Who is "greater," Bach or Beethoven?

[Chaszz]

In short; no.

If someone wants to start a punctuation thread in the Diner, feel free. Otherwise, any further posts on that subject will be binned. This topic was already silly enough before this all started

Gurn, are you a moderator here? I had no idea (awestruck)....

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, are you a moderator here? I had no idea (awestruck)....

Chaszz, yes, it has been my cross to bear for lo these many years, since I first knew you in fact. I am the one that can be counted on for crankiness.



----------------
Now playing:
Scottish National Orchestra / Neeme Jarvi - Rimsky-Korsakov Orchestral Suite from 'Le Coq d'Or'  pt 4 - Wedding Feast - Death of King Dodon - Finale

[Sid]

Having a bad name in certain places (specifically, the places that do not appreciate classical music, or great art in general) is actually a sign you are doing something right.

This negative discourse of flogging people who don't appreciate "great art" is exactly what I'm talking about. The more you put yourself on a pedestal away from the plebs, the more classical music will be seen as something untouchable to the everyday person. Former Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung had that exact opinion - he said classical music was for the aristocracy, not for the common people, and banned it for decades in China. History has proven him wrong, classical music is now quite popular in that country. I think classical music can be accessed by anybody with a reasonable degree of flexibility and interest. The more we label it as superior to other types or traditions of music, the less other people will be willing to embrace it wholeheartedly, imo. By elevating it too much, we make it inaccessible, and it can be in danger of becoming a relic, like say ancient Greek music...

[Mirror Image]

This negative discourse of flogging people who don't appreciate "great art" is exactly what I'm talking about. The more you put yourself on a pedestal away from the plebs, the more classical music will be seen as something untouchable to the everyday person. Former Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung had that exact opinion - he said classical music was for the aristocracy, not for the common people, and banned it for decades in China. History has proven him wrong, classical music is now quite popular in that country. I think classical music can be accessed by anybody with a reasonable degree of flexibility and interest. The more we label it as superior to other types or traditions of music, the less other people will be willing to embrace it wholeheartedly, imo. By elevating it too much, we make it inaccessible, and it can be in danger of becoming a relic, like say ancient Greek music...

Well said, Sid. I couldn't agree more.

[Josquin des Prez]

The more you put yourself on a pedestal away from the plebs, the more classical music will be seen as something untouchable to the everyday person.

Yet, the exact opposite is occurring. The more classical music is seen as no better then the average music appreciated by the every day person, the less incentive people have to put the extra effort required to enjoy it. Anti-elitism is not the solution, it is the problem.

Former Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung had that exact opinion - he said classical music was for the aristocracy, not for the common people, and banned it for decades in China. History has proven him wrong, classical music is now quite popular in that country.

What makes you think the current situation in China isn't a direct result of Tse Tung's elitist stance in the first place? Classical music is after all seen as something prestigious in China. Where do you think they got the notion in the first place?

I think classical music can be accessed by anybody with a reasonable degree of flexibility and interest.

Yeah but what for? If it isn't really better then other forms of music, why should anybody care? It took me nearly one year before i was able to fully understand Bach. You tell me why anybody would want to put themselves through such an ordeal unless they knew there was a big pay off at the end of it.

The more we label it as superior to other types or traditions of music, the less other people will be willing to embrace it wholeheartedly, imo.

Yet, like i said, the exact opposite is occurring. People will embrace something only if it draws their interest or if it elicits their respect. In order to sell classical music to the masses you have to make it worth their time, and the best way to do that is to simply stand your ground to the truth. Classical music IS superior to most musical forms and traditions. Lowering the standard of classical art in order to pander to the masses is not only extremely arrogant and condescending (you are essentially admitting that the every day person is too stupid to understand classical music, so we need to lower it to their level. I can't think of anything more insulting), but its also counter productive. Young people in particular do not care about classical music or anything of great value at all, because they have never been imparted the right values and standards.

By elevating it too much, we make it inaccessible.

It is already inaccessible to most people by its very nature. By elevating it to its rightful standard we are merely being honest. Tricking the every day person into thinking classical music can be as easily understood and enjoyed as the latest popular fad is an admission to their inadequacy, which like i said is extremely insulting. Upholding a standard is not a form of snobbery, its a service to humanity. Without values and standards there is no reason for anybody to ever better themselves, and our culture will quickly descent into the most primitive and base of human impulses, which is what is happening in the first place. Every generation seems to be worst than the previous one, can't you see that? This is what young people are flocking to this days:

http://visit-x.net/rammstein/

(The video in question is called "Pussy (unzensiert)". Careful, the warning of the site is fully justified)

How far are we going to let our civilization degrade? When is the time when we can just put our foot down and start upholding the right values?

[Josquin des Prez]

BTW, i thought this might be pertinent here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132671193830818.html

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'm a little confused.  I think the question of whether a comma belongs inside or outside of quotation marks is much more substantial and interesting than whether Bach is "greater" than Beethoven.  And I'm not kidding.

Neither was I, which is why I pursued it. But at the risk of being "binned" (kindly note how the usual comma rule is affected by the parentheses in American usage), I will not reply to the objection raised by "Eusebius," other than to say I was correct in what I stated.

Now actually Sid and JdP are starting to raise "interesting issues . . . ." 

[Florestan]

BTW, i thought this might be pertinent here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132671193830818.html

To test out a correlation between intelligence and preferring the nonvocal classics, researchers drew on the 1993 edition of the General Social Survey, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center. The 1,600 participants were asked to rate their enjoyment of 18 musical genres on a 1-to-5 scale. Half also took a vocabulary test, converted to an IQ score.

After statistically correcting for socioeconomic factors, the researchers found that higher IQ did, indeed, predict a preference for instrumental over vocal music. The researcher's "instrumental" genres were classical, big band and easy listening. Those who liked classical music a lot had an average IQ of 107; those who hated it scored 93.

Ok, but what were the "vocal" genres? I strongly suspect they were not opera, cantatas or lieder. 

[mc ukrneal]

It is already inaccessible to most people by its very nature. By elevating it to its rightful standard we are merely being honest. Tricking the every day person into thinking classical music can be as easily understood and enjoyed as the latest popular fad is an admission to their inadequacy, which like i said is extremely insulting.

Why is classical music inaccessible? I've missed that somewhere.

The reason I think it is totally accessable is due to other forms of entertainment. In most movies, people here some sort of classical piece. People don't leave the Shawshank Redemption saying I liked that movie, but the scene with that foreign singing sure was strange. 2001 is a film classic enjoyed by millions. Even better, kids love Tom and Jerry, and classical music is spread throughout that series. The one where they fight during the playing of Liszt's Hunagrian Rhapsody is a classic (and very popular). Much classical music is easily understood and was meant to be played at home or in the salon.  And music from the romantic period is often very impressionistic and doesn't necessarily require additional study. I would have no problems saying that about Tchaikovsky's 5th or Beethoven's 6th as examples.

I don't think the reason it is less popular is because it is more difficult (at least I believe it plays a minor role). I think it is because it is considered uncool (and for reasons like this) or rather, other music is cooler.

[Florestan]

If I understand JdP correctly --- and I think I do --- he argues that, if classical music is thought and spoken of as just one "genre" among others, having nothing special about it, nor being in any way superior to others, then one might indeed retort: "Then what's the point in taking the time-consuming pain of listening and studying it, if the pleasure I derive from Lady Gaga is just the same as I would from Ich habe genug? Why do I need to sit quiet through two hours of one guy playing some quiet and effeminate piano music, when it's the same as a raw, energetic and sexually-ridden Rammstein concert?"

I think he does have a point.

Much classical music is easily understood and was meant to be played at home or in the salon.

A point well-made. But this requires some conditions that in the contemporary society are rarely met:

1. there is at least one classical music instrument in the home;
2. at least one member of the family has took the interest and pain to study it at a profficient enough level as to be able to play a score;
3. there are family members or friends who met (1) and (2) and are interested in music-making;
4. they have time to spare.

Now, I wonder: what's the percentage of homes across Western world that meet the above criteria?

[mc ukrneal]

If I understand JdP correctly --- and I think I do --- he argues that, if classical music is thought and spoken of as just one "genre" among others, having nothing special about it, nor being in any way superior to others, then one might indeed retort: "Then what's the point in taking the time-consuming pain of listening and studying it, if the pleasure I derive from Lady Gaga is just the same as I would from Ich habe genug? Why do I need to sit quiet through two hours of one guy playing some quiet and effeminate piano music, when it's the same as a raw, energetic and sexually-ridden Rammstein concert?"

I think he does have a point.

I would argue that indeed there is no difference and that there is no reason to sit through two hours except you might enjoy it (and that may mean different things to different people). But most classical music does not require two hours to enjoy it. So the point of doing it is the same as other music - it enriches your life in some way.

A point well-made. But this requires some conditions that in the contemporary society are rarely met:

1. there is at least one classical music instrument in the home;
2. at least one member of the family has took the interest and pain to study it at a profficient enough level as to be able to play a score;
3. there are family members or friends who met (1) and (2) and are interested in music-making;
4. they have time to spare.

Now, I wonder: what's the percentage of homes across Western world that meet the above criteria?

I'm not sure why there is this standard for classical music and not for other music. What you say could equally apply to jazz, rock, pop, etc. The point I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly) is that much classical music was intended for a mass audience. True, the people who then had to play it had to know an instrument and all that, but again, the same is true if you want to play other forms of music.

[Florestan]

The point I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly) is that much classical music was intended for a mass audience.

Now you've lost me completely. Some examples might help me understand you better.

[mc ukrneal]

Now you've lost me completely. Some examples might help me understand you better.

I'm thinking of 19th century songs and/or piano music in particular. There were numerous amateurs for whom music was written to play at parties or other gatherings and the like. Perhaps Field, Thalberg (variations), perhaps Satie. Liszt and Paganini were virtuosos of course (and quite difficult at times), but had some music that might fit. Songs should be easier to come up with examples, but none are popping into my head.

[Florestan]

I'm thinking of 19th century songs and/or piano music in particular. There were numerous amateurs for whom music was written to play at parties or other gatherings and the like. Perhaps Field, Thalberg (variations), perhaps Satie. Liszt and Paganini were virtuosos of course (and quite difficult at times), but had some music that might fit. Songs should be easier to come up with examples, but none are popping into my head.

I see now, thanks. Yes indeed --- but that's exactly my point: back then, it was "mass" music, because the number of people who were knowledgeable and educated enough to take an interest in it and play it at home was far more larger than it is today. The contemporary "mass" shrunk to a tiny minority.

I do agree that much classical music is enjoyable and fun, but the fun and enjoyment come at the price of the effort invested in listening, studying and / or performing it, things that involve not only one's feelings but also one's intellect --- a far cry from the instant gratification offered by most pop music. And I think it is precisely this effort that puts many of the younger generations off classical music. I want it all and I want it now it's the exact opposite of classical music's spirit. (Be it said from a big Freddy Mercury fan.)

Jazz: yes, this is as close to classical music as it gets and perhaps it is no surprise that kids and youngsters are just afraid of the one as they are of the other.

So I would say yes, there is some kind of "elitism" inherent in classical music: if one is not willing to do the slightest effort, both sentimental and intellectual, to cope with it on its own terms rather than one's own terms, then one would better spend one's time on other pursuits.

One last remark: I'm willing to bet that there is much more scorn and disdain for classical music in pop music fans circles than the other way around.

[Opus106]

And I think it is precisely this effort that puts many of the younger generations off classical music. I want it all and I want it now it's the exact opposite of classical music's spirit. (Be it said from a big Freddy Mercury fan.)

I would argue for relevance. Back then, in Europe, along with (not-yet-classical) music, the well-to-do were also required to learn Latin, a couple of branches of maths, and other things if they wanted to make a living and to be accepted within their social circle. Also back then, what many of them played were being produced during their time (much like the pop and other genres of today). And what was being produced for amateurs was not really a compendium of fugal techniques like The Art of the Fugue, which requires many hours of study to decipher, or Chopin's Etudes, which were probably not for the faint of heart. These were rather simple pieces, trying the amateur only slightly. If anything, the current generation should be chastised for not listening to or playing Boulez, Carter and Pendericki, rather than any name from the Canon.

[Florestan]

If anything, the current generation should be chastised for not listening to or playing Boulez, Carter and Pendericki, rather than any name from the Canon.

I beg to differ. Many names from the Canon, as well as many others not from the Canon, wrote music back then targeting precisely the cultivated dilettanti, of which there were plenty. Hardly the case of Boulez, Carter and Penderecki, whose music requires professional interpreters.

[Opus106]

I beg to differ. Many names from the Canon, as well as many others not from the Canon, wrote music back then targeting precisely the cultivated dilettanti, of which there were plenty. Hardly the case of Boulez, Carter and Penderecki, whose music requires professional interpreters.

Okay, I agree that the last line was a bit over the top.

[Sid]

Well I think you all make good points, but my earlier post was obviously OT so I won't continue to fuel the fire. I was basically reacting negatively to James' earlier post where he suggested that people who like Beethoven over J.S. Bach should "know better." This I consider elitist rubbish to the extreme. If I said this kind of thing in real life to people I know who like classical music they'd think I'm a turkey. & they'd basically be right. It's kind of like saying there's something wrong in you liking apples over bananas. Absurd...

[ibanezmonster]

Well I think you all make good points, but my earlier post was obviously OT so I won't continue to fuel the fire. I was basically reacting negatively to James' earlier post where he suggested that people who like Beethoven over J.S. Bach should "know better." This I consider elitist rubbish to the extreme. If I said this kind of thing in real life to people I know who like classical music they'd think I'm a turkey. & they'd basically be right. It's kind of like saying there's something wrong in you liking apples over bananas. Absurd...

That's right. Either elitist rubbish or acting retarded, I think...

[Josquin des Prez]

Why is classical music inaccessible? I've missed that somewhere.

The reason I think it is totally accessable is due to other forms of entertainment. In most movies, people here some sort of classical piece. People don't leave the Shawshank Redemption saying I liked that movie, but the scene with that foreign singing sure was strange. 2001 is a film classic enjoyed by millions. Even better, kids love Tom and Jerry, and classical music is spread throughout that series. The one where they fight during the playing of Liszt's Hunagrian Rhapsody is a classic (and very popular). Much classical music is easily understood and was meant to be played at home or in the salon.  And music from the romantic period is often very impressionistic and doesn't necessarily require additional study. I would have no problems saying that about Tchaikovsky's 5th or Beethoven's 6th as examples.

I don't think the reason it is less popular is because it is more difficult (at least I believe it plays a minor role). I think it is because it is considered uncool (and for reasons like this) or rather, other music is cooler.

This is a disingenuous argument. The point is not to have people listening to classical music, whether its the Art of Fugue or Beethoven's Fur Elise (as if there is no difference between the two), but to preserve the integrity of the art, to maintain and propagate those traits that make it great in the first place. Its irrelevant whether Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody is as popular as the latest hit by Lady Gaga. That's completely and utterly besides the point. At this point you are just playing with semantics here, because there's classical, and then there's classical.