Who is "greater," Bach or Beethoven?

[mc ukrneal]

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.

Well, I couldn't disagree more with anything you have written in this thread. There is just classical and it is accessable to anyone who wants to listen.

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

Hence, why nobody bothers listening to classical music. If it isn't really greater, there is nothing to justify the effort. I might enjoy it, sure, but if there are lot of other things that i can enjoy in equal manner with a fraction of the effort, so why bother? The problem, like i said, is not to have people listening to classical in the greatest possible numbers, even if it means most of them are just listening to some catchy tune with no real artistic value (but hey, its classical!). The point is to preserve this art form. The object is not to entertain people, but to protect something that is objectively of greater value then all the 50 cents or Lady Gagas in the world, who's value to posterity is precisely zero.

And of course, besides all that, you are just wrong, plain and simple. Classical music is in fact at once greater, more complex and more profound then most forms of popular music. That is why it demands greater effort from the listener.

But most classical music does not require two hours to enjoy it.

The one that matters does.

[mc ukrneal]

The one that matters does.

Utter nonsense. Just lsiten to a Beethoven Sonata

[Josquin des Prez]

There is just classical and it is accessable to anyone who wants to listen.

No. There is only great art and its only accessible to those who want to put the proper effort into it. If you delude the art form in order to appeal to undeveloped tastes it loses all of its meaning. We might as well forget that Beethoven and Bach even existed because it makes no difference at this point. Your type of thinking is an hindrance to cultural development.

[mc ukrneal]

Classical music is in fact at once greater, more complex and more profound then most forms of popular music. That is why it demands greater effort from the listener.

It can be, but it doesn;t have to be. This is a personal decision in many cases. Depends on more than just education of the listener.

[Josquin des Prez]

Utter nonsense. Just lsiten to a Beethoven Sonata

Or better yet, play it in front of somebody who has no understanding of musical development as well as no appreciation for deeper forms of expression and see what happens.

[mc ukrneal]

No. There is only great art and its only accessible to those who want to put the proper effort into it. If you delude the art form in order to appeal to undeveloped tastes it loses all of its meaning.

No. I am really at a loss for words that you would actually write this.

[Josquin des Prez]

It can be, but it doesn;t have to be.

Yes it does. Either wise there is no point to it. It seems like we are running in circles here. Besides, what is so terrible about people improving and developing themselves in order to appreciate higher forms of art? Why is this so unacceptable to you? You actually prefer that people remain ignorant? That they never strive to improve themselves, to elevate their consciousness to greater things?

[mc ukrneal]

Besides, what is so terrible about people improving and developing themselves in order to appreciate higher forms of art? What is this so unacceptable to you?

The problem is your charaterization of music as a 'higher form of art'. We simply won't agree on this.

[Josquin des Prez]

The problem is your charaterization of music as a 'higher form of art'. We simply won't agree on this.

But its the truth. Beethoven is in fact greater then Lady Gaga. You'd have to be insane to even argue this point.

[mc ukrneal]

But its the truth.

Perhaps it's your truth.

[Josquin des Prez]

Perhaps it's your truth.

Truth is absolute, more so when the comparison is so easy. If i had said Beethoven was greater then Chopin, i would expected a pretty strong objection. But Lady Gaga? Please.

[mc ukrneal]

Truth is absolute, more so when the comparison is so easy. If i had said Beethoven was greater then Chopin, i would expected a pretty strong objection. But Lady Gaga? Please.

No - truth is also relative. In any case, I never mentioned Lady Gaga and I don't know why you have brought her up. She is irrelevent to the discussion.

Anyway, I'm off to lunch...

[71 dB]

Beethoven is in fact greater then Lady Gaga. You'd have to be insane to even argue this point.

Are millions of Lady Gaga fans insane or perhaps just misled by marketing forces?

It's possible to learn to appreciate "the higher arts" but that doesn't mean we have to forget the "lower arts". I can enjoy J. S. Bach's Fugues as well as simple pop songs. Hardcore/breakbeat music  from the golden era 1991-1992 always makes me feel extremely good. If that is not relevant then what is?

[Josquin des Prez]

No - truth is also relative.

Wrong. Truth is absolute and universal.

In any case, I never mentioned Lady Gaga and I don't know why you have brought her up. She is irrelevent to the discussion.

She is very relevant, since we were discussing the undeveloped tastes of the masses vis a vis great classical art.

[Josquin des Prez]

Are millions of Lady Gaga fans insane or perhaps just misled by marketing forces?

They are the product of a society that recognizes no values nor standards.

Hardcore/breakbeat music  from the golden era 1991-1992 always makes me feel extremely good.

Your taste in popular music is truly abysmal.

At any rate, you know what else feels good? Drugs, junk food and pornography. Doesn't mean any of those things are good for us. "Feels good" has never been a good measure for value.

[71 dB]

Your taste in popular music is truly abysmal.

I must be a product of a society that recognizes no values nor standards...

It's not my problem if you don't get the values of Dance Conspiracy's Dub War, Liquid's Sweet Harmony, SL2's DJ's Take Control, The Prodigy's Weather Experience or Isotonik's Different Strokes.

This music isn't even "popular" music. It is underground dance music, made to make cultural statements with ambition rather than money.

The popular music I like is the kind of music that tries to be ambitious while having some commercial appeal. For example the Danish rock band Kashmir.

You are eager to judge people. I hope your own life is in perfect order.

[Florestan]

But most classical music does not require two hours to enjoy it.

A typical concert, whether chamber or symphonic, lasts about two hours.

[Opus106]

A typical concert, whether chamber or symphonic, lasts about two hours.

And a Mahler marathon lasts for over half a day -- I think you are missing Neal's point. There are many levels at which "art" music can be enjoyed and appreciated. If one wants to delve deep into technicalities of structure, even a short prelude for solo piano may take longer to be analysed than sitting at a concert would. But if like many of us who do not know how to read music, let alone have an academic understanding of it, one can still listen to a few of Chopin's nocturnes, lasting hardly thirty minutes, and still come out of it having experienced something wonderful (or not).

[Florestan]

And a Mahler marathon lasts for over half a day -- I think you are missing Neal's point. There are many levels at which "art" music can be enjoyed and appreciated. If one wants to delve deep into technicalities of structure, even a short prelude for solo piano may take longer to be analysed than sitting at a concert would. But if like many of us who do not know how to read music, let alone have an academic understanding of it, one can still listen to a few of Chopin's nocturnes, lasting hardly thirty minutes, and still come out of it having experienced something wonderful (or not).

Of course, but --- no offense meant --- it's you who miss my point. Take a Rammstein or Lady Gaga fan at random --- what are the chances that s/he'll have the will and patience to listen to a Beethoven sonata or Chopin nocturne?

More generally: turn your TV on MTV for half an hour --- and then please let me know: on what specific levels does it compare to a half-an-hour long classical music recital?