Unpopular Opinions

[drogulus]

I have found the one topic of discussion that is absolutely forbidden in The West.

     I was there in September and everyone talked normally, just like here. So I'm a little curious but......if it's forbidden I won't ask you to tell.

Excellent. You anticipated a follow-up post I was considering to the effect that enjoying Vanhal's music is one thing, asserting that it's as good as Haydn's, quite another.

     Chocolate ice cream is in some respects better than Haydn, though even if it wasn't I'd still like it. But I'm told asserting that it's better is a flogging offense.

[madaboutmahler]

I saw this post and I nearly busted out laughing, Daniel. Very, very funny...

Anyway, no I will not say anything too bad about Mahler , but what I will say is that his music grates on my nerves. It's so all over the place emotionally. Up and down, up and down, up and down....

It drives me crazy.

I would have hammer you John, but then I saw this...

Mahler bores me stupid, I'm not particularly keen on most Mozart, and I don't really like Classical symphonic music all that much. 

The two last statements I kind of agree with... but the first one... I shall now send a massive Mahlerian hammering your way....

[drogulus]

Anyway, no I will not say anything too bad about Mahler , but what I will say is that his music grates on my nerves. It's so all over the place emotionally. Up and down, up and down, up and down....

It drives me crazy.

     I hear you, but that quality that grates on you grates on me, too. That's the quality that I came to like, though I admit that Mahler is not an all occasions composer. Come to think of it, would it matter if there were no all occasions composers? Are there any?

     I do think Mahler is hard to take in a particular way. Part of it is the sheer mockery of a musical tradition that he also displayed uncommon mastery of. Among the radicals of the late 19th century he was the one who stood up to Beethoven. He did not avoid the issue by rejecting symphonic form, he remade it in his own way and changed it profoundly. Still, based on sound his music often sucks. I mean, the composer is trying to piss you off, right? So, sometimes I don't want to hear that, just like I don't always want to see a Cronenberg film. Well, not just like, but maybe a little like that.

[Lisztianwagner]

Wagner is pompous and boring.

Ah, I can't definitely agree with this For me instead, it's the best music ever composed, so beautiful, powerful and passionate!

I'm sorry I'm quite sensitive when Wagner's music is talked about in a negative way.......

[madaboutmahler]

Ah, I can't definitely agree with this For me instead, it's the best music ever composed, apart from that of Mahlerso beautiful, powerful and passionate!

I'm sorry I'm quite sensitive when Wagner's music is talked about in a negative way.......

However much I love Wagner, I can see why some people would think this. Extremely long pieces, full of such extreme emotions.
In this way, rather similar to Mahler. Great post from drogulus by the way! I can agree, the extreme and variable emotions in Mahler are an example of why I love his music so so so very much!

[Lisztianwagner]

apart from that of Mahler

I don't remember to have said something similar.....

However much I love Wagner, I can see why some people would think this. Extremely long pieces, full of such extreme emotions.
In this way, rather similar to Mahler. Great post from drogulus by the way! I can agree, the extreme and variable emotions in Mahler are an example of why I love his music so so so very much!

I perfectly know some people could think this, unluckily it's a rather widespread judgement about Wagner's music: complex, boring, indecipherable....but absolute nonsense in my opinion.
I certainly agree with what you said in the second part of the massage, that's why I love Mahler so much too

[DavidRoss]

Ab

I consider the possibility that GaGa is more intelligent than some who post here.  And is possessed of more humor than some.

Absolutely.  Once you recognize that she's a performance artist and step away from the preposterous commercial success of the character she created, you have to admire both her brilliant assimilation of so many strands of pop culture and her sheer chutzpah.  She makes Katy Perry look like an amateur (in the unflattering sense of the phrase).

[some guy]

Hmmm. It appears from the last few responses that I may have yet another unpopular opinion, and that is that music is about sounds. Sounds and combinations of sounds and manipulations and transformations of sounds.

Not about emotions.

Sure, we can respond to music emotionally. We can respond to food emotionally, too. (Though I don't ever hear anyone claiming that this or that meal is "too up and down emotionally.") We are humans. We are emotional.

But music isn't about our emotions. It isn't about the emotions of the composers. It doesn't convey emotion. It doesn't have emotional content. It's sounds. If we make emotional responses, OK. If we derive emotional information from the sounds, that's all us.

I never think of Mahler's emotions or his life or any of that when I'm listening to his music. I think only of the music. Those sounds, those patterns, those structures. Do I respond emotionally? Of course. Do I think Mahler thought he was pouring his emotions into those sounds? Sure.

But the sounds are all that's important now. Mahler's dead. His music is alive. It is alive whether you know anything about Mahler's life or torments or struggles or joys or anything else. I knew exactly nothing about Mahler's life or the putative emotional content of his music when I first heard the symphony no. 5 and fell in love with it. In fact, it was several decades later that I first came across the information that the opening is supposed to be a funeral march. Really? I was incredulous.

I'd been enjoying it all those years without realizing that it was marked "Trauermarsch." And after I knew that? Well, I can still enjoy Mahler's fifth, though I do have to work a bit to forget "Trauermarsch" now so that I can enjoy the sounds! Not a big deal, but there you are.

[I just found a thesis online that contains this remark: "The opening funeral march is quite obviously concerned with the subject of death, and the extra-musical implication seems to be that an ultimate victory in life is achieved only by descending into the grave. The philosophical statement of the symphony is not simply that tragedy will eventually yield to victory, but rather that tragedy must occur and must be accepted before any true victory is possible." Wow. I couldn't disagree more. If symphonies were philosophical statements, they would be written in words not tones. I'm some guy, and I endorse this unpopular opinion.]

[drogulus]

     I love Mahler and Strauss, so why don't I care for Wagner that much? I'm probably in the minority about that. I'm also in the minority in not hating while not liking Wagner. It seems I haven't found the key.

[DavidRoss]

(re. Mahler) ... based on sound his music often sucks.

Of the many criticisms Mahler's music may be subject to, some deserved, some not, I can't recall ever having heard anyone damn the sound of his music. This may take the prize for the most (musically related) unpopular opinion aired thus far.

[knight66]

I don't agree with what Some Guy suggests either. If music is not about emotion, then food is only about sustenance and painting is all about paint.

We do often second guess what composers wanted; but there is plenty of evidence that they were pouring themselves into their music and much music has been given a programmatic narrative. I don't buy into the idea of it being entirely abstract. Different sounds evoke specific reactions in a commonality of people. This may well be through societal conditioning, but is not less valid for that.

Mike

[some guy]

Mike,

I don't doubt that we disagree, but I would like to clarify one thing, "entirely abstract" are your words, not mine. I would never say that music is entirely abstract. It seems pretty damn concrete to me, actually. But it's musical concreteness and not some other kind. ("Emotion" is an abstract word, just by the way.)

Oh, wait. I want to clarify another thing, too. Food is about more than just sustenance, true. It's about enjoyment. But we enjoy different foods, all of us, don't we? Although the same foods, with specific allergic exceptions, will sustain all of us, regardless of taste. The same is not true for the arts. Painting is all about paint, but good God, what a magical thing paint is, don't you think? And what magical things sounds are. Sounds and pigments genuinely work upon us at a very deep level, I think. Otherwise, there could hardly be these passionate arguments, could there?

So when I say "music is about sounds" I'm already saying a lot more than I would be saying if I said "food is about sustenance." Sorry if that didn't come across. (I did say that I fell in love with Mahler's fifth, didn't I? And have loved it for several decades.)

But I AM still saying that I don't think music is ABOUT emotions. It certainly elicits them. But then so do lots of other things, including food. I think sounds and pigments are important because they can transcend emotions, not because they can elicit them. And, as with food, the same music can elicit different emotions from different people. Sure, people with similar backgrounds and similar experience will be able to respond to the same piece similarly. No surprise there. But, as you can see just by looking at a handful of posts in any thread, even people with similar backgrounds and similar experience can disagree violently about any given piece of music.

[ibanezmonster]

I don't remember to have said something similar.....

[I just found a thesis online that contains this remark: "The opening funeral march is quite obviously concerned with the subject of death, and the extra-musical implication seems to be that an ultimate victory in life is achieved only by descending into the grave. The philosophical statement of the symphony is not simply that tragedy will eventually yield to victory, but rather that tragedy must occur and must be accepted before any true victory is possible." Wow. I couldn't disagree more. If symphonies were philosophical statements, they would be written in words not tones. I'm some guy, and I endorse this unpopular opinion.]

I totally agree. Some writers just want to be fancy so they can seem like good writers with something to write about, when in fact, who ever actually has all of that in mind when composing? I doubt any good composer, ever, would think that precisely when deciding which note to write next. Composing is more of an intuitive process, and after something is written, then you can make up whatever extra-musical story it supposedly expresses, which never really existed in the first place.


As for the Lady Gaga discussion: genres have audiences, the size depending on the genre. It would be more helpful to look at it like that. Pop naturally has the biggest audience, so the most well-liked pop artist is going to be the music who, at the time, has the biggest following. It's not like Lady Gaga is a one-man force going against Beethoven.

[knight66]

I come at this; partly from reading about the origins of music.....heartbeat and rain on leaves for example giving rise to a concept of rhythm. But I still don't grasp this the way you do. I also come at it through vocal music. It is clear that in opera emotions are being evoked within the artform, not simply by it. I don't subscribe to the idea that if you take the words out; then what is left has no inherent emotion or meaning within it. For sure the truncated material would be a lot less focused, but because we could not exactly nail it, does not mean it has reverted to detached sound.

Nor am I clear what you mean by emotions being abstract. I am aware there are different theories on emotions, but not aware that either of the main ones attach the word 'abstract' to describe them.

Mike

[knight66]

I totally agree. Some writers just want to be fancy so they can seem like good writers with something to write about, when in fact, who ever actually has all of that in mind when composing? I doubt any good composer, ever, would think that precisely when deciding which note to write next. Composing is more of an intuitive process, and after something is written, then you can make up whatever extra-musical story it supposedly expresses, which never really existed in the first place.

I think that is an interesting point Greg, but I don't think it is a rule. Nor do I think all composers would agree that composing is principally intuitive. That implies a stream of consciousness approach which I suggest would probably be quite rare. It is often careful craft as much as it is inspiration. Composers may not be able to express the process and outcomes in words; after all, if they could do that, why compose.

Mike

[ibanezmonster]

I think that is an interesting point Greg, but I don't think it is a rule. Nor do I think all composers would agree that composing is principally intuitive. That implies a stream of consciousness approach which I suggest would probably be quite rare. It is often careful craft as much as it is inspiration. Composers may not be able to express the process and outcomes in words; after all, if they could do that, why compose.

Mike

Well, it's kind of the middle, usually. Composers might want to express certain things, generally, but you can only get so far, since music is only sound. I think the line of thought that some writings seem to express (that it's normal for composers write to solve philosophical problem note for note) is highly unlikely.

[knight66]

I can't think that any composer has solved any phylosophical problems with a symphony. Nor is a solution to one the application of the emotions.

Mike

[madaboutmahler]

Of the many criticisms Mahler's music may be subject to, some deserved, some not, I can't recall ever having heard anyone damn the sound of his music. This may take the prize for the most (musically related) unpopular opinion aired thus far.

Just re-read drogulus' post, and am shocked!!!!!!!! 

I can't think that any composer has solved any phylosophical problems with a symphony. Nor is a solution to one the application of the emotions.

Mike

Mahler.

[some guy]

It is clear that in opera emotions are being evoked within the artform, not simply by it. I don't subscribe to the idea that if you take the words out; then what is left has no inherent emotion or meaning within it. For sure the truncated material would be a lot less focused, but because we could not exactly nail it, does not mean it has reverted to detached sound.

And I, for my part, am not sure what you mean by "detached sound," though I must say, it does sound intriguing. Anyway, opera is a special beast. It can convey emotions directly, through words and through actions. A theatrical production without music can convey emotions through words and through actions. So what does music contribute to a theatrical situation that is already conveying emotions through the words and the actions? There's a fine question to chew on, methinks.

I wouldn't express the wordless situation as "what is left has no inherent emotion or meaning." I think that music is full of content, but it's musical content, not any other kind. It's musical meaning. As soon as we start to talk about it, we falsify that reality. Can't be helped, really. But we should be aware that it's happening, I think.

Nor am I clear what you mean by emotions being abstract. I am aware there are different theories on emotions, but not aware that either of the main ones attach the word 'abstract' to describe them.

The word, I said. The word "emotion" is an abstraction. Fear, love, anger, desire, joy, hatred--those are none of them things you can pick up and carry around with you. Scissors, books, handkerchiefs, cameras, those are concrete. (So much so, that our mothers warned us never to run with scissors in our hands!)

Note that calling emotions "abstract" is not to call them "unreal" or "unimportant" or anything like that. That would just be silly. Only our tendency to think of concrete as more real would lead us into that particular silliness. In many ways, in most ways, scissors are much less real than emotions.

Mike
[/quote]

[ibanezmonster]

I don't think these are philosophical problems- more like displaying his own philosophy in music.