Hot topics

[Saul]

Teresa,

With all due respect for you, I think that you're taking this whole thing out of proportion. There is no need for radicalism in art.
People will listen to whatever they choose no matter what you , I or anyone else will say. Playing a hero and grabbing a revolutionary sword and trying to fix all the problems and the deterioration of art, any art, would sound much better if you actually had some power to change it. Empty idealistic talk like this, only empowers those who want to belittle you, and it plays into their hands, and that's just too bad.

Yes, art in general went downhill as time went by, just look at all the rubbish that exists today, Britney Spears and Lady Gaga, Pink, Beyonce, rap, hip hop and all the negative streams within pop culture and art, are all unfortunate examples of art made bad.

But those serious musicians who still want to stick to classical music, and truly love it with their hearts, shouldn't be criticized for 'listening to degenerate art'. If it makes them happy, and they truly love it, you can't talk them out of it. You know if someone loves junk food, you're never going to change their mind about this. It makes his day when he munches on some potatoes or corn chips, may not be that nutritious, it may not be Gourmet
food, but its still food, for him that is.


Therefore I think that you need to drop this assault, trust me it makes you look bad, you waste energy for a lost cause that even if you'll be Beethoven still you will never alter its course.

You and I have every right to dislike certain composers' music, and voice our opinions on other composers who are way more superior, but to call the music of Schoenberg and Webern 'degenerate' is categorically wrong.

Think about it this way, there are many types of music all around the world, not only classical western music. Much of it is tribal, cultural music, which is not written, or formally composed, these types of music, have many followers who listen to it, and it has been a part of their lives since childhood.

No one would suggest to attack their music and call it 'degenerate'.. the hard cold truth is that whatever may be degenerate for you, can be beautiful and worthwhile for others.

Why then should we care if certain composers wanted to write their music with more freedom and with more flexibility from the traditions of western classical music?

Remember, music is not a religion, there is no heresy here, and we should even somewhat give praise that even though these composers introduced extreme radical changes in traditional classical music, at least, they appreciated the greats, and somewhat formulated and constructed their music with formality and wrote it down on paper as the greats did. At least we should give them kudos for that.

Best Wishes,

Your Friend,

Saul

[karlhenning]

Actually the piece by Alban Berg I am listening to complies with the first definition perfectly.

QFT

[CD]

I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the text under my avatar.

[Teresa]

Do you advocate an official ban on those depraved types of music?

Yes but sadly that may not be possible.  In that case "warning stickers" would be acceptable.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Frightening.  She would be another Stalin, if she ever had any power over anything.

Quite right. She is full of anger when she perceives her freedoms being constrained, but all too willing to constrain the freedoms of others.

Funny how that always seems to work that way . . .

[Elgarian]

Put him on your "ignore" list, then he can't send you PMs.  Works for me.

Just done it, thanks. Sad though. Never felt the need to 'ignore' anyone till now.

[drogulus]

     Perhaps cerealism was a failed attempt to create anti-music, a form of conceptual art. I'm not sure that there's much of a distinction between conceptual anti-Art Art and Art. Once you allow concepts about what Art is to become central to the Art ItSelf you end up with paradoxes. I'm sort of old-fashioned and prefer art that doesn't display too much self-entanglement. There are better reasons to listen to music than to ponder whether it really "is" music or not. I can see the attraction, though, in a haughtily disapproving way.

[Brian]

I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the text under my avatar.

I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the fact that Saul D. made a great, wonderful post that I want to stand up and applaud.

[Scarpia]

I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the fact that Saul D. made a great, wonderful post that I want to stand up and applaud.

Quite so, but did he mean it, I wonder?   

[Bulldog]

Yes but sadly that may not be possible.  In that case "warning stickers" would be acceptable.

You just might be the "Tipper Gore" of the 21st Century.

[CD]

I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the fact that Saul D. made a great, wonderful post that I want to stand up and applaud.

Agreed — a nice departure from his usual baiting and challoping.

[karlhenning]

May I make a suggestion? You're responding in your post to a chap (some guy) who adores the music that you're dismissing as degenerate trash. He listens to it not to impress anyone, not to make a point, but because he loves it. You have a great opportunity here,  to listen to what he says and understand what it is that attracts him to the music you hate. He's one of the most fascinating posters I know on this forum, even though my musical tastes are widely different from his. He knows something about that music that you can never know as long as you're overwhelmed by your hate campaign. You don't even have to learn to enjoy the music yourself. All that's needed is to try, just a little, to understand someone else's point of view instead of allowing your own prejudice to run rampant.

Excellent post, full of wisdom which the addressee will evade, in favor of her shrill rage. Pity, really.  But the neighborly attempt at outreach best becomes you.

[Saul]

I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the fact that Saul D. made a great, wonderful post that I want to stand up and applaud.

Thank you Brain and everyone else, yes I did mean it.

Cheers,

Saul

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the fact that Saul D. made a great, wonderful post that I want to stand up and applaud.

Where?

[Saul]

Where?

Number 7

[petrarch]

I believe it's called cerealism. 

Look out for all those cereal killers out there.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Number 7

Number 7 on this thread is one of my posts.

[some guy]

Boy, ya go to the store to buy an item or two and look what goes on in the meantime!!

Anyway, I've just gone through the fun you kids have been having since I was last at my computer, and I must say that Elgarian's comments have really warmed my heart. As have all the warming kudos for him, for that matter. Anyway, thanks Alan. You have presented my position quite accurately!

Teresa has gotten a lot of people to say a lot of really nice things!!

But I digress, Elgarian asked a question, and I need to give an answer. There ARE rules, you know.

What's the difference between my failure to enjoy almost all atonal music, and my failure to enjoy, let's say, very early sacred music, which (I'm horrified to have to expose my philistinism like this) 'all sounds the same', to me?

Probably nothing, to you. But you're talking here about your experience, only. What happens with Schoenberg (or whichever other composer is being demonized) is that it's a social phenomenon. It's large numbers of people who are stuck in the cliches of several decades ago. Teresa's responses are extreme, but they're not otherwise atypical.

And it's translating those dislikes into something else. You don't ever do that. You don't ever present "It all sounds the same to me" into "It all sounds the same" and certainly not into "It sounds terrible, and people who report as liking it are lying."

I do know that there are people today who have 'problems' with, for instance, the art of the Pre-Raphaelites. I knew one very competent figurative painter who insisted that they were dreadfully bad painters; that they didn't understand the first thing about painting; that they didn't understand the essential character of paint. Now you'd think, after 150 years, that kind of controversy couldn't possibly still be current, but it was, and is.

One competent figurative painter does not a current controversy make. There are people (check out the Grosse Fuge thread over on TalkClassical) who say some of the same things about that piece as people say about pantonality and serialism.

And I'd say that that's absurd.

And, of course, it may simply be that you and I find different things to be absurd. There may have been some excuse in 1920 for Schoenberg bashing. In 1930, even. By 1940, though, it's starting to seem a little threadbare. 1950, whole chunks of cloth simply vanished away. Not because there's anything magical about those dates. Just, on the one hand, a general comment about the passage of time. On the other hand, a specific observation about all the different music and the different ideas that arose after Schoenberg was done.

And and, of course of course, maybe I'm just being impatient. But 2010 is so far from 1950, and so full of interesting and various other things that have had nothing to do with either serialism or with neo-tonality, that maybe (I'm guessing yes) my impatience is justified.

Thanks again, Alan, for all your kind words!!


[/quote]

[Teresa]

Number 7 on this thread is one of my posts.

Quite right, actually Saul's post is on Page 7 Reply #137

[(poco) Sforzando]

Quite right, actually Saul's post is on Page 7 Reply #137

I see. But while Saul is naturally all too happy to take a bow, I cannot praise this post quite as highly. Saul's main point is to tell Teresa not to bother trying to change people's minds. However, if you look at the metaphor he chooses, it's obvious he considers Schoenberg and Co. the musical equivalent of junk food. And that judgmental attitude is what some of you are standing up and applauding.

But those serious musicians who still want to stick to classical music, and truly love it with their hearts, shouldn't be criticized for 'listening to degenerate art'. If it makes them happy, and they truly love it, you can't talk them out of it. You know if someone loves junk food, you're never going to change their mind about this. It makes his day when he munches on some potatoes or corn chips, may not be that notorious [I think "nutritious" is meant], it may not be Gourmet food, but its still food, for him that is.