3525 Shares

What makes someone a 'master' of composition? are we bound in anyway to their aesthetic?

What makes someone a 'master' of composition? are we bound in anyway to their aesthetic? Topic: If that was the case subjunctive
July 17, 2019 / By Marlie
Question: Erik Satie asked: "Who established the truths governing art? Who? The Masters. They had no right to do so and it is dishonest to concede this power to them. Everyone has had professional cases to complain about. Look at Rodin, Manet, Debussy, etc. But the Masters are not seized by the police, nor by ushers or other judges. let us mistrust art: it is often nothing but virtuosity." Are we bound by the ‘truths’ of the masters. If so as Satie asked why concede this to them? If not, why abandon the 'truths' they found? thankyou everyone for the depth and thought that went into many of the answers so far. Alberich I think there is much merit to what you say. The one thing I might dispute is when Satie said "art is nothing but virtuosity" his meaning was more along the lines of: don't be dazzled by the virtuosity in art, also be able find beauty in simply things. this is partly my fault for using a bad translation I found the quote in the original french and he writes "ne . . . pas" not "ne . . . rien" it's also in the subjunctive mood which doesn't exist in english which makes a precise translation a little difficult. So a better translation would be "art should not be mistaken for virtuosity"
Best Answer

Best Answers: What makes someone a 'master' of composition? are we bound in anyway to their aesthetic?

Lacey Lacey | 10 days ago
My goodness which master didn't question the truths of the masters that came before them? Truly if composers didn't question the rules we would have little but morally bankrupt music made to follow the rules well and never to say anything. Virtuosity is indeed thew mortal enemy to meaning and human emotion in music. What a great quote from Erik Satie, a perfect example of a musician who succeeded by going his own way, thats for sharing it with us.
👍 208 | 👎 10
Did you like the answer? What makes someone a 'master' of composition? are we bound in anyway to their aesthetic? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: If that was the case subjunctive


Lacey Originally Answered: Do you believe there are reasons we find certain aesthetic traits attractive for evolutionary purposes?
Lol. I love this. I will answer from my own experiences and also from psychology text book. In people, we are supposedly pre programmed to find waist to hip ratios of 10 inch differenes in females, this is due to fertility.Also, fair hair in women means youth as do blue eyes which combined means fertile and good to mate with for the male. I however have known many women who purposly pick a diseased male and try to heal him through their own love when other women have failed. This is called co dependency.I have known women only attracted to drug addicts and alcoholics as they want the 'healing' to come from them. Many humans are re enacting subconcious scenarios not completed from the childhood relationships with parents.This will often overide physical attractiveness as desirable. I have always been attracted to men with a certain damage in life. I found my partner in the middle of the road with a broken ankle due to his house burning down. LOL. Its true. I nursed him to health and got his life into check. I am different to most people though as I do not listen to society and question theories. As for humans finding others attractive, I have experience of some men only being attracted to women amputees. There are websites called stumps for us to match the man with the stumpy woman. I have counselled many strange attractions so it really is a case of a bum for every seat I also do not match the so called 'attractive' pre types as I am 5'9, with dark hair and green eyes with a atheletic figure. not a blonde hair or hourglass figure in sight and I was a teen model and did really well at it. I love diversity, so I am glad peolple vary so much. My best friend will only date the traditional 'muscley and wide shouldered dark haired' man. If he has not six pack, well, he is not worth shi#. I think that is why she is lonely and single. I often think what the world would be like though if only the same rules for breeding dogs happened in humans too. I mean matching faults to strengths to promote better breeding and offspring. Allot of what we find attractive is based on the opposite sex parent also. It is also said that a man will look for a woman who is simular to his mother for the same reasons that they believe she will nurture like his mother. I personally would be turned off by an 'alpha male' type strutting around like a peacock. I would feel insecure and could not commit to him as I would feel he was looking for a better deal. Upbringing also plays a part.(nature v nurture) I was raised to view race integration as wrong and I have never said this is right as it is not, but I have never found anybody black attractive sexually.

Jen Jen
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". "Truth is in the mind of the believer". Your question is a very interesting, and most challenging one; I hope the the above, may hold some meaning for you. "What makes someone a "master' of composition?" Firstly, I would say that one must have an intuitive gift for it; but to be realized, usually requires an awful lot of study and much hard work. "Are we bound in anyway to their(the masters) aesthetic?" Only if we permit it. "Who established the truths governing art? Who?" In my opinion, Monsieur Satie is guilty of considerable misconstruing any proclamations, composers before him might, or might not, have made. His statement: "let us mistrust art; it is often nothing but virtuosity", is a bunch of BS, crap. I, for one, have no intention of abandoning the "truths" they found. Perhaps he just simply did not possess the patience, to comprehend and therefore, genuinely appreciate them. It's his loss, not mine; and I would strongly counsel you to not lend too much credence to his philosophy of art: J.S. Bach, Beethoven or even Wagner's, would be much better models. Alberich
👍 80 | 👎 7

Felina Felina
Joshua- you have brought up some very valid points. Art by definition is a unique interpretation that is as individualize as the art it self. Some may say, "you should hear this kid play, he sounds just like Tchaikovsky." The truth is, do we need another Tchaikovsky?? We already have one. Then, what makes a "master" of composition? I believe it is an individual that can play other works of masters skillfully but refuses to be content with the borders and boundaries of this art. All great masters have been the subject of social criticism for stepping outside the box. It part of what we admire about them, along with their gift.
👍 71 | 👎 4

Cressida Cressida
The quote is obviously tied very much to a more modern issue of censorship. Although censorship has existed to some extent since the inception of art itself, it has become a significant player in art's history more in the past two centuries. Though censorship has done some damage to art, in many respects it has helped preserved its integrity. But beyond censorship, the core issue is Mr. Satie's own feeling of inadequacy in relation to his conception of mastery over the arts. To me, the quote smacks of arrogance, naïveté, and a bit of jealousy. A person who says such things is often merely attempting to mask a deep personal feeling of weakness or failure. If the artist can't win at the art game, it must be that the game is rigged, right? It is hard to accept that virtuosity is a natural byproduct of a mastery of the very essence of art when such virtuosity is visible in another but scarce in one's self. I have run across this in my own life, and have observed it in friends, associates and colleagues. I am a musician. Though I make my living by my music, I am in no way among the absolute best musicians in my community. I have accepted the fact, however, that if I wish to rise to the level of the Masters, I will have to dedicate myself and become a virtuoso in my own right. There are no two ways about it. Though I have been illuminated now, while a teenager, I, along with other musician friends, used to complain about the arbitrary rules that seemed to put crappy musicians on the map and make them famous. We did not believe that they really had all that much talent, and were mad that the general public seemed to disregard true artists (ourselves, we thought) in favor of these wannabes. The truth was that we could not handle the fact that those "Masters" had paid their dues, had mastered their art, and really were entitled to all the accolades they received. We denigrated their successes to massage our fledgling egos. And not only did we denigrate true masters, but we degraded the intelligence and capacity for understanding that those of their audience truly had. In truth, we were the wannabes. It is an easy cop out to say that people's perception of art is wrong and that if they adjusted it, they would accept our own art more readily. This pandering to the lowest common denominator will only bring ruin to art as it is doing to many other issues. For example, think about social issues – this is how the quote might read if we applied it to a politico-social setting: "Who established the truths governing human decency? Who? Our forefathers. They had no right to do so and it is dishonest to concede this power to them. Everyone has had criminal cases to complain about. Look at Manson, Bundy, BTK, etc. But the forefathers are not seized by the police, nor by ushers or other judges. "Let us mistrust the legal system: it is often nothing but virtuosity of character." One can see that the Satie quote in essence is artistic anarchy. There are those who will deny that there is any truth in anything. If that is the case, than it leaves only lies. To the contrary, art is one of the few things in life that inherently cannot lie. If a particular painting, composition, or poem resonates with someone, it is because it effectively encapsulates a raw human emotion and displays it in such a way that the viewer, listener or lector is deeply moved. It is not an easy feat not only to understand emotion enough, but also the medium in which the artist works in such a way that allows this expression to be appreciated by others. It requires mastery. It requires virtuosity. Emotion is based on truth. That is why art is governed by truth: it is governed by emotion. The "Masters" had nothing to do with the formation of these "truths" – they have been in the human makeup for untold millennia. Though the particulars of aesthetics shift from time to time, a true masterpiece endures the test of time and is appreciated even when the common conception of its aesthetic value is contested. For example, a tapestry from the Middle Ages is valued not because of how it would look if done by a contemporary artist, but for its meaning and value in the context in which it was made. This is the point that Mr. Satie glosses over. No one can completely predict the value of current commercial art. It has to be allowed to pass through the crucible of time. If it is truly of a high quality it will be vindicated. If not, it will be forgotten. If it is forgotten, it is not the fault of censorship, or the common man's inability to accept "true" art. It is the fault of the artist for betraying his roots and denying the essence of artistic expression: the release of his soul through the media of his choice.
👍 62 | 👎 1

Betsy Betsy
>What makes someone a 'master' of composition? Ultimately, the listening public. Neil Miller, author of The Piano Lessons Book Enter in Amazon.com search: Neil Miller Piano Lessons Book OR http://www.createspace.com/3332371
👍 53 | 👎 -2

Agnus Agnus
Music is a creation of the soul. It can't be bound by rules. Every musical period had composers people thought were insane with their 'new' music. We create because we are created. The need to create something new is bound in our DNA.
👍 44 | 👎 -5

Timo Timo
Good for you, Alberich! I agree 200% with you...You always show your enormous common sense..We have a lot to learn from you. Thanks!
👍 35 | 👎 -8

Timo Originally Answered: Am I legally bound to a sublease in Massachusetts?
You have given her plenty of notice to find a new person to sublet her place. It is not your responsibility to pay the lease through December if you told her a month and a half before moving in that you changed your mind. This is more than enough time for her to find someone new.

If you have your own answer to the question if that was the case subjunctive, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.