NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/music/compose/568

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 1.6 KB | 37 lines

Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!umeecs!zip.eecs.umich.edu!fields
From: [e-mail] (Matthew Fields)
Subject: academia, power, priveledge...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr. News)
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:25:29 GMT
Lines: 26


Uh, yeah, uhhhhmmmm....

Very few folks outside of academia these days have even heard of Ockeghem,
much less longed to master his style.

Since I don't believe in Composition After Death, I'll continue making some
of the little compromises (like working, and voting FOR social services) that
make it easier for me to continue composing and living.

The most priveledged living "classical" composer I can think of is Colin
Nancarrow (of the many player pianos), who, if rusty, unreliable memory
serves correctly, won a great big prize that supports him and his art FOR
LIFE outside of academia, and who retired to Mexico City to pursue whatever
kind of automated ear-tickling monkeyshines he wants, with neither academic
affiliation nor commercial concerns  (Of course, I've probably botched this
one, so will somebody please fill us in on the correct details).

I value musical academia as a valuable route to teaching and learning,
which I think is one of the few chances classical art forms have to
market themselves.  This has nothing to do with priveledges and
impositions.  Hey, you don't like how it's done in the academy?
Reclaim the academy!  Feminists have been saying that since at latest
1919.

Matt Fields