Composers you don't get

[some guy]

I fiercely disagree with everything that's been said so far, including this.

[Cato]

I fiercely disagree with everything that's been said so far, including this.

Oh, wise guy!



And since the IMAGE BUTTON now works!!!

Allow me to show you my musical hope chest:



And since GMG needs women: just off the top of my head, how about...

[DavidRoss]

Who would have thought all the alpha males would be sitting around bickering about classical music? 

Alpha males? 

[Cato]

Alpha males? 

YEAH!  ALPHA MALES!

[Mirror Image]

I went through a pretty major Markevitch binge around the time you were getting into Koechlin.  I really enjoyed Hymnes for Orchestra, Rebus, and others, but if you've gone through four volumes, you've already dedicated a lot of time to him.  Another interesting aspect to Markevitch is that he simply gave up composing and devoted himself purely to conducting.

Well, I think I just need some time away from Markevitch and then maybe some of the music will click for me.

[jowcol]

Well, I think I just need some time away from Markevitch and then maybe some of the music will click for me.

He struck me as the middle link between Stravinsky after the first three Ballets, and Messiaen.  Not much color-- sort of dry in that regards, but fascinating rhythm.

Once again-- I admire you for sticking in for 4 albums, I don't think I'd have the patience if it wasnt' clicking for me.

[Grazioso]

YEAH!  ALPHA MALES!

You will notice that no self-respecting movie hero would ever listen to classical music, but the villains and serial killers often do. Hmmm...

[Sergeant Rock]

And since GMG needs women: just off the top of my head, how about...

Lovely photo of Bones.

Sarge

[jowcol]

You will notice that no self-respecting movie hero would ever listen to classical music, but the villains and serial killers often do. Hmmm...

This tradition probably goes back to the classic movie "M", where child-murderer  Peter Lorrie would whistle "In the Hall of the Mountain King" when he stalked his victims.

You have to admit some really odd people listen to classical.  And I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Grazioso]

This tradition probably goes back to the classic movie "M", where child-murderer  Peter Lorrie would whistle "In the Hall of the Mountain King" when he stalked his victims.

You have to admit some really odd people listen to classical.  And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Put down the chainsaw and back away slowly!  It is interesting how parts of popular culture have glommed onto the idea of classical as music for odd, if not dangerous, eccentrics. Perhaps they're indirectly voicing some fear of or disdain for the cultural elite or intellectuals among us?

[chasmaniac]

Holmes too, eh? Not just his own fiddling, but doesn't he enthuse at some point about Sarasate playing in town?

[Grazioso]

Holmes too, eh? Not just his own fiddling, but doesn't he enthuse at some point about Sarasate playing in town?

I don't recall but wouldn't be surprised; at the end of The Hound of the Baserkvilles, he's eager to go see Les Huguenots, but that manner of classical music entertainment was a pretty standard night out for the Victorian educated classes. Holmes is certainly a fictional eccentric: cocaine addict, prone to long bouts of prostration followed by bursts of manic energy, alternatively arrogant and graciously charming.

[Josquin des Prez]

Now I enjoyed having Steve around, but "hero-worship"? I think you just liked his black-&-white, "laying down the law" approach to recordings.

For those who never knew him, here are his Amazon reviews. They will give you an idea of his brief, clipped, nuance-free approach:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2C83MC9APW47P/ref=cm_cr_dp_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

Well, i was a teenager. I think its natural for a young mind to look up on those wiser then he is, and be humbled in the process.

What i liked about Steve has nothing to do with his style, but in the nature of his peculiar understanding and actual knowledge, which invariably is what led to his approach in the first place. The root of my argument is that knowledge is really invisible and unassailable. You cannot explain knowledge, you cannot prove it in any way or form. You can prove information, but that is not the same thing as knowledge. Knowledge is essentially a metaphysical concept, and in that relies on that specific aspect of intellect which is above all others, that is, intuition. This is why i said there is no way to prove that Beethoven was a genius. You can argue how this or that particular passage in a given work displays this or that particular quality, but you cannot prove that the passage in question displays that quality, you can only rely on your own subjective impression and understanding.

So if all knowledge can only be gleamed and understood subjectively, does it mean that there is nothing of value to be imparted by sharing opinions with each other? Well, for one, no human being can experience the entire world by himself. We still need to rely on the experience of others, however subjective, in order to gain a broader understanding then what our own personal experiences afforded us so far. In essence, opinions are not meant to convince, they serve as a guide for those moving around the world of actual knowledge. Knowledge does not exist in its totality in any one human being, and opinions are roads that lead us to the subjective understing of others. The way in which we move around this veritable highway of shared understanding is generally based, once again, on intuition, and experience (no one can be easily lured down a certain path after a few bad experiences). Certain opinions carry a certain amount of authority and confidence within them which makes it easier to know which path to chose. This confidence can only radiated if one posseses the same amount of confidence in his own understanding and knwowledge on a given subject. I saw this quality in Steve. I saw it in very few people since.

The problem i have in this forum is that the fact knoweldge is invisible and unprovable, equals that it does not exist, at least to many. All subjective experiences are unique and valid for that person only, which means there is nothing to gained by sharing opinions. The only purpose of communication becomes emotional gratification, and to anyone who prefers substance over fluff life just becomes unsofferable. Hence, why Steve and others left, and those of us who linger along do it just out of habit.

Paradoxically, the fact some here believes that knowledge does not really exist, means that they find no value in the opinions of others. The only opinions which are tolerated are those which are uttered in relativistic terms. The moment one attempts at dealing with actual knowledge, one is then accused of attempting to once again convince others. To the contrary, the forceful tone i adopt when i share my opinions (such as my views over the music of Kapustin) is not meant to convince, but merely to announce that i'm not presenting a purely subjective perspective that is valid only from my own unique point of view, but something that is based on actual understanding, and by extension requires serious consideration. In essence, i'm not here to chat, i'm here to share actual knowledge.

Now, to the points i raised regarding Kapustin. First, the fact that he is not a decadent composer, and as such his music cannot be enjoyed from the perspective of modernism. Now you can argue against my use of the word "decadent", but what i mean is that his music does not contain the type of complexity based on the distortion of musical rules which has become the norm since the beginning of the 20th century. The complexity of his music is based on a more traditional approach, one in tune with the older masters, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. A complexity which is based not on distortion, but on a surplus of healthy musical ideas. This type of complexity is no longer respected, and some are no longer able to understand it (I.E., Grieg). To paraphrase Nietzsche, in order to appreciate Kapustin you have to force yourself to enjoy "simple fair" again. Second, to the point of his music not being Jazz. Its not that his composition are, by definition, not improvised, but that you cannot improvise his music. Hence, why it is composed in the first place. Somehow, some here seem to find this point confusing. 

[Josquin des Prez]

GMG Needs Women!

This place is filled with women. They just don't know that they are women.

[Josquin des Prez]

Weininger may tell you that there is no such thing as a genius for music, just a 'universal genius', but really, I doubt there is much genius in Beethoven's recipe for chicken soup. No, you need to look at his music to find it. Seriously. No chickening out there.

What Weininger meant is that genius is universal in the quality that makes it genius. Michelangelo and Beethoven were both geniuses, even though they dealt with very different things (painting and sculpture on one side, music on the other). Thus, things like form, style, and the medium chosen for one's own artistic expression is irrelevant to the evaluation of genius, as are a lot of other things.

[Josquin des Prez]

While most of us do this, at least casually, some of the time, it's an inherently problematic approach in that it relies on unspoken (if not unexamined) individual, subjective criteria. I can look at a painting and think "that's genius!" but for me to then assert such a thing, other than as a casual recommendation to a friend ("It's brilliant, check it out, you'll dig it"), gives others no basis with which to judge the validity or usefulness of my assertion. They don't know my tastes, what art I've seen or studied or created, my level of education, the mood I was in when I saw the painting, whether I'm reacting solely on emotion or making intellectual judgments, etc.

But all genius is universal. Many times i had to elaborate my taste anew in order grasp the music of a given composer. For instance, Mozart, who's golden optimism did not sit well initially with my morose temperament (by comparison, i took on Beethoven and Mahler instantly). Taste, education, mood, all irrelevant factors.

[Mn Dave]

This place is filled with women. They just don't know that they are women.

I LOL'ed at that.

Sorry. 

[jowcol]

The problem i have in this forum is that the fact knoweldge is invisible and unprovable, equals that it does not exist, at least to many. All subjective experiences are unique and valid for that person only, which means there is nothing to gained by sharing opinions. The only purpose of communication becomes emotional gratification, and to anyone who prefers substance over fluff life just becomes unsofferable. Hence, why Steve and others left, and those of us who linger along do it just out of habit.

A couple of things-- first, you could  revisit Plato's Cave allegory to at find an approach to reconcile objective and subjective, and the difference between ground truth (which does exist) and a single persons ability to perceive the entire truth (which is hard through the distortion.)  The same would apply to the parable of the blind men and the elephant.  The elephant is REAL-- no doubt, but no one person can fully describe it.    If one truly wishes to be objective, it is important to take some degree of subjectivity into account.

Beyond that-- I gain a lot when people share opinions, and when they review the criteria that underlies their opinions.  This, IMO, is where the real learning occurs.  I've learned a lot about music from people who's tastes were radically different than mine in simply analyzing their approach, as I'd find a lot that I could use to further my pursuits.   As I've learned more, I've found out in many cases there were many technical  similarities in works that appealed to me, even though I didn't know the technical terms, there are certain modes, keys, and other things I respond to more than others.

I personally feel the best discussions are those where opinions are exchanged by people who KNOW they are opinions, and make an effort to analyze what criteria they are using in making their judgements.    To be honest, I'm here for opinions-- candid, honest opinions with a bit of self analysis about why we feel the way we do.  The discussions that seem the least useful to me are the circular ones where one is trying to prove the unprovable, and degenerate into ad hominem attacks.

Note-- this is my spin.   Your mileage may vary.   If this sounds like modernistic nhilistic relativistic hogwash, I should point out that similar ideas have been around for the last 2500 years or so.

[Grazioso]

But all genius is universal. Many times i had to elaborate my taste anew in order grasp the music of a given composer. For instance, Mozart, who's golden optimism did not sit well initially with my morose temperament (by comparison, i took on Beethoven and Mahler instantly). Taste, education, mood, all irrelevant factors.

If you are unable/unwilling to define/describe what genius is beyond that, how is anyone supposed to evaluate that claim or discuss it or take it seriously? It's tantamount to someone assuring us that "Genius is green" or "Stupidity is universal."

We're not talking about religious mysticism here, but rather conventional intellectual concepts that admit of verbal delineation. If you believe that not to be the case, then it's perhaps wise to heed Wittgenstein's adage:

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen." ("Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent.")

The problem i have in this forum is that the fact knoweldge is invisible and unprovable, equals that it does not exist, at least to many. All subjective experiences are unique and valid for that person only, which means there is nothing to gained by sharing opinions. The only purpose of communication becomes emotional gratification, and to anyone who prefers substance over fluff life just becomes unsofferable. Hence, why Steve and others left, and those of us who linger along do it just out of habit.

You're assuming we do/should share the same philosophical views you've chosen. Many proceed from different premises and/or draw different conclusions. You make the unwise decision to proceed as if you are right and then get huffy when others see things differently. Have you considered that your views might appear to be fluff over substance to others?

[chasmaniac]

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen." ("Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent.")

One might be tempted to whistle it, of course.