Interesting romantic composers

[DavidW]

This must explain why almost all church music is horrible, even (ahem, especially) the contemporary stuff...

Bach manages to find the balance between presenting the message and writing beautiful music.  Some performances though might obscure one for the other.

[Henk]

One example of this is that while the subject itself is to ask for advice about "composers", you don't really seem to care; you haven't even mentioned one name that meets your own specifications, as laid out in your first post. Trying to engage others, instead, in some mumbo-jumbo generic "good vs. bad music" fluff-talk is neither perceptive nor sincere.

I do care about the subject, why I should else have started this thread? The discussion focuses on music, so I don't understand what's the problem. That you don't want to think in bad vs good music terms, doesn't mean I shouldn't do either.

[71 dB]

So much narrow-minded people on this forum. 

[Henk]

So much narrow-minded people on this forum.  

I think on the contrary it's narrow minded to think all music is to variable degrees good music. That's naive. There exists bad music, music that sounds good and can be made by a genius, but is in fact bad, really bad.

Ok. Let's end this discussion for now. We argued enough about it.

[karlhenning]

People, I continue to listen to music I suspect of being inferior.

You just feel bad about it. I weep for you, Henk!

[Franco]

Religious music is some of my most favorite music. 

[karlhenning]

I think on the contrary it's narrow minded to think al music is to variable degrees good music. That's naive.

Maybe, but the question of what "bad music" means is one of the great agglomerations of fuzz in the present discussion.  I think it's narrow-minded, and naïve, to think that music can fit neatly into two categories: good music, and bad music.

Now, what I think (and it is the result of continually expanding understanding of music, i.e., the very antithesis of "narrow-mindedness" in this context), and what is not quite what you are saying here, Henk, is this:  that far the greater part of all the music written, was written by the composer in good faith, in the sense that he felt he was writing good music, and in (for argument's sake, we'll say) a simple majority of the time, the composer was doing his work as well as he believed himself capable of.

[71 dB]

I think on the contrary it's narrow minded to think all music is to variable degrees good music. That's naive. There exists bad music, music that sounds good and can be made by a genius, but is in fact bad, really bad.

Saying all music influenced by Wagner is bad is among the most idiotic things I have read in a long time. That is a generalization without logic typical to young children. Grown up adults shouldn't talk like that.

[Henk]

Maybe, but the question of what "bad music" means is one of the great agglomerations of fuzz in the present discussion.  I think it's narrow-minded, and naïve, to think that music can fit neatly into two categories: good music, and bad music.

Now, what I think (and it is the result of continually expanding understanding of music, i.e., the very antithesis of "narrow-mindedness" in this context), and what is not quite what you are saying here, Henk, is this:  that far the greater part of all the music written, was written by the composer in good faith, in the sense that he felt he was writing good music, and in (for argument's sake, we'll say) a simple majority of the time, the composer was doing his work as well as he believed himself capable of.

Read what Nietzsche has written about it, The Case Wagner, Epilogue, for example.

[karlhenning]

Read what Nietzsche has written about it, The Case Wagner, Epilogue, for example.

How about you recap what you think is the point which addresses this?  TIA.

[Henk]

Saying all music influenced by Wagner is bad is among the most idiotic things I have read in a long time. That is a generalization without logic typical to young children. Grown up adults shouldn't talk like that.

Man, I want to quit this discussion. Don't feel blamed, but I repeat myself over and over again, annoying others with it.

Once and for all:
Wagner realized a synthesis of theatre and music. With theatre being the lower form of art, theatre got control over music. Music degraded to second plan. This is Wagner's influence. All according to Nietzsche.

[Henk]

How about you recap what you think is the point which addresses this?  TIA.

Do I have to civilize you? 

[Franco]

Once and for all:
Wagner realized a synthesis of theatre and music. With theatre being the lower form of art, theatre got control over music. Music degraded to second plan. This is Wagner's influence. All according to Nietzsche.

Okay, Nietzsche.  But I dont care about this idea, I don't even care enough about it to decide if I agree with it or not, but tend to think I disagree; I know I disagree that theatre is a "lower art". 

However, I do know this: Nietzsche's ideas are totally irrelevant to how I listen to music and why I enjoy one piece or another. 

[karlhenning]

Do I have to civilize you? 

What a funny question.  It has the look of arrogance, you know.

[Henk]

What a funny question.  It has the look of arrogance, you know.

You ask me to summarize ("recap") Nietzsche. Can't you look it up yourself? I gave you the reference.

[Henk]

REPOST (edited content dramatically):

Okay, Nietzsche.  But I dont care about this idea, I don't even care enough about it to decide if I agree with it or not, but tend to think I disagree; I know I disagree that theatre is a "lower art".  

However, I do know this: Nietzsche's ideas are totally irrelevant to how I listen to music and why I enjoy one piece or another.  

Ok, fine for you. I admit I let me be guided to a certain degree by Nietzsche in this as well in other respects. BUT: I don't really believe in the autonomy of the subject in things like this at all! You are biased by so many things, the flawless eye / ear doesn't exist. It only can be trained / formed, through listening experience (then it's biased by this experience so by the particular composers you listen to), but also by reading about music. Actually your whole life is biased, all your experiences, all what you´ve read, all what your parents have learned you, all what you have been teached, all thing you´ve heard, you thought were interesting, not to forget the bad things you´ve absorbed, bad experiences it all influences more or less the way you experience a particular work of art.

Henk

[Franco]

REPOST (edited content dramatically):

Ok, fine for you. I admit I let me be guided to a certain degree by Nietzsche in this as well in other respects. BUT: I don't really believe in the autonomy of the subject in things like this at all! You are biased by so many things, the flawless eye / ear doesn't exist. It only can be trained / formed, through listening experience (then it's biased by this experience so by the particular composers you listen to), but also by reading about music. Actually your whole life is biased, all your experiences, all what you read, all what your parents have learned you, all what you have been teached, all thing you heard, you thought were interesting, it all influences more or less the way you experience a particular work of art.

Henk

I would rather be biased by my own experience than by ideas expressed by a 19th century philosopher whose ideas about anything don't resonate with me.  I don't care why I prefer one composer's works over another, and I certainly do not think the music I like is "better" or "worse" than the music I don't like.  

Life is too short and I'd rather spend my spare time listening to music than on theories about music.  

[bhodges]

I know I disagree that theatre is a "lower art". 

Yes, I have a problem with theatre as a "lower art," too, and suspect that a great many people would.  Certainly an entire raft of Shakespeare fans would be up in arms, just to cite one dramatist whose work has withstood the test of time, and keeps being reinterpreted with enormous success.

Further, I strongly suspect there are those for whom theatre is the highest art, with music secondary--hard as it may be for some of us to believe.  .  And finally...theatre is not so unrelated to music, IMHO.

--Bruce

[Henk]

Yes, I have a problem with theatre as a "lower art," too, and suspect that a great many people would.  Certainly an entire raft of Shakespeare fans would be up in arms, just to cite one dramatist whose work has withstood the test of time, and keeps being reinterpreted with enormous success.

Further, I strongly suspect there are those for whom theatre is the highest art, with music secondary--hard as it may be for some of us to believe.  .  And finally...theatre is not so unrelated to music, IMHO.

--Bruce

Bruce, I don't want to say theatre is a low form of art, only that music is a higher form of art. Couldn't those people who think otherwise are just wrong??

[bhodges]

I understand what you're saying, that you're positioning music slightly higher on the scale.  But while you and I might think that music is the higher of the two, I recognize that these are just strongly held opinions.  So no, I wouldn't say that those who disagree are "wrong," either.

I also speak as someone who loves good theatre, particularly plays, and IMHO a great play is every bit the equal of a great piece of music.

--Bruce