENCE.

Would you play a piece of music for your friends? Your church? Your club? At a wedding? A funeral? A corporate gig? For your demo CD? For the mayor? 

You are certainly able to play anything you wish for anybody, but if you don't reign yourself in at somepoint, you are going to be a very unpopular and unemployed harpist...assuming this isn't your objective.

Playing weird or sickening music is certainly anybody's right--but being utterly pragmatic and dare I say, crassly commercial, if I spend over two grand to attend concerts in Amsterdam I would expect to hear music that I could at least learn and play for almost any audience.

Right or wrong, it is what they are expecting.  And I need to eat.

To be vulgar and ugly simply for it's own sake is so self defeating.  Did ANYBODY, even ONE person, rush out to buy CD's of this composer's music after this performance?  If not, why?  Isn't this self defeating?  And as I said earlier, how many of the general public would leave this concert and tell everybody, "Oh God, never go to a harp concert!"  This is really helpful--NOT!

So....where is the line that shouldn't be crossed?  Urinating on stage?  At what point does Art cease and Vulgarity reign? 

Yes, we all need to be challenged....but shouldn't there be some sort of insulation for this most beautiful of instruments?  Has anybody seen somebody gasp when they enter a home and say, "Oh, you have a PIANO?!?!?"  But I'm willing to bet people do when they enter your house and say, "Oh, you have a HARP!!??" 

Yes, Ms. Meier is to be commended for having the courage to actually tackle this piece.  But similarly, I have the right to walk out on it. 

And if 90% of your audience feels the same way, well, perhaps they are on to something.

David Ice

 

My 5 cents in general:

There is a very thin border between an avangard music and (pardon) chromatical masturbation about "those sick sad world". The last one has nothing to music. And a harp, meaning it is healing and peacefull instrument because of it's acoustic species, is not a brain-crushing instrument. Archetypes? Probably - but you can never imagine bloody drugged ugly punk riping the harp strings. Only in nightmare - but you need to have a sick sad (tm) inner world for this. Some archetypes must stay untouched. There are too much shit in a world and there's NO reason to express it with the only one instrument, which is the incarnated tenderness even in pfysics and lyrics both.

I migh be not right, but that is my opinion.

*went back to learnings of my beloved Stefano Landi's works. Make love, not war. Peace, people.*

Christian, that is DEAD ON...and I swear I've heard that piece at a harp conference!!!!   And humor always springs from truth...

Dave Ice

This has been a facinating thread to read, and I'm glad to see some really thoughtful and well-worded points.

Two quick thoughts:  music criticism (or any other type of criticism) is not based on whether the critic approves of the piece.

Also:  the new music scene in Europe, and the Netherlands specifically, is very different from the US.  One close friend, a composer, moved there years ago because of the support he'd receive from musicians and audiences.  So the notion that 90% of the audience would have wanted to walk out, as one poster commented, doesn't take into consideration that much of this audience was probably European, and the non-harp related concert go-ers where likely to be Dutch supporters of new music.

You may want to skip this response. It's from a non-musician (a harp husband, or harp widower, to be precise).

You have reminded me of a piece comissioned for the AHS convention in Lubbock, Texas, in the 1970's, which was partially supported by the Institute for Arid and Semiarid Land Studies. That harp work was, appropriately, somewhat more than semi-arid. I haven't heard of it, much less heard it, since.

I am also reminded of the Salzedo prelude, musically excellent in my non-professional opinion, called "Lamentation," composed in the teens of last century. It achieves effects which hard rock bands match only with the help of high-wattage amplification.

I am one somewhat narrow in taste, but broad in tolerance. To illustrate by analogy, I am a strong supporter of free expression (for adults), including the right to burn the flag, or use it in critical art. Yet I get really worked up when "patriotic citizens" display the flag in violation of simple flag etiquette, as when it might be allowed to become ragged or torn, or dislplayed after sunset without adequate lighting (equivalent of sunlight). So I suppose I'm supporting those of you who spoke of composer's intent, as well as those who supported the right to walk out.

Thanks for letting a non-harpist indulge in a bit of nostalgic prattling.

J Bernard

I'm not going to respond directly to posts that have been put on this thread because I have not read all of them yet. But I do want to say that there is a larger picture. I own a copy of 'The concise(meaning the shorter version) Bakers Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. It's over 1100 pages long. I have no idea how many composers are listed in there. But 99.9% of them you've never heard of. The point is, in every age, less than 1% of the music composed makes it into the standard repertoire. We too have to suffer through many bad pieces in order to hear the occasional good one. And I don't think anyone, critics included, can predict which pieces are going to last.

At the same time, I believe there are hidden gems that are waiting to be rediscovered. Yesterday on our local classical music station I heard a Symphony by Hans Rott. He composed it when he was 20 in 1878 and was hailed by Mahler and other major composers of the day as the greatest new composer of the age. The symphony was absolutely riveting; a gigantic piece that bore an uncanny resemblance to symphonies that Mahler would later compose. I stopped what I was doing in the shop, turned off the machinery and stood there listening to this glorious symphony for almost a half hour. I never do that. Rott died by suicide at the age of 24, having burned many other pieces that he had composed. So almost nothing remains today of his music. What an incomprehensible tragedy. I got out my copy of Baker's and Rott is not even in there! Only time will tell with any composer what will survive and what will not.

" I know if I was American, I would not take this sitting down. I would be inundating the World Harp Congress with protest letters."

Well, as an American I have a lot more important issues to worry about than some musical composition played at a relatively obscure music conference (how many non-harpists even know what the WHC is?), regardless if it is brilliant or garbage.

My country is facing some very serious issues right now and I just can't find the energy to get that pissed off over some piece of crap music composition that probably no one will ever hear again.

"What does it take to make Americans wake-up? Another 9-11? Or just the trend of Western countries now joining the ranks of the "Let's target America" with our hate-music?"

Please, the hyperbole is getting out of hand, and I actually find the comparison and linking of things like this and terrorism to be highly offensive.

It's a piece of music. It may be garbage (to be honest when a critique is as emotion laden and over the top as the one that started this thread I have a hard time taking it seriously) but it is just music. People have taken pot shots at others through music through the history of music (even if you want to call this a pot shot. Having lived in several major US metropolitan areas including NYC the fact is that there IS a higher incidence of drug use in these places) and to suggest that it can be a direct lead in to terrorism is just going too far in my opinion.

 

Wow. Finally, a really challenging and stimulating artistic discussion. It's been a long time. Briefly, I will say that relying on grants tends to lead to this sort of ridiculous "music" because a proposal has to look good on paper. It's also the kind of thing that indirectly lost us NEA support for classical music. Most people who call themselves composers are not, or at least, it does not mean they are musical or talented. Some of the least talented composers I have come across have been the most successful. And some, like Michael Torke, are lacking in taste and sensibility. Anyone who incorporates rock music and electric instruments into classical music is someone who does not think. Except about success and money. Most composers seem to be in it for the money, oddly enough.

I find it difficult for some reason to "get my music out there." I think it is because I am a bit shy, it is truly beautiful and therefore needs protectiveness, it seems, and my limited energy is directed to writing new pieces rather than promoting. With performers too, because they probably don't practice much, the worst people seem to promote themselves the most, with results that help them but help destroy the harp's status, roughly speaking. It is our modern world, where people have little education or sensibility, we are stuck with a legacy of worshipping novelty for its own sake, as well as egoism and celebrity-seeking behavior.

Is Meijer covering for a lack of musicianship, or taking chances?

Will I get my music accepted to a World Harp Congress?

Will Tim Conway ever play the harp again?

These questions, and many others, will be answered on the next installment of "As the Harpist's Stomach Turns."

I do believe that time will sort out some of the dreck and the dross, and we will recognize as the great ones the composers who were sensitive to the natural acoustics of music, and incorporated them into their music. (Don't ask me for a list of them right now.)

I agree that electric instruments certainly can be use in "classical" music (i.e. Modern Art Music). I have heard it done several times to excellent effect. There is a difference between playing a baroque piece on electric instruments and playing a modern piece written with those instruments in mind.

Also I often enjoy unconventional instrumentation. One of my favorite "avant guard" pieces of music is HK Gruber's Frankenstein Suite. Among the standard instrumentation are some slightly unusual items like Gamelan gongs and sand paper blocks, but also some really out there things like plastic children's toys, rubber tubing and paper bags (that the percussionist blows up and pops several times during the performance).

When I saw the piece performed I was blown away. There were clearly some who didn't appreciate it, and a few even got up and walked out. But I thought it was one of the most interesting, not to mention entertaining, pieces of modern music I have heard in a long time. My only regret at the time was that there were no recordings of it available. One finally came out last year and although I had to have it imported to get a copy it was worth every penny.

To each their own. I can appreciate that some people don't like certain things, but I think that meaning and value of such things are put on it by the individual as much as by the general public. It makes no difference to me if there are only a handful of people who enjoyed Gruber's performance of his piece (although I think it was actually more than a handful). What matters to me is that I liked it and hope to see it again some day. And I have a feeling my local symphony would look forward to doing it again as well. I don't recall ever seeing them so clearly enjoy playing a piece. They were definitely have a ball playing the piece. When half of them pulled out toy instruments, the other half started swinging rubber tubing and the timpanist started popping paper bags they all had such big smiles on their faces.

Of course somewhere there is probably someone writing about this piece saying how ridiculous they all looked playing toy instruments and that the popping bags were just annoying. Vive la difference.

So if someone doesn't want to see a performance that includes electric instruments then that is fine. It only means it will be that much easier for me to get a ticket.

 

Academia can function both as a preserver of tradition and as springboard for innovation... this greatly depends on the mindset of the individual academic and the institution that they are involved with.    Hopeful there are academics who strive to be both.  I know that I do . 

 

 

"I don't think that we can totally dismiss the harpist's willingness to perform it as at least some indication that she felt that it was worthy to be performed."

Hmm, maybe, maybe not.  I have certainly been asked, and agreed, to, play in performances before I have any idea what the piece is like.  She may even have agreed to play it before it was written, and once commissioned someone would have been found to perform it. 

It would be an interesting project to chart all WHC premiers and see which have sunk without trace and which have been played again.  This would show what the return is on the 'tax' of subscribers paying for a concert, out of the many, which runs a greater risk of being a total flop, but if it succeeds has a legacy beyond the single performance.

I am sitting here listening to Thomas Newman's score to Wall-E.   It is both acoustic and electronic, and has a wonderfully prominant harp part, played by Gayle Levant and Katie Kirkpatrick.  They are the leitmotif for Wall-E's earthly wanderings.

Plus, the booklet notes that there is also:

Electric Autoharp

Aeolian Windharp

Rendered Harp

and something called Metal Arppegios.

And a full symphony orchestra.

This score is wonderfully creative, jazzy, scary, heartbreaking, funny, and lyric at the same time, with some very eccentric rhythms, fun harmonies, and astounding orchestrations.

And imminently listenable and accessable.  And not the least bit offensive. 

Dave Ice

Bonnie- This reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with a very important European harpist-one of the best in the world- who had premiered many new concertos. She told me that she finally threw in the towel, because she would spend half a year or more learning the piece and then would not get more than one performance out of it.

Steven,

I have to tell you this......

I attended a concert many years ago, where Nicanor Zabaleta was going to play Ravel's Introduction et Allegro.  I was very excited to hear Zabeleta play, especially in an intimate setting.

Just preceeding his performance was the world premiere of a new Brass Quintet.

Well, it was just awful.  The stranges noises, gurgles, booofs and sqwarrruks were coming from these instruments.  And suddenly it hit me.....it was the musical equivalent of diarrhea!

I started snicker, then giggling, then biting my cheek and pinching my legs to keep from bursting out in hysterical laughter.  I would get myself under control, telling myself "it's just modern music, it's just modern music" when the tuba would do another "brrooooommmssshhhhh" and I would absolutely lose it again.  The people in the pew next to me were glaring at me, but I couldn't help it.  I was doubled over with laughter.  And every time I calmed down, here would come another "grrrrrwwwwwahhhhhhppppsss" from the trombone. 

There is nothing like "church laughter" when you know you should NOT laugh, but you can't help yourself.  And that  Brass Quintet definitely played a version of your "Diarrhea Concerto"!!!!!

Dave Ice 

WE'RE NOT ALONE!!!!

Check out this new music for trombone!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QvIrFCprYNQ

David,

I haven't laughed that hard in years! It kind of reminds me of "Kolors With A 'K'" at the WHC in Switzerland six years ago.

If the "artistic director" or someone with influence from WHC is reading this, I'd like to make a suggestion that for one conference, staff members of academia are ineligible to create new music, and candidates must have actual commercial credentials composing music to participate.

But wait. We are what we play. That is performing. We embody the music and present it to the audience, and hopefully we, and only we, are responsible for our choices. Insomuchas, with competitions and all, that is rarely the case, it only means the performer is that much less themself. What a loss. The intimacy of playing music you have found in your heart and present sincerely is lost. 

I want to say something wordless. Performing this last time became something different, a presentation of art in which I had a different experience. The performance depended on the audience, of course, but was not about them anymore, but about presenting a living art for them to see and hear and feel, but was not given to them, but the opportunity to experience its existence, like I was painting in the air above me to be seen, but then vanish. Something like that. If I had not loved deeply all I performed and perfected the order and preparation, it would not have been so. That would have been merely ordinary, pedestrian, unsatisfying, lacking, etc. It takes a long time to get there and you have to seek it to find it. I hope I find it again. And hopefully again. It would also be nice to stay there, but I feel like it's climbing Everest and you can't live there.

<<I want to say something wordless. Performing this last time became something different, a presentation of art in which I had a different experience. The performance depended on the audience, of course, but was not about them anymore, but about presenting a living art for them to see and hear and feel, but was not given to them, but the opportunity to experience its existence, like I was painting in the air above me to be seen, but then vanish. Something like that. If I had not loved deeply all I performed and perfected the order and preparation, it would not have been so. That would have been merely ordinary, pedestrian, unsatisfying, lacking, etc. It takes a long time to get there and you have to seek it to find it. I hope I find it again. And hopefully again. It would also be nice to stay there, but I feel like it's climbing Everest and you can't live there.>>

I agree wholeheartedly with Kathleen Clark.  I was immediately struck by the eloquence of your words, Saul.  You are speaking of the transcendence of classical music, the inherent truth in its beauty.  To me you seek to express these ideals through as pure a form of your instrument as is available to you, which is one reason why you promote the acoustic harp.  There is a depth to the feeling in your heart and to your dedication to not only the harp but to the profundity of music in its highest form.  You are one of the reasons why I had to go back to the pedal harp.  You influenced my life in this way because of your posts on harpcolumn, and I, too, want to thank you!

Jerusha

I am curious as to who has the final say or makes the choice of music to be played at international conferences? Reason why I'm asking is that the final concert and last musicians to play at the WHC was a group called "French Kiss" (electric celtic harp/electric bass) from Quebec, Canada.  The MC announced this act as "passing the torch from Amsterdam to Vancouver, BC for the 11th WHC".  I don't believe they asked the impending Host Committee if this was appropriate inasmuch as this act where the young gal was attired in a mini-skirt and flip flops and the young percussionist in a hoodie followed such class acts as Kristen Agresta and Jana Bouskova, both in long formal gowns. In fact, this young harper, quite out of her element, stated that they never play on a concert stages, but normally play in bars and nightclubs. Inasmuch as Canada has many renowned harpists, compared to this gal's strumming and crooning, I was disappointed to pay thousands of dollars to have this music shoved down my ears, and am wondering who makes these choices? Or am I stereotyping what a harpist should dress/sound like at a world do?

Kathy Elarte

 

There was a ridiculous piece by Sylvano Bussotti, now out of print, and I wish I had kept it, because it was graphically beautiful, but sonic nonsense.

"I don't feel that the WHC is as obscure as you want to believe. It is to the harp world, similar to the Miss World/Miss Universe Beauty pageants, and similar to athletes what the Olympics are about. "

I am sorry but I don't think those are valid comparisons. Both the miss Universe and the Olympics are events that attract attention of millions who never even consider participating in such activities, and are both major corporate events pulling in millions or even hundreds of millions to the various sponsors. They are televised around the world and have a huge audience of people not directly associated with Beauty Pageants or Athletic competition.

The WHC is a musical event of importance to harpist. Some others may  have interest, but other than harpists and their spouses how many non harpists do you think make up the audience compared to non athletes at the Olympics?

I know many musicians and I asked any of them if they knew what the WHC was and none of them ever heard of it and when I explained it some said it was a neat idea but they never realized it happened.

My point being that this piece was played at a performance seen mostly by other harpists or those few who have some special interest in the harp and harp music. It was not televised around the world and the average person is still completely unaware of this compositions existence much less the existence of the WHC.

It isn't even a ripple in the general public's consciousness, and so I see no real reason to get upset about it. It may be trash but so is a lot of music. Par for the course in my opinion.

"If Americans like yourself are passive about these digs, then so be it. I, for one, am more patriotic about my country."

I think patriotism is a very misused concept. It shouldn't be "my country wrong or right." America has a lot of  issues and problems. If a non-American wants to make a statement about those problems I have no problem with that so long as they are being truthful. Lies are a different story, but I don't see anything in the description of the piece that can be interpreted as a lie. I don't claim to know what the composers intent was, and certainly if I accept the description presented here as accurate I would say that the performance was tasteless, but not due to nationalistic pride. Rather because it used the sounds of an actual person in pain as part of a performance. I find that distasteful, not the implication that it is a statement about America.

Many things are political and much music has political elements to them. I like a lot of Irish music and much of it paints England in a not so nice light. I have heard lots of music that made political statements. Again, par for the course.

I can appreciate that the music was most likely crap. I can also understand that having to listen to it may have been down right disturbing. If you weren't prepared for that then that was unfortunate and the presenters should have given some kind of warning. However I don't think that music necessarily needs to be pleasant and attending a concert isn't necessarily for the purpose of being entertained.

Music is art, and like any art it is often presenting unpleasant facts in a way that is intended to make people think. If nothing else clearly this piece has sparked this discussion and probably several others among the people who attended. That alone makes it art. Perhaps tasteless art, but art just the same.

Some art is unpleasant, disquieting and down right dark and disturbing. "Art" is not synonymous with "Pretty", "Pleasant" or "Entertaining".

I would bet that the composer would be thrilled to know of this discussion despite the panning of the work in it. I have never known an artists who wasn't thrilled to know his piece generated discussion no matter or what kind.

 

Actually my post was meant to be a reply to Kathleen's, not yours. I don't know why it showed up as if it was to yours as I posted to reply to hers. She compared the WHC to a beauty pageant.

I agree that the use of the recording of the woman was exploitative. That is the only true objection I have to it. Having not heard it myself I can't make any personal comments on its merits. Also several have made comments about the beauty of the instrument and art and I just wanted to make the point that beauty is not a necessary quality to make something art.

If this is art or not I can't say personally having not heard it myself. But despite that the descriptions given here do make it sound like crap I really haven't heard anything that would make it not art. Distateful perhaps but not outside of the realm of art.

+++Ah, but there's the rub.....when does something FINALLY fall outside of the definition of "art"?+++

That is a question that people have been asking for longer than any of us have been alive. There is no consensus. However I have long ago gotten past the point where I would say that something isn't art because I don't happen to like it.

+++ If it is crap or if it is definitely tasteless, even when the performing musicians tell me "this piece is s***," then why must we politely endure, like lemmings, "art" for art's sake?  +++

You don't. I don't know anyone who is suggesting anyone must endure something like this just because it is art. That something may be art does not mean that someone has to endure it. There are things that are clearly in the realm of art that I don't subject myself too because I don't care for them. In fact I can hardly stand the vast majority of what passes for poetry, so you will NEVER see me at a poetry reading despite that many find poetry one of the highest art forms.

So if someone doesn't like something then don't attend, or walk out. That is your right and your statement as much as the artist is making a statement.

+++I would argue that a concert is, inherently, meant to entertain or at least transport us to another realm--in the same sense that nobody would consider a root canal "entertainment".   The former is voluntary, appeals to the higher natures of mankind, and hopefully inspires.   While a concert can be dark and disturbing (think of Symphonie Fantastique) I don't think any audience would willingly submit to a root canal then and there under the guise of "art" and "experiential reality."+++

I respect your opinions very much David, but again I think this is not a valid comparison.

First I strongly disagree that the purpose it to entertain. It can entertain, certainly, but art is meant to make a statement and to make us think. That may or may not involve entertainment or transportation to another realm.

But to compare it too root canal misses the point. A root canal simply is. Art is always more than what simply is. It is a vehicle for transmitting ideas. That is why even speech writing is an art. People have MLK's "I have a Dream" speech on their walls because it is art.  However I would question the idea that those people who went to see Dr. King speak that day were there hear his speach as a form of enjoyment. That didn't stop them from experiencing a piece of art.

It is very nice when art is pleasing but some of the most profound statements are made when art is not so pleasing. I remember when I went to see the photo exhibit of Robert Mapplethorpe that caused the controversy in the ྌ's. After seeing the exhibit I could agree that some of the images were disturbing but I couldn't imagine that anyone would deny it was art.

It was only after I saw it that I was stunned to find that during the obscenity trial that Mapplethorpe eventually won what was most contested was the sexual imagery inherent in his photos of the flowers.

There were photos of all sorts of disturbing things, but what the jury spent the most time deliberating were some photos of cala lilies.

It was then that I realized the absurdity of trying to define "art". There will always be someone ready to point at even the most "artful" enterprise and call it "degenerate garbage".

I forget which composer it was who said it but I recall the story of the great composer who went to see the performance of another composer's piece. He sat through the performance in wrapped attention. Afterwards another concertgoer who was sitting near him and recognized him asked  him, "Maestro, did you enjoy the performance", to which the Maestro replied, "What the hell are you talking about, I didn't come here to enjoy myself."

 

Dear readers,   
 
I'm so glad that the HarpColumn is around to host such thought provoking dialogue. I'd like to take a moment to chime in.   
 
I personally feel that we are blessed to live in countries that promote the concept of freedom of expression, where artists of all mediums are able to create. Art can be controversial, it can be offensive; it can scare and dare, open one's mind or chill ones soul. It can be described as profane by one and Divine by another. It can bring one to their knees in awe or incite a riot. I believe that the freedom to create is vital.     

However, we also live in an age when we recognize "whatever people put out there" to such a degree as we've become conditioned to automatic acceptance, on some level. We live in an age where speaking against one persons "art" is almost taboo and invites insults.

My point; just because something 'can' be created does not mean we must welcome it with open arms. We are people, not sheeple.    

For those who suggest that any form of 'art' needs be cherished, I ask you: did you feel likewise about Chris Ofili’s 1999 exhibition of a painting featuring the Virgin Mary in a sexually explicit cutouts covered with elephant dung? What about artist Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ"; a controversial photograph that shows a small plastic crucifix supporting the body of Jesus Christ submerged in a glass of the artist's urine?     

If you are not willing to subject your eyes to this form of imagery and call it 'art', why are you willing to subject your ears to screaming profanity and call it 'music'?   

Perhaps we have reached a time in the evolution of music where we are so desperate for a new 'taste' that we are willing to lick the gutter. I find that profoundly sad. 
 
Thanks for listening.

Hi Tony,

Believe it or not, I do agree with many things you say!  Many advances in culture come in yanks and shudders.  And I'm trying not to sound like a prude or a fuddy-duddy at all.  I worked for years in Hollywood (and there are those who would consider me, as such, a communist pinko radical soul-destroying anti-Christian subversive!) and am no stranger to the endless debate, "what is art."

I think what is lost is, "what is appropriate?" at a AHS or WHC conference.

And again, I ask:  Why not just have an "Evening of Experimental Music" where everybody would then know what they were getting into?  No censorship, no question about the nature of the music. 

Dave Ice

David, You are BRILLIANT! I believe you have found the solution.
However, the poor composer will be suffering for lack of the "shock-value response".
I believe this would have been more important to him than applause!
(Ever hear the sound of one hand clapping?) ; o

David,

That is a brilliantly simple solution that I can't see anyone having issues with. Bravo.

I think ultimately the issue isn't the music itself but people being blind sided by something they weren't expecting.

 

... even pianist have their lunatic composers. Check this out. If I did this at work, I'm sure someone would call 911.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkWMVqCMj08

You know, I was playing harp almost the same way she is playing piano a few months ago when I was so doped up on Oxycontin and Fentanyl for back pain.   Only I kept falling asleep in mid-piece.........

Fortunately, I didn't have any gigs during that period!.......

Dave Ice

Anybody see the film Green Card?  If not, it's worth watching for this one scene alone (it's good anyway): Gérard Depardieu is an illegal immigrant in New York whom Andie MacDowell is trying to help, for reasons of her own.  They wind up at a posh high-society dinner gathering, given by people who are crucial to Andie's plans because they have enough money to fund a project she particularly wants to undertake.  It's important that she make a good impression, and she's a bit worried that the innocent and rather bumbling Depardieu will blunder somehow and embarrass her in front of these wealthy patrons.  

His character's surname is Fauré, and when someone inevitably says, "Oh, you mean like the composer?" he stammers out a hesitant "Yes" (quite possibly never having heard of him).  When pressed to elaborate, he says that this man was his uncle...  ummmm, no, great-uncle...  or great-great...  His impromptu replies just dig him in deeper and deeper, until they all end up believing that he has followed the family tradition and is a composer too.  In truth, he's never even played a note of music in his life, much less written one.

Of course it just HAS to happen: They are all seated in the hostess' living room, which boasts a fine grand piano (that nobody in the house appears to be able to play) and one of the ladies urges Depardieu to perform one of his own compositions for them.  He demurs, they insist, Andie silently panics, and eventually he trudges over to the piano, looking exactly like a man ascending the steps of the gallows.  He seats himself at the keyboard, sits for a long meditative moment, and then begins to "play" his "piece".

Folks, you have to see this - it's utterly hilarious.  Couldn't find a clip of this scene on YouTube, but I bet that if you excerpted that performance, with none of the surrounding dialogue or context, and put it alongside the lady pianist in Christian's video, you would be hard put to tell which was the genuine offering and which was the parody.  (If hers is genuine...?  Maybe she saw Green Card too.)   

PS: Andie got her funding -

I question the integrity of an individual when they use a pseudonym such as "A Harpist". Very likely, this could have been the composer, the artistic director, or the programmer.... most likely someone from the world of academia.

I'm going to try to transcribe for harp the following composition from "NORA" as seen on YouTube and submit it as an anonymous composition for WHC in Vancouver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ860P4iTaM

Bonnie,

I found a VERY short clip of this scene. It's about 20 seconds into the movie preview. Don't blink or you will miss it!

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1084948761/

She's a delight!  So inspiring!  Thank you, Christian, for sharing this video!

Jerusha

Eleanor,

Thank you for your contribution to this conversation. It is great to have the opinions of others who were there who didn't feel the same as the initial post, and more importantly, why they felt different.

Since most of us commenting haven't actually heard the piece (and of course on the Internet when has that ever stopped someone from offering an opinion) we had just the one sided description. From that I concluded that the piece was most likely not good, but your description has given me reason to think that perhaps it is worth hearing if, by some miracle, I ever get the opportunity.

This is a great conversation, mainly because this subject has perplexed me for years. I can only imagine how bad the above so-call new composition is, judging on all the "new music" I have heard at AHS and WHC conferences.

I am not easily offended unless the intention is to hurt someone. For example, I am offended when I receive an email joke that make fun of people for their god-given attributes, such as jokes targeting handicap people.

I agree with David:
>>"I can't define pornography," one judge once famously said, "but I know it when I see it." (Justice Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964).  Ditto for bad, tasteless music.<<

So, last Friday I had the honor of attending a small concert by Dr. Carrol McLaughlin. The "Doctor" (as she referred to herself and her doctor status multiple times during the hour) played some of her own compositions. The compositions were stunning, as well as being articulately performed. In fact, her compositions were so far superior to anything I have ever heard from the "new music" programs I have attended, who are mostly composers from the world of academia.

I would love to hear more "new music" from people such as "The Dr." and other harpists and composers who have made some impact in the "real world", not just the world of academia as we have sadly witnessed over and over.

>> Society needs external points of reference for these things - ways of defining these using reason that doesn't depend on personal taste that is constructed from whatever series of experiences that particular individual has been shaped by. <<

Julietta,
Perhaps we mean the same… however I think it should be....internal points of
references.
___________

If a musc touches me in any way...I'm impressed.
If a music does not affect me, I am no mirror for it.
But then I can not scream or make a judgement about art.

So, if I scream and make a judgement of a  performance  ...then I'm right in the game...touched by the performance...but not accepting that this performance giving a large light spot exactly to my blind part.  

Regards

<"Our responses to music are a direct result of our exposure to sound and the social values that have been instilled within us. Our unexamined assumptions can be incorrect. It is challenging to come to a point of realizing this, and much easier to spend a lifetime clinging to whatever happened to shape us initially in life.">

Well, in my case, I had no exposure to harp literature whatsoever prior to my 23rd year, so all of my experience has been as a fully formed adult, and not imprinted on a childhood psyche.  In fact, my entire family was sure I was the one who was bonkers for taking up such an outlandish instrument considering my age and gender--truly the antithesis of clinging to childhood influences.

And certainly, there have been many harp pieces  I've sat through that have seemed to last a lifetime, if not an eternity. 

Modern does not automatically mean bad--I've performed Sir Malcolm Arnold's Fantasy for Harp (which, for lack of a better word, is disturbingly challenging to the expected harp sound) as a musical sermon at my church!  And to great effect, I might add.    But, I do have to chuckle at those of the opinion that we must "eat all our vegetables" no matter how old, experienced, or worldly we might be--if we choose, as mature adults, to react in an.....um...."non-supportive way"  to lofty artistic goals no matter what our own reaction might be. 

And I find it hysterical that, as has been noted above, everybody from audiences to judges to performers are gleefully frank about how much they hate these pieces....but we all must keep studiously silent and politely applaud with profound seriousness. 

Stephen Spielberg has been criticised for being too commercial, glossy, emotionally manipulative, and a "hack" for doing films such as E.T.  and  The Color Purple.  But trust me, every single director and studio head in Hollywood would kill, sell their souls, give up their firstborn child, and kick their own mothers to the curb if they could be in his (Spielberg's) shoes....."art" be damned.....

 

Lavinia,

I'm really glad you responded. I did not see this work performed. I'm sure you were fabulous! It's the context of bad music I have seen at these performances that I object to.

Your response kind of explains the uncomfortable feeling I have about applauding. I ALWAYS applaud for the performer. Sometimes it takes a great performer to perform a piece of trash. But then I am uncomfortable, because my applause is always for the harpist, NOT the composer.

I'd still like to see some legitimate harpists-composers who have other accomplishments, such a movie scores and TV, write new music.

Hi Ann,

I stated I did not hear this number because I really don't have a first hand opinion about this particular composition.

But.... I've been to about a dozen AHS and WHC conferences, and try to go to the "new music" or "experimental music" harp performances. From MY experiences, ALL, and I repeat ALL, the music in this category has been absolutely awful. I also want to say that absolutely ALL the harpist were fabulous.

The most popular comment I hear about the composer is "that's clever". There usually is a small group of ladies who must follow this music, as I've seen them at the concerts and they seem to find merit in the music. I have not found any merit, but I've been blessed by hearing some great harpists.

I had heard that China and Australia were both contenders for the 2014 WHC.  Does anyone know who won?

 

This is the "funny" piece of which I was speaking. I believe there's also a second page, and I don't believe it really sounds as it should without it!

I am JacobTV, aka Jacob Ter Veldhuis, the composer whose work Cites Change The Songs Of Birds was premiered during the World Harp Congress in Amsterdam last July, causing such a ‘scandal’ that harpist Lavinia Meijer and I are now accused of musical terrorism. Although I cannot take this accusation seriously, I am surprised about this hostile response. The last thing we musicians want, is to terrorize our audience, let alone a whole nation as Ms Elarte suggests...  Having read some of the angry comments in this thread I believe it says more about the commentators themselves and their understandable prejudice against new music, than about my work, since most of the honorable contributors seem to have a very clear opinion, judging my work notably without having heard it. 70 years ago Theodor Adorno published his essay On the Fetish-Character in Music and the Regression of Listening, and some people still seem to live aesthetically in 1938 or before. But others have very well understood my work, (like 66 and 72) and I’m very grateful for their sympathetic contributions. I also appreciate that the harp community is so involved. So far however, I myself have remained almost completely anonymous. No one has wondered who’s the man behind the music. So, for those of you who are curious to learn more about a genuine ‘musical terrorist’, here’s my point of view:


I am known as a composer of quite accessible music. Already early in my career, I strived to liberate new music from its isolation by employing a direct - at times provocative - idiom that spurns 'the dissonant', that calling card of modernism, which in my view reflects a completely devalued means of musical expression. Standing up to what I call the 'washed-out avant garde', made me a controversial composer. I am moved by the tragedy of human shortcomings and the sufferings this can bring about, but instead of commenting on it with tormented, cynical sounds, as most contemporary composers do, I try to sublimate it by using a harmonious sound palette: I pepper my music with sugar so to speak. Cities Change The Songs Of Birds may contain audio samples that are pretty harsh, but the harp part isn’t at all, on the contrary, it is rather sweet and tonal. It is this contrast that I use a lot in my work. The dramatic tension it can bring about I find very intriguing.

Over the passed years I have developed this style that you might call musical photorealism: I sample speech fragments from everyday life, usually from the media, similar to what Andy Warhol did 40 years ago with ready made pictures, but in a more complex way: I analyze the melodic and rhythmical structure of speech audio samples, write that down in musical notation and compose a score along with a grooving soundtrack. So speech audio samples are the leitmotif in my compositions. This way I have written numerous so called ‘boombox works’ for one or more instruments with soundtrack. They can be performed simply by using a boombox as a PA system, hence the name. These works have become popular worldwide. My boombox pieces deal with a variety of subjects: politicians, tv evangelists, talk shows, soldiers on the battle field, tv ads, you name it. Some works are sad, some are violent, some are funny, or extremely sweet ( like my oratorio Paradiso) but they all relate to the modern world we live in. I invite you to see the video clips on my website below. Only in the USA I’m counting hundreds of boombox performances per season. Last year the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York held a three day JacobTV Festival. Curator Limor Tomer wrote: ‘Jacob TV is preoccupied with American media and world events and draws raw material from those sources. His work possesses an explosive strength and raw energy combined with extraordinarily intricate architectural design’.



I believe it’s a bit naive to state that a work of art would have the power to harm the reputation of a country. If it is true that the imago of the USA is damaged, then first of all by the policy of its own President. 
And in spite of what Ms Elarte (1) suggests, Cites Change The Songs Of Birds has nothing to do with my attitude towards the USA, a country which I love and visit regularly for my work. The tragedy of drug addiction is an international one, and yes we have our share in Holland. I have lost dear friends myself to drugs, so I know what I’m talking about. Of course I could just as well have used Dutch sound bytes. But I happened to come across American documentaries that moved me deeply. Speech samples from those videos appeared to be very suitable for a composition. Also, I prefer English as few people understand Dutch.

Schubert in his days could still write about ‘ Die Schöne Mühlerin’. Nowadays composers somtetimes may have to deal with different subjects. Cites Change The Songs Of Birds is a dialogue between the harp and homeless and drug addicted women, written out of empathy. The title is a metaphor for what a city can do to people. Like some birds in metropolitan areas imitate car horns and other urban sounds rather than birds.  It is important to stress that as  a composer I’m not trying to deliver a point: I’m not a journalist, I’m a poet. What I try to do is: use the sounds of this world in my music, showing different aspects of the complex reality of our modern society, like a photographer does, by picking subjects that are touching. Like novelists, choreographers, filmmakers and visual artists, I don’t believe there is anything that cannot be the subject of art.

The harp is one of the few instruments I had not written a solo work for. It was a great experience working with Lavinia on the piece. Writing for harp is difficult for most composers, also for me, and it was great to have the opportunity to rehearse together in a kind of ‘work in progress’, trying things out to see what would work best for the harp, adjusting the score on the spot.

There was obviously no space for 3 pages of lyrics in the program book, so Lavinia and I decided that she would shortly introduce the composition. Right after the ovational applause, I got countless compliments from harpists and regular visitors, and several requests for the score. TROUW, a major Dutch newspaper wrote: A remarkable work. The harp could really use this more burly imago, quite a relief after all the sweet music that was heard before. Of course one cannot argue about taste. If people don't like what I do, that’s too bad and I don’t mind. But anyone who attended the concert will at least have witnessed what an amazing harpist and stage personality Lavinia Meijer is.


JacobTV http://www.jacobtv.net
boombox videos http://www.jacobtv.net/audiovideo/video.html

Sorry, I don't buy any of it. The "hostility" you are reading here is the direct result of enduring hours of experimental, conceptual "music" that contains little or no actual music. It has nothing to do with "accessibility." We can listen to a beautiful composer like Hans Werner Henze, or even abstract constructors of music like Andrzej Panufnik (Universal Prayer), or the music of Ami Maayani. As a composer, I utterly reject the notion that composers have to be driven to write about nonmusical subjects. Music expresses an entire universe in the simplest of language, if you have the mastery to write it. What really makes me sad is when conceptual "artists" gobble up the limited grant money to create what are little more than exalted school show-and-tell projects, perhaps an American genre of education, not necessarily applying to you.

"Write what you know, write today's music", are two useless canards that have been used by the uninspired to write gobs of musical gook, in my view. To me, music is timeless, and has nothing to do with industrial-age, post-industrial notions of novelty and progress.

That doesn't mean writing pieces based on fragments of ideas in diatonic modes that are inherently incomplete and unsatisfying. Leave that to background music. I suspect the current AHS competition choice may fall into this category, like the last one may have.

There are lots of student-level pieces by fine composers if you look for them. 

The Dutch ladies music probably wasn't intended to sound good.  Its an art piece about the social conditions of many people in America dealing with poverty. She shows the irony of the harp, an instrument of the wealthy and noble, playing with the voice of a homeless drug-addict.  The juxtaposition of these two contrasting elements is simply designed to make you think, rather than make you want to whistle the tune while frolicking the streets of Amsterdam.  Just my opinion.  Sounds like a dope song. 

Has anyone ever met a harpist who was wealthy and  noble? Not I. Noble yes, wealthy, yes, but not at the same time, unless the wealth was kept secret. Nobility tends to show.

Christian wrote: "I'd like to know which harpists who contribute to this forum are wealthy and noble..... src="http://www.harpcolumn.com/resources/forums/smile.gif" width=19>"

Well, I'd like to lay claim to this. I am both independently wealthy and exceedingly noble.  You see, I run and own a derelict tenement building in a posh downtown location in Ottawa, which houses society's rejects, mainly drug-addicts, pimps, prostitutes and other dregs of society.  While my baby boomer neighbours spend their inheritances and fat-cat salaries on gentrifying the million dollar price-tag Victorian homes, my building is grandfathered as a run-down rat-infested investment which hopefully will bring me a nice return in my golden years to come.  And I feel exceedingly noble in providing housing which ODSB (Ontario Disability Supplemental Benefits) and Ontario Works (formerly coined welfare) deposit an unfailing monthly amount directly to my bank account for the noble act of providing affordable housing to the poor.  These crack-heads never are solo. They are mostly accompanied by their myriads of compatriots who all lie around in their small rat-poop floors in various stages of oblivion when I appear to rapaciously collect rent monies from these "friends" and deprive them of their much-needed fix.  They, of course, in their angst, shout profanities against the church (French-Canadians always swear against the Church) and scream obscenities against me (English Canadians swear in sexual terms), which I secretly record in my pocket, in the hopes that some worldwide composer might buy from me in the future, particularly if one of these has a Brooklyn accent (Jacob, are you there?).  I also feel exceedingly noble that I provide work for immigrant labour by paying a meagre pittance to collect the needles and dispose of them in a proper fashion, further saving tax payers dollars by not having them thrown in green garbage bags and accidentally poking some unsuspecting dustman (in American English, trash collector), and infecting him with HIV. Not only that, I feel more noble towards Ottawa's finest ipso facto I provide a rat-pooped floor for these derelicts to flake out on and save the cops the anguish of finding yet another frozen corpse with a brittle needle in his/her arms in the dead of night in minus 40 degrees weather in the winter.

Then I return home to my luxurious condo in Sandy Hill, another exclusive enclave behind the Parliament Buildings, where from my balcony and every room, I can watch the fireworks display on Canada Day without obstruction, pour myself a demi glass of Louis XIV in an oversize brandy snifter, swirl around the cognac and while relaxing in the quiet comfort of luxury, plug in my boom box, pull out my secret recording and blast the music while playing my authentic ostentatious Louis XV harp or my Prince William or Salvi Apollonia (I rotate harps), and in sync with the recording, I mouth these obscenities in the satisfaction of knowing that I so nobly not only save Ontario taxpayers millions of dollars, spare the trashmen and cops much anguish, provide jobs for underprivileged immigrants in our multicultural society and provide housing for the potential homeless, but that I am the Master of my Fate, the captain of my soul (William Henley, INVICTUS),  the least of the above is that I am guarantying myself a lavish lifestyle in retirement to which I have become accustomed since acquiring this building in which I have not injected one cent on improving and which accounts for the majority of my wealth.  Far above all of the above factors, I have crossed cultural boundaries, I have reached the summit of GENIUS...I have created ART, which will be immortalized particularly if presented at World Harp Congresses!  I am so wealthy and so so exceedingly noble and I sleep well at nights resting on my laurels...Zzzzzzzz

Catherine, I second the motion "Ye gods!"

At this moment, I'm very happy to have my humble 1960's ranch home, drive my three year old mini-van, have health insurance, and I get to pick and choose my friends. I guess that makes me a wealthy man.

Do you have a room for me? Ottawa sounds beautiful.

I was talking to a friend who is a composer/arranger today.  I told him about this discussion and I think he summed it up perfectly:  "Wouldn't it be a shame if parents had to say to their kids, 'You can't go to a harp recital, they're too vulgar.' "

Dave Ice

I've seen some harp vulgarity: slit skirts up the thigh, posing to show off anatomy, oh for the days of dignity.

Oh, Kathy, would you hold it against me if I showed up at your store on Friday and played like that on your harps? You wouldn't give me the boot, would ya? Cause I don't know, I sorta...Dig that spunky harpin'.

Gee whiz! I promise I'll be on my most bestest behavior! I am not promising anything about the skirt though, it's my body, I'll wear what I want.

I might shout some obscenities should I manage to injure myself on the intruments, I once got a nice sized cut on my arm from a tuba, just to give you an idea about how accident prone I am.

There was once a stripper harpist in burlesque whose stage name was Virginia Nomoria, who started out in an evening gown, playing Zabel's La Source, then began peeling off and once down to pasties, she would sit down and play Hot Time in the Old Town Tonight.

 

Or was there??

You are probably thinking of "stress analysis of a strapless evening gown" inspired by a mildly classic scientific paper of the same title.

I think or hope that what we are all seeking is the bravery to work deep enough to be a great artist who plays the harp, not someone who seeks celebrity, sensation or easy gratification, and I say that about all harpists. I think or hope we are all seeking music for the harp that truly speaks in its voice, is moving, and is comprehensible in whatever musical style.

With all due respect, Leonieke, I don't think it takes "braveness" to play such a piece.  As I mentioned before, I can't see any decent harpist wanting to play a piece such as this unless one is seeking sensationalism and wanting to push the boundaries.  Then one leaves oneself open to criticism.

The whole object of my writing this in the first place is not to attack nor persecute Meier, but to state my personal opinion that obscenities belong in the gutter, not on stage with a beautiful harp and a more beautiful woman.

The subject matter as well, I found disturbing. Surely Jacob could have found something pleasenter to compose about, not someone else' misery, in someone else's country ~ or is the speck in his brother's eye greater than the plektron in his own? 

With this ice-age presently descending on Canada (it is -49 as I write, I am heading way down south! Although I understand Tennessee is also having a cold front!

"And I am quite thankful to see that others have been willing to challenge boundaries as well."

Personally I think the only real use of such boundaries is it lets you know where to push.

I for one refuse to let my choice in instrument dictate what music I can play. I don't believe any instrument is sacred and should be reserved for certain kinds of expressions.

As a musician expressing what I want is the reason I do what I do. To be told what I can and can't express is censorship, plain and simple. My instruments are my tools, not divine artifacts that must be reserved for specific purposes. I will use them as I see fit, and anyone who wants to tell me what I should and should not play on my instruments is going to get an earful. I paid for my instruments myself. That give me the right to play what ever I want. If someone doesn't want to listen to what I play then I fully support their right to stuff their ears and move far away, but tell me I shouldn't play what I want and I will just play louder.

And do you find the War Requiem or Child of Our Time contentless beauty or believe they should not have been written because they are not pleasant subjects?  Or maybe object to the fact there is a harp part in the War Requiem and it should have been left to the other instruments?! 

It seems many of these responses are not in scale with the poster's position.

The arguments, brought by Kathy Elarte remind me of a song by the rockband "living colour":

I look at the T.V.
Your America's doing well
I look out the window
My America's catching hell

Do you really want to neglect what is happening outside the window?


Rolf den Otter
http://www.youtube.com/user/EuropeanArchive

Karen,

Perhaps I could answer quickly and we could take the discussion elsewhere should others object?

As a multinational with ties, (And homes), on three continents; I travel a bit. When I travel, for safety and convenience,  I usually do not use the passport with the Eagle. All too frequently people I encounter are not even aware of it, especially when I visit my wife's birth country where Americans are not that popular right now..

The media is a distinct influence and many erroneous paradigms develop from watching TV and Movies. Some are unjustly positive and others are lamentably negative. Of course the complimentary effect occurs as well. When traveling we all too often arrive in foreign lands with our own erroneous paradigms well entrenched.

Sadly, we quickly jump to conclusions that are wrong. Crossing languages and cultures, or even within our native culture, (now one of thOse would be nice!!), we should be careful to always listen attentively to what the other is saying and not what we think they are saying.

I do believe though music is a constant and a universal language.  

Perhaps we both should reserve space at the feet of Audrey, RED FOX! I admire what she has accomplished, Irish is quite difficult I have found and I already have more then one language.