Music without tiers

[Florestan]

Premise 1
I have aesthetic sensitivity

Premise 2
I have explored art music and its aesthetic returns

Conclusion
I subsequently know what the great music is and anyone with any differing views has defective faculties and can be safely ignored

There you go, perfect logic.

On the contrary, flawed to the core: absolutely nothing in the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, which are themselves questionable.

[Sean]

I can put it another way-

Premise 1
I see a sunset- in that it is aesthetic

Premise 2
I know what sunsets are- in that they are aesthetic

Conclusion
Anyone delusional enough to disagree can be ignored

[some guy]

Ah, I see where the confusion came in.

My fault. Sorry.

I did quote Florestan's post number 29, yes.

That is an ad hominem, yes. (It does not address any of the things M. Croche said; instead, it attacks M. Croche himself.)

I did not make any other quotes of Florestan, it's true, but then I talked as if I had. I was all caught up in the bidness with (poco), and apparently thought North Star was referring to that, even though he had very kindly supplied the post of Florestan in question.

This was simply a brain fart on my part. And now I no longer think that North Star is crazy, so that's all to the good, too.

Still not sure how responding to a post with a comment about the person doing the saying rather than the thing said gets to be something other than an ad hominem. That is simply what an ad hom is. Even less sure why that particular ad hom is being so carefully denied, by more than one person. But "oh well."

[Florestan]

I can put it another way-

Premise 1
I see a sunset- in that it is aesthetic

Premise 2
I know what sunsets are- in that they are aesthetic

Conclusion
Anyone delusional enough to disagree can be ignored

If that is meant to be sarcastic, please ignore the rest of this post.

Sean, you are badly in need of an introductory course in logic.

[Florestan]

I did quote Florestan's post number 29, yes.

That is an ad hominem, yes. (It does not address any of the things M. Croche said; instead, it attacks M. Croche himself.)

Anyone familiar with Rob Newman's contribution here at GMG knows he was ranting about a vast conspiracy to manufacture the Mozart myth.

Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can see that Mr. Croche was ranting about a vast conspiracy to manufacture the Three B myth.

Ergo, anyone can see that Mr. Croche's post has a markedly Rob-Newman-esque flavor.

And anyone who have had even a basic course in logic can see that my remark is not ad hominem. It was simply meant to draw attention to a remarkable similarity of thought between Rob Newman and Mr. Croche.

Still not sure how responding to a post with a comment about the person doing the saying rather than the thing said gets to be something other than an ad hominem.

The comment was precisely about the things being said and not at all about the person saying them. But your Humpty-Dumpty-esque relationship with words seems to apply not only to your own but also to those of others.

[Karl Henning]

I too have trouble with the urge to rank composers, works, performers. I revere Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven as probably the three greatest composers, with figures like Haydn, Schubert, Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky, and Bartok among others so close as doesn't matter, yet I cannot see any value in trying to award any of them a gold medal as if musical greatness is equivalent to winning at an Olympics event.

On the other hand, certainly there are degrees of merit. Mention Grieg, Sullivan, Chabrier, Rossini, Poulenc, and we know we're at a different level of achievement. But that doesn't mean this level isn't as valuable or necessary in its way as the rarified atmosphere of a late Beethoven quartet. There are times - many times in fact - when I simply would rather hear "The Mikado" or the Grieg Concerto than the B minor mass.

Rather than the ranking concept, I'd like to offer a quotation which I find more illuminating. It's about literature, primarily Shakespeare, from the esteemed Canadian scholar Northrop Frye's "Anatomy of Criticism," but I believe it is as relevant to music:

"As a result of expressing the inner forms of drama with increasing force and intensity, Shakespeare arrived in his last period at the bedrock of drama, the romantic spectacle out of which all the more specialized forms of drama, such as tragedy and social comedy, have come, and to which they recurrently return. In the greatest moments of Dante and Shakespeare, in, say The Tempest or the climax of the Purgatorio, we have a feeling of converging significance, the feeling that here we are close to seeing what our whole literary experience has been about, the feeling that we have moved into the still center of the order of words. Criticism as knowledge, the criticism which is compelled to keep on talking about the subject, recognizes the fact that there IS a center to the order of words."

I have italicized one sentence above, and with a little substitution, I would say that I feel the "center of music" in works like the Monteverdi Vespers, the St. Matthew Passion and B minor mass, the late Beethoven quartets, Diabellis, and Missa Solemnis, The Magic Flute, Don Giovanni, the Winterreise, some things from Berlioz like the Love Scene from Romeo and the fourth act of Troyens, the Brahms Clarinet Quintet and some of his other chamber works, Tristan, Falstaff, La Mer, Erwartung, Wozzeck, the Carter Concerto for Orchestra, Gruppen. These are among the central works for me -- not a matter of rank-ordering them, but realizing that they are the heart of my musical experience, closer than any to defining to me what music is all about.

A delight to read, sir.

[Brahmsian]

To get away from ad hominems, real or imagined, I remember writing something about a similar question back in 1998 (I can't believe I've been writing about music on Internet boards that long, but it is what it is). I don't pretend that what matters to me in music will be what matters to anyone else, and while I might phrase things differently today, it represents more or less what I feel about the matter.

So with a few changes, here it is:

I too have trouble with the urge to rank composers, works, performers. I revere Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven as probably the three greatest composers, with figures like Haydn, Schubert, Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky, and Bartok among others so close as doesn't matter, yet I cannot see any value in trying to award any of them a gold medal as if musical greatness is equivalent to winning at an Olympics event.

On the other hand, certainly there are degrees of merit. Mention Grieg, Sullivan, Chabrier, Rossini, Poulenc, and we know we're at a different level of achievement. But that doesn't mean this level isn't as valuable or necessary in its way as the rarified atmosphere of a late Beethoven quartet. There are times - many times in fact - when I simply would rather hear "The Mikado" or the Grieg Concerto than the B minor mass.

Rather than the ranking concept, I'd like to offer a quotation which I find more illuminating. It's about literature, primarily Shakespeare, from the esteemed Canadian scholar Northrop Frye's "Anatomy of Criticism," but I believe it is as relevant to music:

"As a result of expressing the inner forms of drama with increasing force and intensity, Shakespeare arrived in his last period at the bedrock of drama, the romantic spectacle out of which all the more specialized forms of drama, such as tragedy and social comedy, have come, and to which they recurrently return. In the greatest moments of Dante and Shakespeare, in, say The Tempest or the climax of the Purgatorio, we have a feeling of converging significance, the feeling that here we are close to seeing what our whole literary experience has been about, the feeling that we have moved into the still center of the order of words. Criticism as knowledge, the criticism which is compelled to keep on talking about the subject, recognizes the fact that there IS a center to the order of words."

I have italicized one sentence above, and with a little substitution, I would say that I feel the "center of music" in works like the Monteverdi Vespers, the St. Matthew Passion and B minor mass, the late Beethoven quartets, Diabellis, and Missa Solemnis, The Magic Flute, Don Giovanni, the Winterreise, some things from Berlioz like the Love Scene from Romeo and the fourth act of Troyens, the Brahms Clarinet Quintet and some of his other chamber works, Tristan, Falstaff, La Mer, Erwartung, Wozzeck, the Carter Concerto for Orchestra, Gruppen. These are among the central works for me -- not a matter of rank-ordering them, but realizing that they are the heart of my musical experience, closer than any to defining to me what music is all about.

Thank you for this post.  I love the idea of the central works, on one's own personal musical journey.

[mc ukrneal]

To get away from ad hominems, real or imagined, I remember writing something about a similar question back in 1998 (I can't believe I've been writing about music on Internet boards that long, but it is what it is). I don't pretend that what matters to me in music will be what matters to anyone else, and while I might phrase things differently today, it represents more or less what I feel about the matter.

So with a few changes, here it is:

I too have trouble with the urge to rank composers, works, performers. I revere Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven as probably the three greatest composers, with figures like Haydn, Schubert, Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky, and Bartok among others so close as doesn't matter, yet I cannot see any value in trying to award any of them a gold medal as if musical greatness is equivalent to winning at an Olympics event.

On the other hand, certainly there are degrees of merit. Mention Grieg, Sullivan, Chabrier, Rossini, Poulenc, and we know we're at a different level of achievement. But that doesn't mean this level isn't as valuable or necessary in its way as the rarified atmosphere of a late Beethoven quartet. There are times - many times in fact - when I simply would rather hear "The Mikado" or the Grieg Concerto than the B minor mass.

Rather than the ranking concept, I'd like to offer a quotation which I find more illuminating. It's about literature, primarily Shakespeare, from the esteemed Canadian scholar Northrop Frye's "Anatomy of Criticism," but I believe it is as relevant to music:

"As a result of expressing the inner forms of drama with increasing force and intensity, Shakespeare arrived in his last period at the bedrock of drama, the romantic spectacle out of which all the more specialized forms of drama, such as tragedy and social comedy, have come, and to which they recurrently return. In the greatest moments of Dante and Shakespeare, in, say The Tempest or the climax of the Purgatorio, we have a feeling of converging significance, the feeling that here we are close to seeing what our whole literary experience has been about, the feeling that we have moved into the still center of the order of words. Criticism as knowledge, the criticism which is compelled to keep on talking about the subject, recognizes the fact that there IS a center to the order of words."

I have italicized one sentence above, and with a little substitution, I would say that I feel the "center of music" in works like the Monteverdi Vespers, the St. Matthew Passion and B minor mass, the late Beethoven quartets, Diabellis, and Missa Solemnis, The Magic Flute, Don Giovanni, the Winterreise, some things from Berlioz like the Love Scene from Romeo and the fourth act of Troyens, the Brahms Clarinet Quintet and some of his other chamber works, Tristan, Falstaff, La Mer, Erwartung, Wozzeck, the Carter Concerto for Orchestra, Gruppen. These are among the central works for me -- not a matter of rank-ordering them, but realizing that they are the heart of my musical experience, closer than any to defining to me what music is all about.

I like the concept very much...

[Florestan]

I'll gladly join the chorus: well done, Mr. Sforz!

[some guy]

Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can see that Mr. Croche was ranting about a vast conspiracy to manufacture the Three B myth.

Ah. Well you illustrate very nicely here the limits of basic reading comprehension skills. 

But not much else.

Anyway, as soon as you say "ranting" you have left the world of the thing said and have entered the world of the sayer.

And the Three B thing is a manufactured thing, you know? Manufactured by Peter Cornelius. Retooled by Herr von Bülow. And certainly mouthed in countless music appreciation classes with no hint of its history. In the real world and in M. Croche's post alike (which bears rereading), the saying has had very little effect other than to confirm a process already in effect.

I understand that to someone with only basic reading comprehension skills hyperbole that's intended and hyperbole that just happens because the person writing is a nutcase might look very similar. But we're not any of us here in that category, are we? You wanted to insult M. Croche (which you failed to do) by comparing his hyperbolic post to those of Rob "Nut Case" Newman. And when called on it, you just doubled down. OK. That's a tactic. Only works if no one notices, though. Well, whatever. That M. Croche is new to GMG and thus unaware of Mr. Newman's shenanigans and thus unaffected by your attempted insult I do find quite delightful, though, I must say.

[Mandryka]

Wow
"As a result of expressing the inner forms of drama with increasing force and intensity, Shakespeare arrived in his last period at the bedrock of drama, the romantic spectacle out of which all the more specialized forms of drama, such as tragedy and social comedy, have come, and to which they recurrently return. In the greatest moments of Dante and Shakespeare, in, say The Tempest or the climax of the Purgatorio, we have a feeling of converging significance, the feeling that here we are close to seeing what our whole literary experience has been about, the feeling that we have moved into the still center of the order of words. Criticism as knowledge, the criticism which is compelled to keep on talking about the subject, recognizes the fact that there IS a center to the order of words."

I have italicized one sentence above, and with a little substitution, I would say that I feel the "center of music" in works like the Monteverdi Vespers, the St. Matthew Passion and B minor mass, the late Beethoven quartets, Diabellis, and Missa Solemnis, The Magic Flute, Don Giovanni, the Winterreise, some things from Berlioz like the Love Scene from Romeo and the fourth act of Troyens, the Brahms Clarinet Quintet and some of his other chamber works, Tristan, Falstaff, La Mer, Erwartung, Wozzeck, the Carter Concerto for Orchestra, Gruppen. These are among the central works for me -- not a matter of rank-ordering them, but realizing that they are the heart of my musical experience, closer than any to defining to me what music is all about.

Is the idea of a centre, a heart, supposed to be explanatory ?

For example, that the fact that Beckett appreciated what Dante did in the climax of Purgatorio explains in some way why Happy Days is as it is; that the contingent fact that Debussy appreciated Tristan explains something about the Pelleas experience.

If not I can't make head nor tail of the idea.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Is the idea of a centre, a heart, supposed to be explanatory ?

Not at all. Merely suggestive, and more to do with my sense of things as a listener than any idea of influence among composers.

Make of it whatever you will. Or not. A few people here seemed to have liked the idea, so perhaps they can chime in. But what it comes down to, I suppose, is that I do support the idea of tiers, and don't see any harm in doing so. Nor do I see why the idea of tiers has riled Mr. some guy so much, but he is in a better position to explain himself than I am.

[Karl Henning]

Suggestive rather than explanatory.

Not a little like Music itself, one thinks.

[Mandryka]

Suggestive rather than explanatory.

Suggestive of what?

Sorry to be a pain, but I know that with this sort of thing it's easy to think you're saying something when really you're saying nothing.

[Brahmsian]

Nor do I see why the idea of tiers has riled Mr. some guy so much, but he is in a better position to explain himself than I am.

Neither do I? 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Sorry to be a pain.

Why should you be different from anybody else?

But I know that with this sort of thing it's easy to think you're saying something when really you're saying nothing.

Depends what you mean by something, and what you mean by nothing. I wrote that comment back in 1998, when I was if possible even more pompous and pretentious than I am now.

All I intended to say was, there is some music that knocks me out to the degree that I can scarcely imagine the human mind was capable of creating it, some music that I find very satisfying to listen to, some music I can take or leave, and some music that after hearing it, I can only say you've got to be f**king kidding me! (I will not give examples of the latter, 'cause I don't want the moderators spanking me for daring to be critical of music that some others on the forum might like.) If that answers your question, fine; if not . . . .

[Florestan]

some guy, you know what? I am sick and tired with your holier-than-thou, supercilious attitude. If you really think and believe that you are the only guy on this planet who knows what music is and listens to it in the one single right way it should be listened to, and all others are just clueless cretins who are unable or unwilling to see the light that you so liberally and courteously try to impart on the great unwashed, fine. More power to you. But I must say that for a guy who wastes no opportunity to rave about how words completely fail to adequately describe music you spend way too much time on threads dedicated precisely to using words to talk about music (some of them even started by you) and little or no time on the one single thread dedicated to what people actually listen to. Be it as it may, though, I'm not going to feed your hyper-inflated ego anymore. I can hardly wait for you to come to Bucharest --- but until then, I'm going to ignore you completely from now on.

[Mandryka]

All I intended to say was, there is some music that knocks me out to the degree that I can scarcely imagine the human mind was capable of creating it,

Yes, I feel this too, about Bach especially. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

some guy, you know what? I am sick and tired with your holier-than-thou, supercilious attitude. If you really think and believe that you are the only guy on this planet who knows what music is and listens to it in the one single right way it should be listened to, and all others are just clueless cretins who are unable or unwilling to see the light that you so liberally and courteously try to impart on the great unwashed, fine. More power to you. But I must say that for a guy who wastes no opportunity to rave about how words completely fail to adequately describe music you spend way too much time on threads dedicated precisely to using words to talk about music (some of them even started by you) and little or no time on the one single thread dedicated to what people actually listen to. Be it as it may, though, I'm not going to feed your hyper-inflated ego anymore. I can hardly wait for you to come to Bucharest --- but until then, I'm going to ignore you completely from now on.

Oh, for crying out loud...

It's all really very simple. "Tiers" is a phantom. It has to be. Why? Because there can be as many "tiers" created as there are people on the planet - whether it's about music, pizza, or toilet paper. So the very concept of "tiers" is completely bound up in...what?...RELATIVISM!!!!! Which of course, in the end, renders the concept meaningless.

Which is ironic since the sole purpose of "tiers" is to erect "identification markers" where people can congregate en mass and identify with. But, as I said, the whole concept is so relativistic it's utterly implosive.

Honestly, I don't see anything "ego" in some guy's queries. But unfortunately he does overlook human nature. Asking the "masses" to give up their "identification markers" and think "horizontally" will never work. People NEED their comfort zones. I need them. He needs them. We ALL need them!!

I think some guy has simply embarked on an experiment to test the waters and challenge the notion of "mass tiers". Nothing wrong with that. Yet the hostility he's been met with - with you blindly leading the way, Florestan - is shameful. Yet I can't help but be unsurprised at the outcome of his "experiment". I'm not comfortable with it, either, yet I recognize that his intentions are more in the spirit of inquisitiveness - and perhaps a tad mischievous - rather than demeaning.

[Florestan]

the hostility he's been met with - with you blindly leading the way, Florestan - is shameful.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever.