Difficulty of being yourself and happiness

[MishaK]

Hardly anything in music can be substantiated in objective scientific way. So, it's my subjective opinion against your subjective opinion.

Not quite. Music can be analyzed objectively. Matters of harmony, rhythm, meter, structure are not subjective.

[DavidRoss]

Not quite. Music can be analyzed objectively. Matters of harmony, rhythm, meter, structure are not subjective.

And vibrational fields?

[Scarpia]

Not quite. Music can be analyzed objectively. Matters of harmony, rhythm, meter, structure are not subjective.

Interesting discussion of music will always mix the objective and subjective.  One can observe with some objective justification that the harmony and orchestration used by Elgar in certain pieces is similar to that used by Strauss. But whether Elgar has created a mere pastiche, or whether Elgar has created a deep work of art by assimilating Strauss's technique is difficult to justify objectively.

[MishaK]

Interesting discussion of music will always mix the objective and subjective.  One can observe with some objective justification that the harmony and orchestration used by Elgar in certain pieces is similar to that used by Strauss. But whether Elgar has created a mere pastiche, or whether Elgar has created a deep work of art by assimilating Strauss's technique is difficult to justify objectively.

Sure. But my point is that unlike what 71dB says, there are objective aspects to talking about music. It is not all subjective opinion. And even so, opinion can be more or less substantiated, and accordingly more or less persuasive.

And vibrational fields?

And UFOs?

[Scarpia]

Sure. But my point is that unlike what 71dB says, there are objective aspects to talking about music. It is not all subjective opinion. And even so, opinion can be more or less substantiated, and accordingly more or less persuasive.

Yes, I agree with that statement completely.  There are statements that can be objectively justified, statements that can be falsified, and statements that are subjective.  Subjective statements are more interesting when they supported by or related to statements that are justified objectively.

[71 dB]

Not quite. Music can be analyzed objectively. Matters of harmony, rhythm, meter, structure are not subjective.

Well, why doesn't anyone botter to show me analysis of Elgar's music in order to demonstrate he is a bad composer? Are people afraid such analysis could hint the opposite?

[Scarpia]

Well, why doesn't anyone botter to show me analysis of Elgar's music in order to demonstrate he is a bad composer? Are people afraid such analysis could hint the opposite?

Any reasonable analysis of Elgar's music will indicate that he was extremely skillful, although not as innovative as some others that composed during his time.   Influence is another question.  I can't imagine 20th century music developing as it did without Stravinsky or Schoenberg.  Without Elgar? 

[MishaK]

Well, why doesn't anyone botter to show me analysis of Elgar's music in order to demonstrate he is a bad composer? Are people afraid such analysis could hint the opposite?

Your happiness would be monumentally increased if you could enjoy your Elgar without caring whether others agree that he's the greatest ever. It would increase exponentially still if you could enjoy and love Elgar while understanding and accepting that while Elgar's influence was rather small, that of other contemporaries was greater, yet that doesn't in any way oblige you to enjoy their music more than Elgar's.

[71 dB]

Any reasonable analysis of Elgar's music will indicate that he was extremely skillful, although not as innovative as some others that composed during his time.

How innovative was J. S. Bach? I think I enjoy Bach and Elgar so much because they perfected something that had been going on for a long time instead of taking the first steps of something new.  Stravinsky's and Schoenberg's music don't sound new anymore, in the 21st century (that doesn't say the music can't be good).

Influence is another question.  I can't imagine 20th century music developing as it did without Stravinsky or Schoenberg.  Without Elgar?

This is unfair. Stravinsky and Schoenberg clearly tried to make influential music. Elgar tried to make enjoyable music.

[Scarpia]

Your happiness would be monumentally increased if you could enjoy your Elgar without caring whether others agree that he's the greatest ever. It would increase exponentially still if you could enjoy and love Elgar while understanding and accepting that while Elgar's influence was rather small, that of other contemporaries was greater, yet that doesn't in any way oblige you to enjoy their music more than Elgar's.

What he said.

[DavidRoss]

Well, why doesn't anyone botter to show me analysis of Elgar's music in order to demonstrate he is a bad composer? Are people afraid such analysis could hint the opposite?

Your happiness would be monumentally increased if you could enjoy your Elgar without caring whether others agree that he's the greatest ever. It would increase exponentially still if you could enjoy and love Elgar while understanding and accepting that while Elgar's influence was rather small, that of other contemporaries was greater, yet that doesn't in any way oblige you to enjoy their music more than Elgar's.

Amen.

Note, Mensch, that 71dB is an example of the issue we discussed elsewhere.  Many have gone over this same ground with him time and again since he first appeared on the forum, with varying degrees of compassionate kindness and sheer exasperation.  That he returns to it compulsively, never having learned anything from previous go-rounds, suggests that expecting normal rational dialogue is misguided.

[71 dB]

Your happiness would be monumentally increased if you could enjoy your Elgar without caring whether others agree that he's the greatest ever. It would increase exponentially still if you could enjoy and love Elgar while understanding and accepting that while Elgar's influence was rather small, that of other contemporaries was greater, yet that doesn't in any way oblige you to enjoy their music more than Elgar's.

I don't think Elgar's influence was that small, at least in England. To my knowledge Walton was influenced by Elgar.

Also, I can live with the opinions of other but can other live with my opinions? 

[MishaK]

How innovative was J. S. Bach?

Ummmm.... there is hardly a composer from Mozart to Brahms to Bruckner to Schoenberg to Andriessen who didn't find something new and inspiring in Bach's music. So much of what came after is virtually unthinkable without Bach's counterpoint and forays into distant harmonies. As I've quoted Barenboim elsewhere: "[The Well Tempered Clavier alone] contains in embryonic form all the music that came after."

This is unfair. Stravinsky and Schoenberg clearly tried to make influential music. Elgar tried to make enjoyable music.

And there are people who find Yanni "enjoyable" too.

[Marc]

[....] I can live with the opinions of other but can other live with my opinions?

There you go again. Despite the smiley, I think this is your problem.

A real free-thinker should not worry about that.

(Seriously.)

Add this (again):

Your happiness would be monumentally increased if you could enjoy your Elgar without caring whether others agree that he's the greatest ever. [....]

[71 dB]

And there are people who find Yanni "enjoyable".

Well I don't. I like some new age music (it's like fresh air for mind and very relaxing) but definitely not Yanni (Yuk!).

[MishaK]

Well I don't. I like some new age music (it's like fresh air for mind and very relaxing) but definitely not Yanni (Yuk!).

Point is: enjoyability (a very personal issue, in any case) is not a measure of greatness.

[Opus106]

Yanni (Yuk!)

Now, say that to one of Yanni's fans, he or she would definitely not want to live with your opinion.

[71 dB]

Point is: enjoyability (a very personal issue, in any case) is not a measure of greatness.

This means that greatness is irrelevant to a person.

[DavidRoss]

This means that greatness is irrelevant to a person.

No, it means that whether a particular person enjoys something does not determine its greatness.

[Scarpia]

I don't think Elgar's influence was that small, at least in England. To my knowledge Walton was influenced by Elgar.

Also, I can live with the opinions of other but can other live with my opinions? 

We can live with your opinions, we can't live with your "facts."