Hot topics

[jochanaan]

It is really quite simple the problem with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen is their music is UNLISTENABLE, crude, ugly, degenerate and altogether offensive!  And I don't care what year it is, heck in the year 3010 Schoenberg's noise making will still be a scam, atonal and anti-music.  Rejecting ugly NON-MUSIC is normal, accepting such trash as music is not normal.  That is why the Second Viennese School and their followers were scam artists.  As B. T. Barnum said "a sucker is born every minute."  And Schoenberg proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt...

Teresa, let me say this simply and directly: You have every right to declare this music "unlistenable" and the rest--for yourself.  But this music is NOT universally "unlistenable," since I and so many others actually listen and enjoy and are moved!  By saying it is, you are setting yourself up as our judge and the universal arbiter of taste.  Yes, that's what you're doing.  But neither you nor anyone else has the right to try to arbitrate my musical tastes, nor do I have the right to arbitrate yours.

As for me, the more I love and study music, the more I realize I still have to learn, and the less I feel qualified to set myself up as a judge or taste arbiter.  Nor have I ever demanded that anyone actually LIKE music of the Second Viennese School or any other music.  All I and the other aficionados here are asking is for you to accept the possibility that your hatred for it does not mean that this music is not music--that is, to stop acting as our judge.  That's a reasonable request, isn't it?

I find your supposed clarification equally absurd.  It is quite possible for an intelligent, intellectual person to find Schoenberg's innovation utterly unappealing...

But that's not what Teresa, Saul, and certain others are doing!  They're saying it's inherently evil and a-musical--and THAT's what has me and so many up in arms.

[Scarpia]

That's a reasonable request, isn't it?But that's not what Teresa, Saul, and certain others are doing!  They're saying it's inherently evil and a-musical--and THAT's what has me and so many up in arms.

We have a few people on this board, Saul, Teresa, James, who are incapable of grasping the idea that something they don't like has value.   There is no point in arguing with them, no argument will reach them.  However, "some guy" strikes me as painting anyone who is not attracted to modern musical idioms with the same brush.  There are lots of intelligent people here who are fascinated by music from a certain era, the techniques of that era appeal to them.  I don't think it is to their discredit if they find Schoenberg's technique absurd.

[karlhenning]

Teresa, let me say this simply and directly: You have every right to declare this music "unlistenable" and the rest--for yourself.  But this music is NOT universally "unlistenable," since I and so many others actually listen and enjoy and are moved!  By saying it is, you are setting yourself up as our judge and the universal arbiter of taste [...]

But that's not what Teresa, Saul, and certain others are doing!  They're saying it's inherently evil and a-musical--and THAT's what has me and so many up in arms.

We have a few people on this board, Saul, Teresa, James, who are incapable of grasping the idea that something they don't like has value.   There is no point in arguing with them, no argument will reach them.  However, "some guy" strikes me as painting anyone who is not attracted to modern musical idioms with the same brush.  There are lots of intelligent people here who are fascinated by music from a certain era, the techniques of that era appeal to them.  I don't think it is to their discredit if they find Schoenberg's technique absurd.

No, what (among other things) is to their discredit is 'decreeing' that (as jochanaan points out) it's inherently evil and a-musical.

Another thing to their discredit is, the condition of their mind behind your apt observation that there is no point in arguing with them, no argument will reach them.

The two of them are perfectly cool with (e.g.) claiming that music they don't like is "universally unlistenable," because they believe God Personally disapproves of the music they hate.

[Saul]

We have a few people on this board, Saul, Teresa, James, who are incapable of grasping the idea that something they don't like has value.   There is no point in arguing with them, no argument will reach them.  However, "some guy" strikes me as painting anyone who is not attracted to modern musical idioms with the same brush.  There are lots of intelligent people here who are fascinated by music from a certain era, the techniques of that era appeal to them.  I don't think it is to their discredit if they find Schoenberg's technique absurd.

Excuse me I never said that there is no value for someone else, I only said that I don't find value in it. That's the difference.

[Scarpia]

Hey ... this is an asshole remark.

And you find it gracious to claim that people who don't like the music you like have "puny brains"?

[jochanaan]

OK, here's what alarms me.

That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).

Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.

2010, remember?

Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.

Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard. I first started to listen to 20th century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is from 1943. Going both forwards and backwards from that date, it still only took me till 1982 to be listening to music written in 1982. And not neo-romantic stuff, either, but Ligeti and Lutoslawski and Diamanda Galas and John Cage, among others. And though I played trumpet for a number of years in high school and college, my musical training is very small and insignificant. I'm just some guy who listens to and enjoys music.

I don't care whose axe-grinding leads them to conclude that "not much of value has been written since 19XX." Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written. Leave off all the various neo- musics. New music, new sounds, new ideas. Plenty of worthwhile stuff. Come on!! Join the freakin' party, why not? The only thing you have to lose is your damned prejudices. And who wouldn't be better for doing that, eh?

*No, it was TalkClassical, so I'm safe.

**Especially not whomever. No excuse, whomy!!

My immediate reaction was "Right on!!!" However, I think your analogy is not an exact analogue. For about a century now we've had devices that the earlier centuries did not have: devices to record actual musical sounds.  Music in earlier centuries that was too radical or incomprehensible was simply forgotten--e.g. Carlo Gesualdo's madrigals and the late Beethoven quartets.  But what music-lover now can simply forget or ignore Schoenberg et al, since record-store shelves, online catalogues and forums like this one are full of their music and references to it?  Thus, prejudicial venoms which in past centuries went safely untriggered, today are triggered again and again--and the Internet's worldwide availability ensures that the poison is spread, thereby requiring us who love truth and beauty and musical challenges to inject large doses of antivenin into cyberspace.

We have a few people on this board, Saul, Teresa, James, who are incapable of grasping the idea that something they don't like has value.   There is no point in arguing with them, no argument will reach them.  However, "some guy" strikes me as painting anyone who is not attracted to modern musical idioms with the same brush.  There are lots of intelligent people here who are fascinated by music from a certain era, the techniques of that era appeal to them.  I don't think it is to their discredit if they find Schoenberg's technique absurd.

Hmmm...I read some guy's original post differently.  I didn't sense he was pointing fingers at anyone; rather, he was simply saying it was foolish for us to be arguing about music written a hundred years ago as if it were a current controversy.  And yes, on many levels it is foolish!  But I feel that I was also making a valid point about setting oneself up as arbiter.  (I notice that neither Teresa nor Saul has replied to my challenges.  Am I that good? )

Excuse me I never said that there is no value for someone else, I only said that I don't find value in it. That's the difference.

I beg your pardon, but you have said exactly that there is no value in it.  It's possible that your speech was careless then, but that's what you have said on more than one occasion.

...The two of them are perfectly cool with (e.g.) claiming that music they don't like is "universally unlistenable," because they believe God Personally disapproves of the music they hate.

Strange that God has not said the same to me!  And, as long as I've been talking to Him, I think He might have said something about my musical tastes if they were so evil...

[Scarpia]

Excuse me I never said that there is no value for someone else, I only said that I don't find value in it. That's the difference.

It varies, sometimes you admit your preferences are personal, but other times, remember this, on the Mendelssohn vs Schoenberg thread?

Even the suggestion is an insult. How in the world HOW? Is it possible to compare Schoenberg to Mendelssohn?

You know even in the jungle, when the fox thinks that he is in the same level as the Lion, one swift stroke of the Lion's paw is enough to demonstrate. No skillful analysis, or discussion is needed. The lion is not required to summon the court of the animals so they might hear his reason as to why he is the king. To suggest a discussion like this is ludicrous as of itself, and is not worthy of explanation. And I said it before in this thread that this comparison is not worthy.

[Mirror Image]

That was a joke stupid. Lighten up...

lol...Saul walked into that one!

[Mirror Image]

I love the humor! Oh the memories...

[Saul]

It varies, sometimes you admit your preferences are personal, but other times, remember this, on the Mendelssohn vs Schoenberg thread?

There is nothing there to suggest that I said that their music has no value to others.

The comparison was ludicrous, sure, but that's not saying there is no value for others.

[Gurn Blanston]

Holy shit buddy, u just can't let go ...

I think that it's because you create such a perfect illusion of being a total douche bag that people have a hard time seeing past it to the real, uproariously funny James that's hiding inside... maybe if you showed a flaw in that armor once in a while people would begin to catch on. Just a passing thought...

[karlhenning]

Strange that God has not said the same to me!  And, as long as I've been talking to Him, I think He might have said something about my musical tastes if they were so evil...

Well, I should be relieved simply that He hasn't objected to my Studies in Impermanence! : )

[Scarpia]

There is nothing there to suggest that I said that their music has no value to others.

The comparison was ludicrous, sure, but that's not saying there is no value for others.

Fair enough.

[Gurn Blanston]

LOL .... love it.

As you should, I took my cue from you.

[karlhenning]

Dr Laid-Back

[(poco) Sforzando]

And you find it gracious to claim that people who don't like the music you like have "puny brains"?

Takes a puny brain to think Mozart is overrated.

[karlhenning]

That kidder! He's as deep a thinker as Saul!

[Scarpia]

Which one is you, James?

[Brahmsian]

The GMG Moderators weekly board meeting. 

[bhodges]

Oh no...I would never knit.  I much prefer shuffleboard. 

--Bruce