Unpopular Opinions

[Florestan]

And stuff like melancholy, sadness in general, do you guys consider it "beautiful" ?

Beauty resides not in the subject but in its artistic treatment. Melancholy and sadness in themselves are neither beautiful nor ugly, but this

When we two parted
   In silence and tears,
Half broken-hearted
   To sever for years,
Pale grew thy cheek and cold,
   Colder thy kiss;
Truly that hour foretold
   Sorrow to this.

The dew of the morning
   Sunk chill on my brow--
It felt like the warning
   Of what I feel now.
Thy vows are all broken,
   And light is thy fame;
I hear thy name spoken,
   And share in its shame.

They name thee before me,
   A knell to mine ear;
A shudder comes o'er me--
   Why wert thou so dear?
They know not I knew thee,
   Who knew thee too well--
Long, long shall I rue thee,
   Too deeply to tell.

In secret we met--
   In silence I grieve,
That thy heart could forget,
   Thy spirit deceive.
If I should meet thee
   After long years,
How should I greet thee?--
   With silence and tears.

is one of the most beautiful English poems (imo, of course, you might disagree).

But then again, what is beauty? 

[Karl Henning]

Of course, it's no fun being the person who is greeted with silence and tears . . . .

[Florestan]

Of course, it's no fun being the person who is greeted with silence and tears . . . .

What if "silence" were the attribute of a speechless joyful countenance? What if "tears" were tears of joy? And what if the person thus "greeted" would instantly recognize the meaning of these signals? Ah, what then?

I guess it takes a genuinely poetic heart to really understand and appreciate poetry... 

[Karl Henning]

[nodogen]

The best composers tend to have a surname beginning with S.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

The best composers tend to have a surname beginning with S.

Please don't skip the first half of my surname, which begins with M!

[Madiel]

The best composers tend to have a surname beginning with S.

One must first ask how frequent surnames beginning with S are in the general population before this claim, even if proven, can be meaningful.

[kishnevi]

One must first ask how frequent surnames beginning with S are in the general population before this claim, even if proven, can be meaningful.

In addition, does it include transliteration? Or do Ш and Щ count as separate letters?

If they are separate letters, than the proposition is demonstrably false, since that would leave out Schnittke and Shostakovich.  Also Shchedrin, although he's not so obviously one of the best composers.

[Florestan]

In addition, does it include transliteration? Or do Ш and Щ count as separate letters?

If they are separate letters, than the proposition is demonstrably false, since that would leave out Schnittke and Shostakovich.  Also Shchedrin, although he's not so obviously one of the best composers.

Excellent observation. In Russian those are single letters and their corresponding sounds are different than S. Go tell a native Russian speaker that Shostakovich begins with an S and see how s/he reacts. (Incidentally, the Romanian transliteration is Șostakovici, the first letter being the exact correspondent, both in sound and graphic representation, or the Russian Ш.)

[Parsifal]

What would it mean to tell a Russian that Shostakovich begins with "s" when there is no "s" in the Russian alphabet? To tell a Russian that "с" is transliterated as "s" and that "ш" is transliterated as "sh" would not be a shock, but would probably evoke some mild bemusement at the absurdity of the English Language.

Since the criteria was defined in terms of the Roman "s" I assumed that it would be applied after transliteration to a Roman alphabet. If we are going by phonics, the waters are muddied even in English. Would a composer named "Cymballa" count as "s?" Phonetically, it should.

[bwv 1080]

well what about 武満?

[Mahlerian]

well what about 武満?

Clearly, it begins with た.

[Florestan]

What would it mean to tell a Russian that Shostakovich begins with "s" when there is no "s" in the Russian alphabet? To tell a Russian that "с" is transliterated as "s" and that "ш" is transliterated as "sh" would not be a shock, but would probably evoke some mild bemusement at the absurdity of the English Language.

Exactly.

On the other hand, "s" is not in the Russian alphabet, but the sound corresponding to it is in the Russian phonetics.

Since the criteria was defined in terms of the Roman "s" I assumed that it would be applied after transliteration to a Roman alphabet. If we are going by phonics, the waters are muddied even in English. Would a composer named "Cymballa" count as "s?" Phonetically, it should.

ghoti for fish comes to mind immediately. Not only is the English language absurd, it also has an absurd orthography. 

[Karl Henning]

A complicated history, sure . . . .

[Jo498]

Many of the great "S" composers actually start with the "sh" sound: Schütz, Schubert, Schumann, Schönberg, Shostakovich, Strauss.

[nodogen]

Hey, this thread is for unpopular opinions; nobody said they had to be rational! 😋

[nodogen]

Many of the great "S" composers actually start with the "sh" sound: Schütz, Schubert, Schumann, Schönberg, Shostakovich, Strauss.

Still an S though. Just sayin'

[bwv 1080]

Many of the great "S" composers actually start with the "sh" sound: Schütz, Schubert, Schumann, Schönberg, Shostakovich, Strauss.

also Scarlatti and Saint-Saëns

[Florestan]

Still an S though. Just sayin'

An "S" only as in the graphic sign S. Phonetically, though, not the sound that correspond to it, as in "speak" or "see".

The stumbling block for native English (or German) speakers in this respect is that they need two graphic signs to designate one single phonetic sound: sh. Russians or Romanians, on the other hand, having one single graphic sign for one single phonetic sound have no difficulty in grasping the difference between a phonetic S and a phonetic Sh and they (rightly) treat it as two different sounds needing two different letters. Complicated, I know, but it shows that a phonetic orthography is more logical and helpful than an etymological one.

[nodogen]

An "S" only as in the graphic sign S. Phonetically, though, not the sound that correspond to it, as in "speak" or "see".

The stumbling block for native English (or German) speakers in this respect is that they need two graphic signs to designate one single phonetic sound: sh. Russians or Romanians, on the other hand, having one single graphic sign for one single phonetic sound have no difficulty in grasping the difference between a phonetic S and a phonetic Sh and they (rightly) treat it as two different sounds needing two different letters. Complicated, I know, but it shows that a phonetic orthography is more logical and helpful than an etymological one.

Frankly, I'm just desperate.