Difficulty of being yourself and happiness

[karlhenning]

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 [....]

Good point, Scarps.

Mensch, you are nearly right. Matters of harmony, rhythm and meter are not subjective, correct. It surprises you, though, how subject to subjectivity musical structure can be.

[karlhenning]

Well, why doesn't anyone botter to show me analysis of Elgar's music in order to demonstrate he is a bad composer?

Probably because (straw man alert) practically no one here suggests that Elgar is a bad composer.

Which does not mean, of course, that he is necessarily the equal of Beethoven.

[karlhenning]

This means that greatness is irrelevant to a person.

No, it doesn't quite mean that. How greatness is relevant to any music lover, will depend on the individual. Obviously, the fact that Beethoven was a greater composer than Elgar means nothing to you; nor need it!  But (to repeat an idea I think I may have seen on offer at GMG before), the fact that I may overall enjoy Nielsen's music better than I do that of Bach, does not make Nielsen a greater composer than Bach. Doesn't even make Nielsen as great a composer as Bach.  But, the question of the relative greatness of the two does not at all interfere with my enjoyment of, well, either composer.

[karlhenning]

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

Dave got there first!

[Grazioso]

No, it doesn't quite mean that. How greatness is relevant to any music lover, will depend on the individual. Obviously, the fact that Beethoven was a greater composer than Elgar means nothing to you; nor need it!  But (to repeat an idea I think I may have seen on offer at GMG before), the fact that I may overall enjoy Nielsen's music better than I do that of Bach, does not make Nielsen a greater composer than Bach. Doesn't even make Nielsen as great a composer as Bach.  But, the question of the relative greatness of the two does not at all interfere with my enjoyment of, well, either composer.

Of course, that might lead one to ask, why the mania zeal on some people's behalf to try to establish the "greatness" of different composers?

I think if it were for purely practical or academic ends, it might be a useful endeavor: e.g., "which composers should we teach, given the limited time frame of a music appreciation course?", or "how can we examine the harmonic language of two different composers to determine who is 'greater' and thereby learn more about music theory and history?

But when you get guys arguing "is so, is not" on an Internet forum, with little recourse to detailed musical analysis or even defining what, precisely, musical greatness is, well....

[Scarpia]

Of course, that might lead one to ask, why the mania zeal on some people's behalf to try to establish the "greatness" of different composers?

I think if it were for purely practical or academic ends, it might be a useful endeavor: e.g., "which composers should we teach, given the limited time frame of a music appreciation course?", or "how can we examine the harmonic language of two different composers to determine who is 'greater' and thereby learn more about music theory and history?

But when you get guys arguing "is so, is not" on an Internet forum, with little recourse to detailed musical analysis or even defining what, precisely, musical greatness is, well....

I generally agree, although occasionally I see things posted here that show sufficiently deep insight to make me believe that a claim of greatness has been justified.   

Maybe I slip sometimes, but I usually try to remember to point out that generally I am describing what I find moving or fascinating, without much in the way of substantial justification.  If my comments resonate or hit a nerve, then I infer there was some sunstance to them.

[MishaK]

Mensch, you are nearly right. Matters of harmony, rhythm and meter are not subjective, correct. It surprises you, though, how subject to subjectivity musical structure can be.[/font]

Sure. You can have different views as to whether a certain musical element has one or another structural context or function. But you can't argue about the presence or absence of said musical element. A set of notes is either in the score or it isn't. That's a factual question, not a matter of opinion. Whether or not it means what you think it means may be a matter of some subjectivity, indeed.

[karlhenning]

Perfectly right, Mensch. Which is why, unless the musical structure of a piece is, for instance, a "cookie cutter" ternary form, the structure (how one's mind conceives a coherent 'map' of the musical 'landscape') is liable to a greater degree to subjectivity.

[Grazioso]

I generally agree, although occasionally I see things posted here that show sufficiently deep insight to make me believe that a claim of greatness has been justified.   

Maybe I slip sometimes, but I usually try to remember to point out that generally I am describing what I find moving or fascinating, without much in the way of substantial justification.  If my comments resonate or hit a nerve, then I infer there was some sunstance to them.

Certainly it's possible to offer detailed, insightful analysis of music and use that to posit composers' relative skill or creativity or influence. Yet more often that turns into petty pissing matches, cloaked in the rather flimsy guise of objectivity. Such "discussions" too often devolve into someone essentially trying to assert not a fact, but rather himself: "I know more than you because I can say composer X is greater than composer Y. I'm right, you're ignorant. So there."

And even when that's not the case, and while such debates can become interesting and challenging intellectual exercises, it's suspect to try to jettison subjectivity from something inherently subjective, i.e., music's effects on listeners. While common in art criticism--at least historically--that "art in itself" approach seems to rather miss the point. That would be like describing cooking exclusively in terms of chemical reactions: interesting, but hardly the point for most people.

[71 dB]

With this thread 71dB is bringing up all the crap that led to his reduced enjoyment of classical music.  Why he wants to dredge it all up again is anyone's guess.

This is my closure (I hope).

[karlhenning]

Good luck!

[jowcol]

I found it much easier to talk with others about music when I realized that there would never be a person on the planet wired the same way I was, and that the perception of music is one of the most subjective (and fascinating) subjects.   

I used to find it really frustrating when someone who shared a lot of the same tastes I did just didn't "get" something they should have.   There was a person I used to work with who shared enthusiasm with me for the same period of blues, and yet we disagreed on everything.  It took me a while to understand he was interested solely in guitar tone, while I was interested in the band dynamic and rhythm section.  So he was happy with a great toneful player with the most plodding and insipid of rhythm sections, while I would get excited by a journeyman soloist with a hot band and lots of 3 on 4 happening with the rhythm section.  It took a couple years for me to figure out that we were not listening for the same thing, even when we'd listen to the same piece of music.

I think the most fruitful discussions on these forums are where people are able to articulate just what they are looking for, and not the broader terms like "greatness" which mean nothing to me.   ALso, one can learn from discussions about composers one doesn't careful in just studying how others approach their music.  This is all available without the pissing matches, and without people getting into the endless semantics of what a term means, when each person is carrying a personal definition.

Final note--  Looking for happiness by counting swaying others on a forum is a guaranteed formula for disappointment.  The best one can hope for is to learn from others, pick up some insights about yourself, and hopefully identify some new artists and works to check out-- and that alone is a source of happiness for me.   

Anyway-- hope you get some closure...  I welcome a lot of different perspectives, and would hate to lose anyone from this forum...

[71 dB]

Closure doesn't mean leaving this place. It means ending a phase when I let an online forum disturb my happiness without even realising what is happening.

I got today 2 cheap Naxos CDs:

Janácek: String Quartets 1 & 2, Violin Sonata, Pohádka for Cello and Piano - Vlach Quartet Prague - 8.553895
Schubert: Symphonies 1 & 2 - Failoni Orchestra/Michael Halász - 8.553093

My first Janácek CD. I don't know his music but these works sound interesting. The Schubert is my first CD of his symphonies. I will explore Schubert more. He may become one of my favorite composers!

[Luke]

I envy you, getting to know Janacek for the first time. On that disc you have four utterly marvelous pieces, and, though it's ridiculous to have such things, in the 2nd quartet one which I often feel might be the single most precious piece of music to me of all. Lucky you!

[71 dB]

I envy you, getting to know Janacek for the first time. On that disc you have four utterly marvelous pieces, and, though it's ridiculous to have such things, in the 2nd quartet one which I often feel might be the single most precious piece of music to me of all. Lucky you!

Well, thanks! Yes, all four works on the disc are marvelous, almost 74 minutes of great music! Not a bad purchase for less then 4 euros delivered. 

[DavidRoss]

It took a couple years for me to figure out that we were not listening for the same thing, even when we'd listen to the same piece of music.

I think the most fruitful discussions on these forums are where people are able to articulate just what they are looking for, and not the broader terms like "greatness" which mean nothing to me.   ALso, one can learn from discussions about composers one doesn't careful in just studying how others approach their music.  This is all available without the pissing matches, and without people getting into the endless semantics of what a term means, when each person is carrying a personal definition.

Thank you. 

[Luke]

Well, thanks! Yes, all four works on the disc are marvelous, almost 74 minutes of great music! Not a bad purchase for less then 4 euros delivered.

In the spirit of the thread I will not make recommendations of other recordings for you (not something I usually do anyway, but these are pieces I have opinions about!) but simply say - great, it's fabulous you are enjoying them!

I remember the first time I heard the Intimate Letters quartet, it was on my dad's Janacek Quartet LP, and then shortly afterwards on TV or possibly video, the Smetana Quartet. I was about 8 or 9 I guess. Couldn't make head or tail of it, it was so different from anything else I knew. But the next time, aged about 13, I fell in love with the piece, head over heels, and never looked back. It's the initial reason I became such a Janacek fantatic, I suppose.

[Scarpia]

I have them here

[asin]B00000HY88[/asin]

and here, which has many of his essential works

[asin]B0001Y4JH0[/asin]

Need to listen to them again.

[Grazioso]

I found it much easier to talk with others about music when I realized that there would never be a person on the planet wired the same way I was

I love classical music, a fact that instantly knocks me so far outside the mainstream that I may as well live on another planet. Trying to fit in or make others think like me in the teeny, tiny world of classical music just seems willfully perverse 

71dB, have fun with the Janacek! My intro to him was a Naxos disc with a few of his most famous orchestral works, like the Sinfonietta. I was (and still am) blown away by that music. He's one of those composers with a really unique, instantly recognizable sonic thumbprint.

[Luke]

 @ Scarpia

Who's the quartet on the the first of those discs?

I always come back to the Smetanas for the Janacek quartets. No one else, of the many recordings I've heard,  can match them, with their blend of deeply cultured sheen, their understanding of the folk roots of the music, their touching humanity, and their long-bred understanding of the pieces (the 2nd quartet was edited by the violist of the Smetana quartet, for instance), that I've heard (and I've heard a lot). The Skampas (mentored by said violist, FWIW) offer an equally convincing reading though, amongst modern quartets, stressing the folky side of them very nicely. The two Janacek quartets tend to bring the best out of a quartet because they absolutely demand such committed, passionate, open, honest, brave playing. So there are many fine recordings - but my word of warning would be, the ABQ sound forced in this music, and not at home in the style, and the Talich...not good.... 

And I told 71dB that I wouldn't do that....