Comparing Composers

[Saul]

There's some music out there that I care for, and then there is music that I don't care for so much, and could do without.

I care for:

http://www.youtube.com/v/Fo0K_n3VLG4&feature=related

I don't care for:

http://www.youtube.com/v/4Ud_wGMXRnQ

[Bulldog]

Are you comparing composers or music?

[Saul]

What's the difference?

[Scarpia]

What's the difference?

A composer is a human being, and piece of music is a bunch of black marks on a piece of paper. 

It is quite possible to like a work by a given composer without feeling the same way about everything written by that composer.  I'm not thrilled with the Rach 2, but there are other pieces by Rachmaninoff that I enjoy a lot.

[Saul]

A composer is a human being, and piece of music is a bunch of black marks on a piece of paper. 

It is quite possible to like a work by a given composer without feeling the same way about everything written by that composer.  I'm not thrilled with the Rach 2, but there are other pieces by Rachmaninoff that I enjoy a lot.

I'm talking about composers in the context of their music, I thought that this was obvious.

[Bulldog]

I'm talking about composers in the context of their music, I thought that this was obvious.

Whatever.  So where are you going with this comparison?

[Teresa]

There's some music out there that I care for, and then there is music that I don't care for so much, and could do without.

I loved the Rachmaninov clip, very romantic, exciting and beautiful (I wish it had better sound quality) I didn't care much for the Bach clip you provided. 

Symphonic Dances is my favorite composition by Rachmaninov

http://www.youtube.com/v/TF1pGMsxX5M

[False_Dmitry]

and piece of music is a bunch of black marks on a piece of paper. 

No, a piece of music is a series of predetermined pitches of chosen duration, volume, and articulation, usually but not always intended for some specific instrument(s).

The "black marks on a piece of paper" are merely one way of recording a set of instructions for playing the piece of music, but they aren't the only way.  Memory is another way, and encoding the pitches, durations etc into a computer is a further way.  The primacy of the sound over its notation is paramount - the music has a life independent of its notation, and could continue to exist without its notation.  Composers from Landini to Handel to Paganini to Zappa have avoided notating their more advanced compositions, for varying reasons.

Your description of "music" could equally apply to Stendhal's THE RED & THE BLACK, a supermarket bar-code for parsnips, or Rowlandson's cartoon about gas street-lighting.  These things may each be fine in their own way, but none of them are music, nor make any claims to be music

Let us be careful not to mistake a magnificent train journey through the French Alps for the ticket that allows you to board the train

[Dax]

A composer is a human being, and piece of music is a bunch of black marks on a piece of paper.

WHAT?

No, a piece of music is a series of predetermined pitches of chosen duration, volume, and articulation, usually but not always intended for some specific instrument(s).

JEEZ! I'm outta here

[Saul]

Whatever.  So where are you going with this comparison?

As I think about it more deeply, I come to the conclusion that much of the music written after Chopin's time is completely worthless.
The Rachmaninov music is narcissistic autobiographical nonsense and a total waste of time. The Music of Bach and his famous contemporaries and those who came after them who adhered to the traditional forms and styles of harmony and counterpoint and melody, such as Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn and to some extend Brahms and the latest Grieg is what I call real and meaningful classical music. Almost everything else and that's including the Music of Mahler, Prokofiev and Shostakovich is utterly worthless music. That's not even mentioning the worthlessness of the modernists and the atonalists, such as Schoenberg and Webern among others who wrote the poorest music, and its a shame that their music is included within 'classical music'.

[Guido]

As I think about it more deeply, I come to the conclusion that much of the music written after Chopin's time is completely worthless.
The Rachmaninov music is narcissistic autobiographical nonsense and a total waste of time. The Music of Bach and his famous contemporaries and those who came after them who adhered to the traditional forms and styles of harmony and counterpoint and melody, such as Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn and to some extend Brahms and the latest Grieg is what I call real and meaningful classical music. Almost everything else and that's including the Music of Mahler, Prokofiev and Shostakovich is utterly worthless music. That's not even mentioning the worthlessness of the modernists and the atonalists, such as Schoenberg and Webern among others who wrote the poorest music, and its a shame that their music is included within 'classical music'.

What about Bloch?

[Saul]

What about Bloch?

Yes, him too. After Chopin and Grieg basically much of the music is worthless.

[Florestan]

Yes, him too. After Chopin and Grieg basically much of the music is worthless.

Yours included, I presume.

[Franco]

As I think about it more deeply, I come to the conclusion that much of the music written after Chopin's time is completely worthless.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.  I just wish you'd share it less.

[MN Dave]

Yours included, I presume.

Ha!

[Bulldog]

As I think about it more deeply, I come to the conclusion that much of the music written after Chopin's time is completely worthless.

Sounds like deep thinking is not one of your strengths.

[Sergeant Rock]

As I think about it more deeply, I come to the conclusion that much of the music written after Chopin's time is completely worthless.

WHAT?JEEZ! I'm outta here

A sensible decision...I'm not staying either.

Sarge

[some guy]

Saul, if you spent more time and thought on which opinions you made public, you might get more respect.

There's some music out there that I care for, and then there is music that I don't care for so much, and could do without.

None of that is about the music; it's all about Saul. People who are interested in Saul might find that expression interesting, but this is a music board, not a Saul board. Ask yourself this, who cares what I care for and what I don't care for? If the answer is "Saul," then that opinion probably isn't for public consumption.

Also, it might help to support your opinions. Even a good opinion is valueless without support. What is the evidence that music went into a permanent decline after Chopin? And if the evidence is "Saul's biasses," then that's not very supportive support. I think one could make a case that music after Berlioz went into a decline that didn't really turn until Ives--a case that goes against some of my biasses, just by the way--but to make that case, you'd have to marshal evidence about compositional styles and practices. You'd have to argue that the greats between 1860 and 1910 weren't really advancing the boundaries of music in the same way that the greats of 1760 to 1810 were. (And you'd have to argue that "advancing the boundaries of music" is a good thing and must always be happening. No time off for a decade or two!!)

And you'd have to deal with Richard Wagner at the very least.

I'm not going to make that case, myself. I just bring it up to illustrate that expressing and supporting valid opinions is a lot of work and involves more that just making empty and highly personal assertions.

And thank you for this opportunity to remember my days teaching freshman writing!!

[False_Dmitry]

A sensible decision...I'm not staying either.

Great! Bye!

[Saul]

Yours included, I presume.

Yes, a good part of it, I have written over 60 works, and I only value about a third of them. Those works that sound classical and were built on classical forms and styles, the rest I would say are just studies.

As I said the adventurous departure by many composers after Chopin and Grieg, resulted in much poorly written music.