Admit It, You're As Bored As I Am

[PSmith08]

Because, you know, he stands ready to miss it dead again.

Statistically, sooner or later...well, you take my point.

[Homo Aestheticus]

You clearly do not appreciate or even like one important (though, at this point, less important than in the past) strand of Western music.

Oh, let's see:

The music dramas of Richard Wagner were my first love in my late teens and my idea of a great Friday night (back then and still today) involves watching the symphonic and opera films of Karajan during the early 70's.

I have over 2000 cd's and DVD's on my shelves (mostly opera) 

When I am not working most of my time is taken up by music listening and cross-country running.

I religiously attend all performances of  Pelleas et Melisande.

And so on...

Patrick, why do you continue to make such an inane and ridiculous comment ? How do you know anything about my aesthetic mind ?  You can be very silly at times.

[karlhenning]

Statistically, sooner or later...well, you take my point.

Admit Exhibit G.

[greg]

pff you really haven't got much a clue as your longwinded scribbles indicate in spades. nobody is awaiting your judgement, nobody cares....and the fact you haven't heard much and can't make a decision yourself says a lot here. Stravinsky is a great composer & and was a bonefide musical genius just to get you all caught up. We don't need your assessment of this, you're way late with it anyhow (gee, you're sooo behind). Have you ever heard the expression, the emptiest vessel makes the most noise? Pretty much sums you up here. (and that other ignoramus trolling for responses on things he has no idea about, either). Immerse yourself in the music first fellas, and then come back and we can (maybe) have a good talk.

oooh James and Josquin! Cat fight!

[greg]

Oh, let's see:

The music dramas of Richard Wagner were my first love in my late teens and my idea of a great Friday night (back then and still today) involves watching the symphonic and opera films of Karajan during the early 70's.

I have over 2000 cd's and DVD's on my shelves (mostly opera) 

When I am not working most of my time is taken up by music listening and cross-country running.

I religiously attend all performances of  Pelleas et Melisande.

And so on...

Patrick, why do you continue to make such an inane and ridiculous comment ? How do you know anything about my aesthetic mind ?  You can be very silly at times.

Well, obviously, as you say, you like more music than just the obvious, but I hardly ever see you post in a variety of composers' threads.... you might be misleading us.

btw, that's nearly 10 times my CD collection. Very impressive.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Greg,

Well, obviously, as you say, you like more music than just the obvious

Yes, of course I do... From medieval to the operas of Richard Strauss. However I do have this unending fascination with Pelleas which began about 6 years ago. My whole outlook on Western music has not been the same.  I am like Messiaen who said it was his lightning bolt moment at age 10 and which inspired him to become a composer. 

But I hardly ever see you post in a variety of composers' threads

I prefer mostly to read the posts of others since I'm not linguistically talented.

btw, that's nearly 10 times my CD collection. Very impressive.

Back in 1992 I was very lucky to inherit over 1000 cd's (mostly opera) from my sister's godfather.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

No, i don't. Bach is a genius. Beethoven is a genius. A progression would imply that Beethoven would be more of a genius then Bach, but that isn't really the case, is it? Further more, is Beethoven a genius because of the stylistic methods and techniques he employed, or is he a genius irrespectively of the changes incurred through out the various phases music underwent in the several decades that separate Beethoven from Bach? It seems to me that, whatever the difference in their methods and the various paths chosen, the final goal of their journey is the same.

What is it you're attempting to say with all this? It makes no sense.

Truth doesn't come in any shape or size, truth is what it is. Individuals come in different shapes and sizes, so truth may look different from genius to genius but the end result is always the same. That special feeling of immortality one receives from genius is the same whether we are talking about Bach, Brahms or Wagner.

Sure, truth "is what it is". And if truth looks "different from genius to genius" then there's absolutely no reason why "truth" can't come in the form of Berlioz, Stravinsky, Berg, Webern, etc... If you're unable to recognize it that's not THEIR fault! (It's called tin-eared syndrome).

Anyway, all you're doing is talking in circles. Plus half of what you say is in actual concordance with what I'm saying. Somehow you can't see it.

Wagner didn't worship Berlioz. He was floored by the French composer early on, but he was less then impressed by Berlioz during his years of maturity. In fact, in his own biography, he plainly states he was quite disappointed at Berlioz for considering Les Troyens to be the summit of his creative powers, a work which Wagner considered deeply flawed. It was not from Berlioz that Wagner attained genius, it was from Beethoven that he received that impetus.

Wagner thought enough of Berlioz (and Beethoven and Liszt) to incorporate some of his ideas into his works. That's the point.

BTW, i never said that i hated Berlioz.

Really? You sure gave every indication you did a few months ago in a reply to me:

As far as i'm concerned, only a fool would argue that Berlioz is as great as a composer as Beethoven, and yet, here it is.

Back to today:

I said he is no genius, but he was definitely a great composer and i quite like his music.

So what gives? Now you say Berlioz is great yet back then you called me a fool for considering Berlioz great.

Again, more talking in circles from you. Sometimes I wonder if even YOU know what you're saying.

Ho sure, if we were talking about art. But we are talking about genius here, remember?

So there's no innovation in genius. None. Zilch. Nada.

"Art" is innovative but not genius.

I would like for you to cite one - juuuust one - source anywhere that gives that notion even an ounce of credibility.     

[some guy]

I'm sure he's at least as qualified as you are, with your pro-modern rants.  That's the only time you ever post anything on any classical site.

If you were to actually follow me around on every site I post to (which would be kinda creepy, don't you think?), you would find that the above assertion is simply not true.

[Josquin des Prez]

So what gives? Now you say Berlioz is great yet back then you called me a fool for considering Berlioz great.

I called you a fool for claiming that Berlioz was the equal of Beethoven, don't mince words with me.

I would like for you to cite one - juuuust one - source anywhere that gives that notion even an ounce of credibility.    

You can start by reading Otto Weininger. You can also see what great men of the past had to say about genius, and perhaps gleam some of the truth which i'm trying to express at great difficulty here by reading those cookie-fortune pearls of wisdom:

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/genqtpg.html

[Homo Aestheticus]

Some guy,

Who is David Zalman (aside from a Texas banker of that name)? Where did this quote come from? What are his qualifications for pronouncing tasks as being impossible or not?

David Zalman is a friend of  Acdouglas, a well known blogger on classical music and opera. He is registered on this forum but rarely contributes and when he does it's usually on the Opera board.

Sometimes I wonder if Mr. Zalman is ACD himself since they have a very similar writing style.

He is also one of the few who believes that Richard Wagner was the last truly great composer in Western music.

[Josquin des Prez]

oooh James and Josquin! Cat fight!

I think i may have hit a nerve when i called Stockhausen a charlatan.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I called you a fool for claiming that Berlioz was the equal of Beethoven, don't mince words with me.

You might try actually reading what I wrote and understanding it. Nowhere did I state "Berlioz is the equal of Beethoven" in that previous exchange. Again you miss the point of all I intended. 

You can start by reading Otto Weininger. You can also see what great men of the past had to say about genius, and perhaps gleam some of the truth which i'm trying to express at great difficulty here:

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/genqtpg.html

No, Jos. I mean quote me a valid source in full context HERE. QUOTE SOMETHING IN CONTEXT RIGHT NOW!

These linked one-liners and blurbs prove absolutely nothing and provide nothing. They've been pulled completely out of context and are meaningless. Further, as they stand, they provide zero in the way of support for your assertions.

And as to Mr. Otto Weininger, I'm not about to go off on a wild goose chase (and spend money) if you can't even come up with something valid right this instant. Which you should be able to do if you "have it all figured out". 

[Josquin des Prez]

You might try actually reading what I wrote and understanding it. Nowhere did I state "Berlioz is the equal of Beethoven" in that previous exchange. Again you miss the point of all I intended. 

Saying that one is as great as the other is saying that they are equal.

These linked one-liners and blurbs prove absolutely nothing and provide nothing. They've been pulled completely out of context and are meaningless.

I think they provide much, and their meaning is quite plain if you know what to look for.

Take the following quote by Dostoevsky:

"I swear to you, sirs, that excessive consciousness is a disease — a genuine, absolute disease. For everyday human existence it would more than suffice to have the ordinary share of human consciousness; that is to say, one half, one quarter that that which falls to the lot of a cultivated man in our wretched nineteenth century [...] It would, for instance, be quite enough to have the amount of consciousness by which all the so-called simple, direct people and men of action live."

Consciousness being the conceptual, the symbolic self. Dostoevsky is lamenting that the man who lives in the conceptual world has too much consciousness for what is required for living an ordinary, physical existance, which is the lot of the so called men of action. Is this out of context? How about those then:

"Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius." - Mozart

"The first and last thing required of genius is the love of truth." - Goethe.

You don't think Mozart and Goethe are talking about the same thing here? What of the following:

"The poets' scrolls will outlive the monuments of stone. Genius survives; all else is claimed by death." - Spencer

The immortality of genius?

"The reason we have so few geniuses is that people do not have faith in what they know to be true."

"Genius:

   1. to believe your own thought. To believe that what is true for you is ultimately true."

Knowledge as being the product of the direct imposition of one's own point of view, achieved through inner probing, upon that of others, with genius being the greatest point of view there is?

"Male conspiracy cannot explain all female failures. I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant. Genius is not checked by social obstacles: it will overcome." - Camille Paglia

"Women of genius commonly have masculine faces, figures and manners. In transplanting brains to an alien soil God leaves a little of the original earth clinging to the roots." - Ambrose Bierce

Out of context?

"The genius differs from us men in being able to endure isolation, his rank as a genius is proportionate to his strength for enduring isolation, whereas we men are constantly in need of "the others," the herd; we die, or despair, if we are not reassured by being in the herd, of the same opinion as the herd." - Kierkegaard

"Genius does not herd with genius." - OW Holmes

Unrelated quotes? Genius as the supreme individual? Who's conceptual ego, the I, is the whole of his being?

And this:

"Universality is the distinguishing mark of genius. There is no such thing as a special genius, a genius for mathematics, or for music, or even for chess, but only a universal genius. The genius is a man who knows everything without having learned it." - Otto Weininger

Genius as being universal and ultimately unrelated to the means of it's manifestation, whether it appears in a particular discipline or musical style?

"A nation orients itself by its own geniuses, and derives from them its ideas of its own ideals, but the guiding star serves also as a light to other nations." - Otto Weininger

Genius as the teacher of humanity?

And finally:

"The age does not create the genius it requires. The genius is not the product of his age, is not to be explained by it, and we do him no honour if we attempt to account for him by it . . . And as the causes of its appearance do not lie in any one age, so also the consequences are not limited by time. The achievements of genius live for ever, and time cannot change them. By his works a man of genius is granted immortality on the earth, and thus in a threefold manner he has transcended time. His universal comprehension and memory forbid the annihilation of his experiences with the passing of the moment in which each occurred; his birth is independent of his age, and his work never dies." - Otto Weininger.

if you "have it all figured out". 

Good grief, god forbid. I'm merely venting the few glimpses of shadows projected by the light which i caught as i sit in my cave, in the dark, like everybody else. If i had it all figured out i would have to be an entity of pure consciousness, which implies i'd have to be dead, for the limitations of my physical being are the unbreakable shackles by which truth is kept hidden from humanity, administered only in glimpses, and that sporadically.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Saying that one is as great as the other is saying that they are equal.

I wasn't positing EQUALITY!! Only that you have no right to blacklist composers simply because you don't like the directions they take.

I think they provide much, and their meaning is quite plain if you know what to look for.

The only thing that's "plain" here is that none of these quotes support your claim that "genius isn't innovative".

[Josquin des Prez]

I wasn't positing EQUALITY!! Only that you have no right to blacklist composers simply because you don't like the directions they take.

I was blacklisting Berlioz because he took a direction unrelated to genius. Genius is a reflection of an elevated, individual consciousness. By chasing a form of musical expression which side stepped individual consciousness in order to abide to some arbitrary "program" he lessened his impact as an artist. Why bother trying to express Goethe in music when we could have had Berlioz? That was the root of my argument. I never said however that expressing Goethe in music was altogether devoid of merit. Furthermore, my charge was leveled more at Liszt then Berlioz, who's programmatic ideas stemmed mainly from his dramatic needs as a composer of Opera. Same applies to Wagner.

The only thing that's "plain" here is that none of these quotes support your claim that "genius isn't innovative".

But i never said that genius isn't innovative, i said that genius has nothing to do with the type of innovation you have in mind, based on style, technique or what have you. In fact, genius cannot be anything but original, since it is always brought forth by an elevated, individual consciousness and no individual consciousness can ever be the same (or it wouldn't be individual, duh). It is the essence of genius however that is immutable, because it is based on truth. Thus, one can be a great Baroque composer, or a great Romantic composer, but there is no such thing as a Baroque genius, or a Romantic genius. The Baroque didn't produce the genius, the genius is eternal. It was there before the Baroque, and it has manifested itself after the Baroque.

Likewise, to argue that modern music is a reflection of the events of the 20th century is irrelevant to what I believe is the ultimate purpose of art: that of procuring genius. That is why every time somebody casts praise on the accomplishments of modern composers i cringe in disgust. Quite frankly, i could care less about competence, talent or ability, it is genius that i'm looking for, always and ever.

[Josquin des Prez]

pff you really haven't got much a clue as your longwinded scribbles indicate in spades. nobody is awaiting your judgement, nobody cares....and the fact you haven't heard much and can't make a decision yourself says a lot here. Stravinsky is a great composer & and was a bonefide musical genius just to get you all caught up. We don't need your assessment of this, you're way late with it anyhow (gee, you're sooo behind).

The reason i'm still a bit ambivalent about Stravinsky is that i still haven't experienced that special feeling of transcendence (the type for instance generated by the last string quartets of Beethoven, or the final piano pieces of Brahms) which to me is the sure mark of genius. That he was a brilliant composer i do not deny.

[PSmith08]

Patrick, why do you continue to make such an inane and ridiculous comment ? How do you know anything about my aesthetic mind ?  You can be very silly at times.

Well, Eric, since you have insisted on displaying your "aesthetic mind" in its fullness for some time, I have collected -- by sheer dint of repeated exposure -- some hints toward your artistic "sensibilities," such as they are. I do really hate to trouble you with inanity, though I don't get the sense the favor will be repaid, I would like to point out the simple fact that nowhere in your reply did you raise a single point that would refute anything I said. In fact, it appears that your only defense is the fact that you claim to listen to rather a lot of music. While others may differ, I have faith that, sooner or later, you'll make the breakthrough that such purportedly varied listening experience does not necessarily equate to critical expertise or even critical credentials.

[some guy]

In re: Stravinsky

i still haven't experienced that special feeling of transcendence

Well, get on with it then! Time's awastin'.

(And in re: hitting a nerve by calling Stockhausen a charlatan, I believe that all you did there was stub your own toe. Ouch. Better get that looked at.)

[Dancing Divertimentian]

But i never said that genius isn't innovative, i said that genius has nothing to do with the type of innovation you have in mind, based on style, technique or what have you. In fact, genius cannot be anything but original, since it is always brought forth by an elevated, individual consciousness and no individual consciousness can ever be the same. It is the essence of genius however that is immutable, because it is based on truth. Thus, one can be a great Baroque composer, or a great Romantic composer, but there is no such thing as a Baroque genius, or a Romantic genius. The Baroque didn't produce the genius, the genius is eternal. It was there before the Baroque, and it has manifested itself after the Baroque.

No one is arguing that. But since genius isn't confined to any one time period neither is it absent from the 20th/21st century. It's here, my man.

And neither is genius restricted to isolationism. Wagner became a great ROMANTIC composer because he grew up in that era. If he'd have been born in 1940 he'd have been a great MODERNIST composer. See? The "genius" was there and certainly it would have fed off the aesthetics that interested him most, just like it did back then.

So, by your OWN reasoning genius CAN flourish in the 20th/21st centuries. It doesn't just go away. If genius is "truth" then it STILL EXISTS. It cannot be crushed, ever.

So what does that say about YOU?? You seem to think two things:

• That genius doesn't exist nowadays
• That genius can only be found in a TINY pool of pre-20th c. composers

But that's not the case. You're blinded by your own prejudices. You can't see that genius DOES exist today; and that it can be and IS innovative in all sorts of ways; and that genius in the form of art (music) is ABSOLUTELY interconnected with its culture and surroundings and is a source of energy for all participants. What further proof do you need than Wagner and his influences? 

These are maxims that cannot be denied and which should be as self-evident as self-evident gets. But to you these are foreign concepts. But it's not hard to understand why: you've barricaded yourself from the outside world. It's obvious from this thread you have very little experience outside your tiny musical bubble (so, just who else have you not heard much?). And from this you seek to convert us "heathens" so to save us from ourselves.

But you've accomplished nothing. What might help is to actually LISTEN AT LENGTH to some of those composers for whom you hold such contempt or know nothing about. Get to know Stravinsky/Bartok/Shostakovich/etc... AT LENGTH!! There's a world outside your own bubble, and who knows you might actually stumble upon some of that genius which you seem to think died in the 19th c.

[Josquin des Prez]

So, by your OWN reasoning genius CAN flourish in the 20th/21st centuries.

Yes, but genius can only flourish when the particular symbolic structure which we call culture or civilization is allowed to fulfill it's destiny. After all, if one were to study the history of the respective countries which contributed to what we generally refer to as the western heritage, one may see that in many cases the possibility for genius has been suppressed time and time again. The voice of genius can be silenced, and the history of the 20th century has been the history of the complete annihilation of our European symbolic heritage. We have become dominated by an alien spirit that has been at work to demolish our cultural identity for quite some time now. In such a situation, genius simply cannot flourish. Indeed, the very idea of genius no longer has meaning in our so called "modern" society. The soul of our civilization is essentially dead. Things were still holding up by the turn of the century, thus, like you said, there are still composers worthy of our attention, Stravinsky, Bartok and so forth, but after the war there has been nothing left of our culture other then its twitching carcass, already disfigured beyond recognition by the onset of the modern world. The incidence of greatness, let alone genius, has plummeted increasingly at an alarming speed and we are already past the point of recovery.