Composers you don't get

[karlhenning]

Yanni is certainly on a par with Britney Spears.

(Musically, I mean.)

[Josquin des Prez]

Interesting to see such an old-fashioned concept like "decadence" invoked. (Paging Mr. Wilde...) Putative fixed, universal norms starting crashing down in earnest during the 19th century if not earlier, and the dust still hasn't cleared. The genie is out of the bottle and long gone; you can't stuff it back in.

Evoking "musical genius" as something both obvious and unprovable is an intellectual cop-out of those who don't have the training or patience to study history and scores and then set forth a clear, detailed thesis backed by actual evidence. Barring that, a musical genius is a merely a composer someone likes a lot.

This is what modernists actually believe.

[Josquin des Prez]

If that was what I thought he'd been saying, I'd agree with him too.

Its part of what i'm saying. The other part is that those instinctive evaluations are NOT arbitrary. Is that where your objection lies?

[Josquin des Prez]

It is the inappropriately named Grazioso who is resorting to ill-tempered & pedantic insult to dismiss views on decadence he does not have the historical knowledge to understand. Resorting to authority is what the mediocrities do, when they run out of argument. And as my comment was made in relation to Kasputin, let him share the responsibility for Josquin's poor taste & bad judgment.

The concept of decadence is one that people who were very well versed in history - as well as well gifted in intellect & understanding - people like Gibbon and Montesquieu and Voltaire and Gobineau and Spengler - have upheld

How many people out there know where Greece is? But the Greece I am referring to here is not the fourth-fiddle country that is about to bring itself, Europe and the world down over the incompetence of its leaders to responsibly manage their finances. The Greece I am referring to is the Greece which, thanks to people like Homer and Praxitele and Sophocles and Plato was - briefly - the center of the Arts and which, thanks to the power of Athens and Sparta, enjoyed a political prestige that went way beyond its size and means: where is that Greece today? Nowhere, because the Greeks have long ago entered a process of decadence and their failure to produce talents equal to the creators that still are the extent of its reputation and political leadership equal to Pericles and Alexander - are expressions of that decadence.

Greece is what happens when you let multiculturalism run amok with the original genetic constitution of a particular nation. Europe is going the same way.

[some guy]

It is the inappropriately named Grazioso who is resorting to ill-tempered & pedantic insult to dismiss views on decadence he does not have the historical knowledge to understand. Resorting to authority is what the mediocrities do, when they run out of argument. And as my comment was made in relation to Kasputin, let him share the responsibility for Josquin's poor taste & bad judgment.

Am I right in finding this post to be ill-tempered and insulting?

Hey, I have an idea! I know this has never really been tried on an online forum, or not for long anyway, but I think it might be fun to talk about the ideas and not about the people expressing the ideas. It might not turn out to be as much fun, but it will at least have the advantage of novelty, whaddaya think?

[The new erato]

Greece is what happens when you let multiculturalism run amok with the original genetic constitution of a particular nation. Europe is going the same way.

I suggest you concentrate on Italy. The parallell to Greece is pretty close. To Northern Europe.....not so much.

[Grazioso]

You have failed to demonstrate "the training or patience to study history and scores and then set forth a clear, detailed thesis backed by actual evidence" to back up your implied notion that Kasputin deserves to be placed on a foot of equality with a Beethoven, or even an Alkan. By the pompou, pedantic & vainglorious standard you have established, therefore, you are incompetent to express any opinion, or make any judgment regarding music or any other subject.

Relax. Sit down, take a deep breath...

I have never heard Kasputin, know nothing about him other than what I've seen in this thread, have no opinion of his artistic worth, and have made no comments on his worth here or elsewhere. You are confusing me with someone else. I was questioning a) the invocation of the concept of artistic decadence in a postmodern Zeitgeist and b) the use of the word "genius" as some attempted end-run around scholarly, factual debate.

Yanni is certainly on a par with Britney Spears.

(Musically, I mean.)

But would you want to see Yanni dancing around in leather jeans and a halter top? Wait--no one answer that! 

This is what modernists actually believe.

I would be very reluctant to speak for all "modernists," certainly if you're considering the artistic movement/era as a whole. It was complex and multifaceted.

[Grazioso]

Am I right in finding this post to be ill-tempered and insulting?

Hey, I have an idea! I know this has never really been tried on an online forum, or not for long anyway, but I think it might be fun to talk about the ideas and not about the people expressing the ideas. It might not turn out to be as much fun, but it will at least have the advantage of novelty, whaddaya think?

Which was part of my point: want to talk about a composer's ability or importance or innovations? How about referencing some scores and primary sources. Do some research, make a clear thesis, and support it with evidence instead of mere feeling.

[Josquin des Prez]

It was not really all that complex. Wagner made European music sick, Schoenberg killed it off altogether. When i said that my original comment wasn't meant to be entirely damning, what i meant to say is that i too share a certain fascination for decadent music. The difference, i suppose, is that i recognize it for what it is.

[karlhenning]

It was not really all that complex. Wagner made European music sick, Schoenberg killed it off altogether.

Cain's tax plan has a similar simplicity . . . .

[Josquin des Prez]

Which was part of my point: want to talk about a composer's ability or importance or innovations? How about referencing some scores and primary sources. Do some research, make a clear thesis, and support it with evidence instead of mere feeling.

Once again, you can't judge art using a scientific method. There in lies the fault in your argument.

[karlhenning]

Once again, you can't judge art using a scientific method. There in lies the fault in your argument.

Actually, you are in error, trying to reduce Grazi's comment to "[judging] art using a scientific method."

[Josquin des Prez]

Actually, you are in error, trying to reduce Grazi's comment to "[judging] art using a scientific method."

There is no error here. This is precisely what he's trying to do.

[Grazioso]

Once again, you can't judge art using a scientific method. There in lies the fault in your argument.

No one is talking about the scientific method in the formal sense, but I am talking about what scholars and critics of the arts do every day: they use facts and details to support their assertions. If you're going to judge music on anything other than a personal, gut level, you need to posit an assertion and then lay out out details that support it: excerpts from the scores or recordings, biographical data (e.g., letters expressing the composer's intentions or aesthetics), reactions from contemporaries and peers, etc. These things give weight to your assertions and show that you've really delved into the matter and therefore possess some authority on it. Can such a thesis be proved right or wrong? Perhaps, depending on its nature and specificity. Can one such thesis be stronger than another? Certainly. Whoever marshals the most evidence, makes the most insightful connections, shows the strongest grasp of the subject matter, that person is worth listening to and learning from.

Someone merely running around saying, "That's genius, that's not" is just going to look foolish. That doesn't tell us anything factual or useful, doesn't elucidate anything, doesn't provide new theories or uncover new facts.

[Josquin des Prez]

No one is talking about the scientific method in the formal sense, but I am talking about what scholars and critics of the arts do every day: they use facts and details to support their assertions.

Bullshit. The only reason we have a "canon" of great artists is because once upon a time people were not afraid to assert their own subjective perspective on invisible, unassailable subjects. When Schumann called Brahms a genius it had nothing to do with neither facts nor details.

If you're going to judge music on anything other than a personal, gut level, you need to posit an assertion and then lay out out details that support it: excerpts from the scores or recordings, biographical data (e.g., letters expressing the composer's intentions or aesthetics), reactions from contemporaries and peers, etc.

I.E., a scientific method. Which has absolutely jack shit to do with the evaluation of art.

These things give weight to your assertions.

No they don't, its just an appeal to authority. That is, an argumentative fallacy.

Someone merely running around saying, "That's genius, that's not" is just going to look foolish. That doesn't tell us anything factual or useful, doesn't elucidate anything, doesn't provide new theories or uncover new facts.

Actually, it does. When Steve Molino used to recommend recordings here, he did from the perspective of somebody who knew what he was talking about. Not because of anything "factual", it was all based on instinct. And he was right right most of the times. Now that you people drove him away with your pathetic mediocrity you can pretend you can wallow away in reasonable and factual discussions, where the reality is of an altogether nature. Everything i've learned about classical music i had to learn on my own, since this forum refuses to deal with real, actual knowledge. To be frank, i'm not even sure why i hang around here anymore.

[Cato]

Actually, you are in error, trying to reduce Grazi's comment to "[judging] art using a scientific method."

Joseph Schillinger's attempt at a mathematics of aesthetics comes to mind. 

The reasons for the decline in awareness of Schillinger's work are complicated. During his life, he had been heavily criticised by the concert music establishment as a promoter of mechanised creativity. Schillinger's work was very radical, clearing away mystery and elitism and speaking directly to musicians involved in popular music, which fed largely on jazz energy. As such, its outlook was in conflict with an avant-garde who looked to Europe, and to certain ascendant figures, such as, Schaeffer and Stockhausen, for a philosophical and intellectual lead. In addition, Schillinger's celebrity status must have made him more suspect in the eyes of his critics and caused his ideas to be treated with greater scepticism than they deserved.
On the other hand, Schillinger was not his own best friend, becoming notorious for his arrogant style, ridiculing well-known critics and establishment figures. His flamboyant manner is evident in his published writings and one can only wonder at some of his extreme assertions.2

'These procedures were performed crudely by even well reputed composers. For example L. Van Beethoven...'3

Later, in The Theory of Melody4, Beethoven is taken to task once again over the flawed construction of the opening melody of his Pathetique Sonata.

See:

http://www.ssm.uk.net/biog.php

[jowcol]

Its part of what i'm saying. The other part is that those instinctive evaluations are NOT arbitrary. Is that where your objection lies?

I think the point is the people's instinctive evaluations  are not the same-- and there is another name for them.  Opinions.  We tend to grade our likes and dislikes usually on a gut reaction, not a rational analysis.

[Josquin des Prez]

 

I think the point is the people's instinctive evaluations  are not the same-- and there is another name for them.  Opinions.  We tend to grade our likes and dislikes usually on a gut reaction, not a rational analysis.

Yes. But the heart of my argument is that likes and dislikes aren't arbitrary. Thus, if i say that Beethoven is a genius, and somebody else disagrees, one of us is wrong. We cannot both be right. In essence, my argument is that there is in fact an objective standard by which to judge art, only, its not based on anything you can observe scientifically.

[jowcol]

I gave my opinion of the music I heard from Kapustin. I have nothing against JDP liking his music, but when you start throwing absurd comparisons at people and present your opinion as fact is when I start having a problem.

I don't need to defend Koechlin. People can and have ridiculed him before, what makes me think that I can change their mind? I read on the Amazon classical forum somebody talking about Koechlin and how his music puts them to sleep because it's so boring, well that's what that person heard in the music. It simply does nothing for them. Perhaps in the case of JDP's opinion of Kapustin, he's simply being too sensitive about people's opinions. You think I give a damn what somebody thinks about Koechlin or Ravel or Milhaud or Villa-Lobos or Pettersson? No, I will continue listening to their music because it moves me and it means something to me.

People respond differently to music as you well know. What I like somebody else probably loathes and I'm fine with that and I don't have the attitude where "Oh, you don like them, well that's your loss." I'm sure I've had this attitude before, but now I know it doesn't matter. At this juncture, we should all agree to disagree and move on.

I agree with this-- but I'm not sure, as a community, if we are consistently calling out everyone who presents an opinion as fact or tossing around absurd comparisons.  That was my point.   Your last paragraph is spot-on.   Personally, I take perverse glee when someone expresses disapproval for music I like.  It reminds me of Tom Leher or the Velvet Underground using quotes form bad reviews for advertisement.

[Mirror Image]

I agree with this-- but I'm not sure, as a community, if we are consistently calling out everyone who presents an opinion as fact or tossing around absurd comparisons.  That was my point.   Your last paragraph is spot-on.   Personally, I take perverse glee when someone expresses disapproval for music I like.  It reminds me of Tom Leher or the Velvet Underground using quotes form bad reviews for advertisement.

Yeah, I'm glad nobody likes Koechlin. I know you do and a few others, but we're such a small group that I feel really hip and cool now. I'm still waiting for somebody to come into this thread detesting Koechlin. Makes me proud when I see this.