Comparing Composers

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Very good post. As you say, there are so many holes in Saul's line of thinking, such as it is discernible, that it's hard to know where to start, but you make a very good point.

Thanks.

I love how Saul sees eveything from Bach to Brahms as some kind of monolithic mass of sameness, music that followed 'the rules' (whatever they are, haven't had a cogent response on that one yet) without deviation or exploration!

Yes, not sure myself what to make of these "rules". Where to start? If only Saul would give us some guidance...

[Saul]

Going against popular opinion is always difficult and an uphill struggle that can be turned into personal attacks. Sad case, it was always like that from time immemorial. In a sense Teresa has got the same whips more or less, but the only difference is that in this case I'm right and she's wrong!

[Luke]

Because there was no evolution, there was a different approach that didn't reject the foundations of classical music, and looked with the utmost respect and dedication to the ways of the masters. The modernists departed from this, and created their own bible and therefore ceased to be holy (great).

This actually makes no sense, semantically speaking, and therefore I have no idea what you are on about. I think you are saying that there was no evolution from Baroque to Classical? No, perhaps it was more a revolution, actually - the two are utterly different in so many ways. But you also appear to be saying that baroque music is the real classical music but that classical music didn't reject classical music......no, you lost me there.

But aside from the musicological bunk, your posts on this thread, with their rejection of evolution, their reverence for 'the rules', the 'High Mountain' imagery, and lines like 'the modernists departed from this, and created their own bible and therefore ceased to be holy (great)' are starting to take on a familiarly religious fervour which I find a little amusing...but which I'm not sure I want to get embroiled with, even if it is 'only' music we are talking about! 

[Saul]

This actually makes no sense, semantically speaking, and therefore I have no idea what you are on about. I think you are saying that there was no evolution from Baroque to Classical? No, perhaps it was more a revolution, actually - the two are utterly different in so many ways. But you also appear to be saying that baroque music is the real classical music but that classical music didn't reject classical music......no, you lost me there.

But aside from the musicological bunk, your posts on this thread, with their rejection of evolution, their reverence for 'the rules', the 'High Mountain' imagery, and lines like 'the modernists departed from this, and created their own bible and therefore ceased to be holy (great)' are starting to take on a familiarly religious fervour which I find a little amusing...but which I'm not sure I want to get embroiled with, even if it is 'only' music we are talking about! 

Its so easy not to understand things you don't want to believe in...
I wonder where it comes from!

[Luke]

Its so easy not to understand things you don't want to believe in...
I wonder where it comes from!

OK, so I was right. [backs away.......]

[Saul]

OK, so I was right. [backs away.......]

I really really really didnt understand what you meant there...I'm not trying to be sarcastic...or contradict myself in anyway ! 

[Luke]

I really really really didnt understand what you meant there...

The confusing part of my post was the bit where I was trying to paraphrase and make sense of your own arguments. So perhaps now you know how the rest of us feel!

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Yes, turn a perfectly beautiful discussion on music that is composed of drastically different opinions into a personal blame game attack.
You know what?

What's the point in beginning anything here that will result in this kind of behavior?

I don't know why I have to agree with you on anything.

Well, what do you expect when you don't even bother to read my post??!??



Ok, I'll give you one more chance. READ my post in its entirety and actually RESPOND to its points and let's see where that leads us (and do the same for Luke's earlier post).

You see, THAT is the definition of a "beautiful discussion". Not what you're trying to do, here.

I called your ideas in that post of yours I quoted "stupid" because what your evincing with your ideology is actually utter DEATH to artistic genius. It's horrifying to think of art in such terms as you put it. You might as well bury all art right now with that attitude. Yikes!!!

You see, Prokofiev is one of my favorite composers (along with Bach, Brahms, etc...). Debussy is a master (as is Beethoven and Handel). It simply isn't necessary to HATE something just because you don't understand it. That kind of attitude hearkens back to prejudice and all the nasty sorts of things that go along with it. Which ultimately leads to censuring and burning and all that kind of stuff. Yuck. 

[Saul]

The confusing part of my post was the bit where I was trying to paraphrase and make sense of your own arguments. So perhaps now you know how the rest of us feel!

I'm sorry that I have confused you Luke, really.
I didn't know that I was speaking in such 'Rocket Science' manner, though I personally think that I what I said was very simple and clear.

[Saul]

Well, what do you expect when you don't even bother to read my post??!??



Ok, I'll give you one more chance. READ my post in its entirety and actually RESPOND to its points and let's see where that leads us (and do the same for Luke's earlier post).

You see, THAT is the definition of a "beautiful discussion". Not what you're trying to do, here.

I called your ideas in that post of yours I quoted "stupid" because what your evincing with your ideology is actually utter DEATH to artistic genius. It's horrifying to think of art in such terms as you put it. You might as well bury all art right now with that attitude. Yikes!!!

You see, Prokofiev is one of my favorite composers (along with Bach, Brahms, etc...). Debussy is a master (as is Beethoven and Handel). It simply isn't necessary to HATE something just because you don't understand it. That kind of attitude hearkens back to prejudice and all the nasty sorts of things that go along with it. Which ultimately leads to censuring and burning and all that kind of stuff. Yuck.

I would argue that every reasonable fair minded person would say that you have personally attacked me even before you said anything about my comments on music...but anyways lets go on...

I will try to respond to you tomorrow and make things a little clearer for you...

But now I'm busy with this thread for over three hours...enough is enough as they say...

Layta...

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I'm sorry that I have confused you Luke, really.
I didn't know that I was speaking in such 'Rocket Science' manner, though I personally think that I what I said was very simple and clear.

Sorry, but it's not clear at all.

And we're not "confused" in the sense that you're talking over our heads in a "rocket science" manner. We're "confused" because you're unable to articulate your ideas in any sort of RATIONAL manner.

And your language lately is getting pretty scary. Time to re-evaluate.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I would argue that every reasonable fair minded person would say that you have personally attacked me even before you said anything about my comments on music...

SAY WHAT??!??

I will try to respond to you tomorrow and make things a little clearer for you...

Oh, I read you loud and clear already, sir....

[Scarpia]

The confusing part of my post was the bit where I was trying to paraphrase and make sense of your own arguments. So perhaps now you know how the rest of us feel!

Luke, the only way to emerge from this discussion is to use the wisdom of the Bible.  Proverbs, Chapter 14, verse 7.

Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

[jowcol]

From Zen Flesh, Zen Bones (ed. by Paul Reps)

When Banzan was walking through a market he overheard a conversation between a butcher and his customer.

"Give me the best piece of meat you have," said the customer.

"Everything in my shop is the best," replied the butcher. "You cannot find here any piece of meat that is not the best."

At these words Banzan became enlightened.

************************************************************************************

I'm bailing on this thread-- something about the Law of Diminishing Returns, and the Black knight from Monty Python who kept saying "it's just a flesh wound".   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

[Saul]

Since the Baroque Era music has devolved and not evolved, because evolution connotes progress in craft, and clearly that was never the case. As time passed by the urge of finding a new voice and style had caused composers to break from traditional sounding classical music and its rules and began composing modern sounding music which is by every standard and by every means completely inferior to the beauty and grandeur of Classical music. This deterioration of the art of composing is most evident with the composers of the 20th century, most notably, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Mahler and Shostakovich who wrote music that may sound appealing to some people, but don't be fooled, their music is completely banal and poorly written, and should never be included within classical music.

Breaking the rules of a given art should never be considered as progress. Those who push for this, are ignoring the fact, that just like every given art and wisdom, Classical music has rules and standards, and when you decide to depart from them, you depart from Classical music.

[Luke]

Since the Baroque Era music has devolved and not evolved, because evolution connotes progress in craft, and clearly that was never the case. As time passed by the urge of finding a new voice and style had caused composers to break from traditional sounding classical music and its rules and began composing modern sounding music which is by every standard and by every means completely inferior to the beauty and grandeur of Classical music. This deterioration of the art of composing is most evident with the composers of the 20th century, most notably, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Mahler and Shostakovich who wrote music that may sound appealing to some people, but don't be fooled, their music is completely banal and poorly written, and should never be included within classical music.

Breaking the rules of a given art should never be considered as progress. Those who push for this, are ignoring the fact, that just like every given art and wisdom, Classical music has rules and standards, and when you decide to depart from them, you depart from Classical music.

Please point to examples of poorly-written Schoenberg, being specific and giving detailed musical reasons. (Given that Schoenberg was one of the supreme music theorists and most technically accomplished composers of all, like the results or loath them, I'll be interested to read this). Coming from totally the opposite direction, this is as loopy as Teresa claiming that Mozart was incompetent. Again, Saul, you don't have to like it, but the quality is actually not in dispute. Even most rabid anti-moderns don't doubt the skill of a Schoenberg (or a Berg, or a Mahler, or whatever) even if they dislike the end result.

[canninator]

Since the Baroque Era music has devolved and not evolved, because evolution connotes progress in craft, and clearly that was never the case. As time passed by the urge of finding a new voice and style had caused composers to break from traditional sounding classical music and its rules and began composing modern sounding music which is by every standard and by every means completely inferior to the beauty and grandeur of Classical music. This deterioration of the art of composing is most evident with the composers of the 20th century, most notably, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Mahler and Shostakovich who wrote music that may sound appealing to some people, but don't be fooled, their music is completely banal and poorly written, and should never be included within classical music.

Breaking the rules of a given art should never be considered as progress. Those who push for this, are ignoring the fact, that just like every given art and wisdom, Classical music has rules and standards, and when you decide to depart from them, you depart from Classical music.

I have two questions.

1. Do you hold this opinion of breaking the rules in art to be true of literature and painting? If so, do you pinpoint a time at which literature and painting began to crumble from a historical high?

2. The transition from a dependence upon ecclesiastical modes to the system of major and minor keys used in the Baroque could be interpreted as "breaking the rules" by your criteria. Would you propose that a disintegration of the modal system represents progress yet a disintegration of the tonal system represents a regression? If so, how do you draw the distinction?

Cheers

[karlhenning]

The assertion that since the Baroque Era music has devolved is at odds with the assertion that Mendelssohn is a greater composer than Bach.  Though one would still be at perfect liberty to like Mendelssohn's music better than Bach's, notwithstanting that it represents an artistic deterioration ; )

[Saul]

Please point to examples of poorly-written Schoenberg, being specific and giving detailed musical reasons. (Given that Schoenberg was one of the supreme music theorists and most technically accomplished composers of all, like the results or loath them, I'll be interested to read this). Coming from totally the opposite direction, this is as loopy as Teresa claiming that Mozart was incompetent. Again, Saul, you don't have to like it, but the quality is actually not in dispute. Even most rabid anti-moderns don't doubt the skill of a Schoenberg (or a Berg, or a Mahler, or whatever) even if they dislike the end result.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia about Mendelssohn and his contemporaries:

Throughout his life Mendelssohn was wary of the more radical musical developments undertaken by some of his contemporaries. He was generally on friendly, if somewhat cool, terms with the likes of Hector Berlioz, Franz Liszt, and Giacomo Meyerbeer, but in his letters expresses his frank disapproval of their works. In particular, he seems to have regarded Paris and its music with the greatest of suspicion and an almost Puritanical distaste. Attempts made during his visit there to interest him in Saint-Simonianism ended in embarrassing scenes. [36]He thought the Paris style of opera vulgar, and the works of Meyerbeer insincere. It is significant that the only musician with whom he was a close personal friend, Moscheles, was of an older generation and equally conservative in outlook. Moscheles preserved this outlook at the Leipzig Conservatory.


I totally agree with Mendelssohn's approach and opinion here. Is he also a fool and an idiot according to you and your friends here?

Yes, some people including myself are against the 'radical musical developments' initiated by later composers.

[karlhenning]

Saul, you have entirely failed to supply any response to Luke's invitation. Spam to the effect of Mendelssohn is the tits! is not a response here.

So, thank you for conceding that you have no musical criticism of Schoenberg.

(BTW, Schoenberg is a better composer than Mendelssohn. Just saying.)