Composers you don't get

[jowcol]

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.

Both could be wrong.  You are assuming they use the same criteria.   

Objective typically means something that can be observed the same by different people at different times, something measurable.    Music criticism tends to be highly subjective and varies by season.  Beethoven wasn't universally loved by critiics when he unleashed a new sound world-- quite the opposite.   It took time to absorb and understand.  Similar for Stravinsky's Rite of Spring-- the music did not change-- the people did.

[jowcol]

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.

I only wish this comment was addressed to me.  I would die happy and fulfilled.   

This does rank as one of the best GMG quotables of all time.  I can't stop giggling.

[Grazioso]

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.

You do prior composers and critics a disservice by making it sound like they all just pulled crap out of a hat and never actually referenced the music at hand. Schumann, you'll recall, was a trained composer-pianist and respected music journalist, i.e., someone who actually knew the craft of music intimately.

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

The scientific method, as used by actual scientists, is a bit more complex than that.

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

Not at all. That would be if you were to say, "X claims Beethoven is genius, so it must be so," when X's standing hasn't been established as valid. Putting forward your own ideas and backing them with points is a fundamental principle of Western intellectual discourse and culture. You usually won't be taken seriously if you merely say "X is Y." Instead you say, "X is Y because of A, B, and C."

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

Perhaps you mean intuition? Instinct, in its proper sense, doesn't fit there. I don't know who Steve Molino is.

of the times. Now that you people drove him away with your pathetic mediocrity you can pretend you can wallow away in

Another important component of intellectual debate and growth is civility, which you lack here.

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.

I am counseling just that: use real, actual knowledge when you make a point. The only time I want to hear about someone's subjective experience of art is when they can write about it in a literary way, giving their expression artistic worth in and of itself. If I actually want to know about the art beyond how it affects one person at one given time, I want to see some details. Show me something in the scores. Show me something in the composer's writings. Don't make the child's mistake of confusing your feelings with universal absolutes.

[karlhenning]

I only wish this comment was addressed to me.  I would die happy and fulfilled.   

This does rank as one of the best GMG quotables of all time.  I can't stop giggling.

And why should you wish to stop giggling, I wonders.

[karlhenning]

You do prior composers and critics a disservice by making it sound like they all just pulled crap out of a hat and never actually referenced the music at hand. Schumann, you'll recall, was a trained composer-pianist and respected music journalist, i.e., someone who actually knew the craft of music intimately.

Aye: one is hard pressed to make a remark less musical than that [w]hen Schumann called Brahms a genius it had nothing to do with neither facts nor details.

[Grazioso]

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.

If it's all about subjective judgments devoid of any supporting evidence, then, yes, you can both be right or wrong or neither of the two. If, on the contrary, "genius" is first defined in a mutually agreeable manner, then whoever can best illustrate/demonstrate that genius is (conventionally) "correct." Certainly that person's opinion will tend to offer more value to others because, through the process of offering and interpreting representative data, he or she might get us to look more closely and carefully at the music at hand. Someone merely saying, "It's genius. Because." offers us nothing of use or credibility.

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.

That's self contradictory. An objective standard (versus a subjective one) is by nature something that can be delineated and mutually understood by multiple parties. Otherwise, you're just conflating universal fact and personal opinion.

It is intellectual folly, if not towering disingenuousness, to say,

There is a universal standard of art
That standard cannot be shown or proven or explained
Yet I know that standard
And my judgments on it are inherently right

[Josquin des Prez]

There is a universal standard of art
That standard cannot be shown or proven or explained
Yet I know that standard
And my judgments on it are inherently right

Pretty much, yes.

[Josquin des Prez]

I am counseling just that: use real, actual knowledge when you make a point.

I can't. Knowledge is invisible and unassailable. That's the whole point.

Amusingly though, none of you has the courage to actually bring me to the task, because in a way you know i'm right. Beethoven was a genius. Go ahead, try to contest that assertion. Its pathetic really. It shows just how helpless modern materialism actually is.

[Josquin des Prez]

I don't know who Steve Molino is.

He was the best authority on recordings this type of forums ever saw. I remember having an actually hero worship thing for him in my late teens/early twenties. I like to mention his name just because of all the butthurt it causes to people who still remember him.

[Mn Dave]

He was the best authority on recordings this type of forums ever saw. I remember having an actually hero worship thing for him in my late teens/early twenties. I like to mention his name just because of all the butthurt it causes to people who still remember him.

Was his handle "Steve Molino?"

[Luke]

I can't. Knowledge is invisible and unassailable. That's the whole point.

Amusingly though, none of you has the courage to actually bring me to the task, because in a way you know i'm right. Beethoven was a genius. Go ahead, try to contest that assertion. Its pathetic really. It shows just how helpless modern materialism actually is.

I think you have a very warped view of how the rest of us see things. Of course no one is going to contest that assertion - because we all think he was a genius too. he difference is that Grazioso and I (and others) say that you can point to details of LVB's music as illustration of his genius. You don't/can't because your definition of genius is different to ours, and won't allow any discussion of the music itself.

And that, btw, is precisely what I meant when I said, more than once, above (and Grazioso said it in his last post too) that genius (or greatness, or crapness) can be 'proven' once one agrees terms. None of us agree with your terms of what genius is, so the discussion will go nowhere.

And, btw, make the assertion that Kapustin is a genius and I will contest it, note by note.  Though you find it 'amusing' that no one will argue with you about LVB's genius status, I personally find it amusing that you made you claims about Kapustin's note for note inspiration, but aren't prepared to meet my offer of discussing the music, note by note.

[Josquin des Prez]

Was his handle "Steve Molino?"

Molman i think. Its been a long time.

[Josquin des Prez]

Of course no one is going to contest that assertion - because we all think he was a genius too.

He was a genius because?

[Mirror Image]

It's pointless to argue with this guy, Luke. He's going to think what he thinks regardless of what kind of point you make. He's another classic example of a genuine know-it-all. He knows everything and his arguments can't be refuted because he's not open to discussing them.

I think it's time to pack it up here and move it out, don't you think?

[Luke]

He was a genius because?

Because of his music.

[Josquin des Prez]

See? Chickened out answer. Come on Luke, you can do better then that. I think you know what my argument is, you just don't want to admit it. 

[Josquin des Prez]

It's pointless to argue with this guy, Luke. He's going to think what he thinks regardless of what kind of point you make. He's another classic example of a genuine know-it-all. He knows everything and his arguments can't be refuted because he's not open to discussing them.

And what exactly is that i'm going to think, that Beethoven was a genius? Would you like to refute that assertion?

[karlhenning]

(* yawn *)

[Josquin des Prez]

Condescending much, Karl?

Can you actually prove that Beethoven was a genius?

[Mirror Image]

And what exactly is that i'm going to think, that Beethoven was a genius? Would you like to refute that assertion?

As somebody who doesn't like Beethoven, I can honestly say that I don't want acknowledge anything the man's done, but I would just be projecting an ignorance that is all too prominent in your own posts if I didn't. Beethoven's genius is acknowledged by historians, conductors, musicians, and by listeners all across the world. For you to put someone like Kapustin on the same plateau as someone who changed music forever seems simply ill-informed.

This isn't a debate anymore. This is me simply telling you that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about and you're just being argumentative because you know that we're all right in telling you BEETHOVEN WAS A GENIUS!!!! Not because we say he is but because history acknowledges that he was and his influence in undeniable.

Do us all a favor and stop. It's this whole forum against you. You have NO argument.