Unpopular Opinions

Started by The Six, November 11, 2011, 10:32:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

jochanaan

Quote from: max on September 05, 2013, 06:39:26 PM
Since Vivaldi composed the same concerto six hundred times according to that illustrious genius of the 20th century Igor Stravinsky, I've memorized all his concertos in 3 movements...even the ones I haven't heard and found it amazingly stimulating compared to all it variety found in Igor.

It's the perfect example of making the most out of the least in V's case as compared to making the least out of the most. I always prefer "economy" in music.
Within those "six hundred" concertos is amazing variety, compelling drama and deep heart.  None of us who love Vivaldi has to apologize or defend him.  I say only, Listen! 8)
Imagination + discipline = creativity

max

Quote from: jochanaan on September 05, 2013, 06:54:11 PM
Within those "six hundred" concertos is amazing variety, compelling drama and deep heart.  None of us who love Vivaldi has to apologize or defend him.  I say only, Listen! 8)

Precisely! And if I don't have 600 concertos I probably have 599 of which no two are the same. His religious works too often show a profundity and dept which doesn't easily yield beside many of the works of Bach and Handel. Each of these giants, which includes Vivaldi, has their own unmistakable sound signature.   

jut1972

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on August 29, 2013, 12:09:30 PM
Yeah, the halo of the Tchaikovsky competition win seems to carry a lot of weight but there's still just Cliburn the man to consider.

That Van Cliburn box is a bit of a chore to get through.  Kept dipping in and out but doubt any CD will get a second spin.  When I can tell a performance isnt all that then it really isnt all that.

Florestan

Quote from: jochanaan on September 05, 2013, 06:54:11 PM
Within those "six hundred" concertos is amazing variety, compelling drama and deep heart.  None of us who love Vivaldi has to apologize or defend him.  I say only, Listen! 8)

Quote from: max on September 05, 2013, 08:50:06 PM
Precisely! And if I don't have 600 concertos I probably have 599 of which no two are the same. His religious works too often show a profundity and dept which doesn't easily yield beside many of the works of Bach and Handel. Each of these giants, which includes Vivaldi, has their own unmistakable sound signature.   

+1.

But then again, Tartini and Locatelli are far beyond and above Vivaldi!  ;D
Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

max

Quote from: Florestan on September 06, 2013, 11:59:51 AM
+1.

But then again, Tartini and Locatelli are far beyond and above Vivaldi!  ;D

Definitely got to get more Locatelli and especially Tartini. The older I get the more I like baroque. I wonder if there's a relationship?

jochanaan

Quote from: max on September 06, 2013, 03:05:07 PM
Definitely got to get more Locatelli and especially Tartini. The older I get the more I like baroque. I wonder if there's a relationship?
I hope it's not because, like me, you're going "baroque." ;D
Imagination + discipline = creativity

amw

This is not my unpopular opinion, but it's one with which I broadly agree -- with reservations -- and (I think) a more thoughtful one than average. Thought it might be interesting to share to see if it provokes any substantive reactions.

http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/26th-august-2000/41/music

The presentation of the text, stripped of formatting and paragraph breaks, is subpar; I recommend scrolling down to the scanned image from the original magazine, on the right, and clicking on "Zoom page".

North Star

I can already feel the DSCH 10 sinking and Shosty fading...
"Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it." - Confucius

My photographs on Flickr

Karl Henning

Thanks for posting this!

There's a lot of opinion in there, to which he (she?) is entitled. The thesis (I don't care for it much, so I predict it is destined for obscurity) is but the most recent [well, no . . . that was published back in August 2000] tedious instance of wishful thinking in print.

This line, though, is close to intelligent discussion:

Quote from: Robin HollowayThe terrible nature of Shostakovich's circumstances mustn't prevent a balanced response to his actual notes.

I broadly agree that there is, in the promotional activities, too much emphasis on the biography.  I agree that the important thing is the music, and that lurid biographical detail will not make the music great, if the music of itself be not great.

Where I disagree, of course, is in contending that when a good balance is achieved, the great value of such a significant portion of the catalogue will stand intact.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Karl Henning

In principle, I agree.  In the free market of musical ideas, arguably Shostakovich's stock is benefiting from a bubble.  The question (which the free market will determine over time) is, the actual value of the concern.  IMO, Holloway -- indeed, his entire apparent purpose is this thesis -- tendentiously undervalues it;  i.e., Holloway does not strike for balance, either.  Or, like Fox News, his idea of "balance" is, anyone who agrees with him  ;)
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Karl Henning

Ooh, I shall have a look at that 'un there . . . .
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

jochanaan

Quote from: amw on January 15, 2014, 03:44:55 PM
This is not my unpopular opinion, but it's one with which I broadly agree -- with reservations -- and (I think) a more thoughtful one than average. Thought it might be interesting to share to see if it provokes any substantive reactions.

http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/26th-august-2000/41/music

The presentation of the text, stripped of formatting and paragraph breaks, is subpar; I recommend scrolling down to the scanned image from the original magazine, on the right, and clicking on "Zoom page".
I disagree.  I sense that the very bleakness that the article's author decries is part of the music's greatness.  Yet certainly there is plenty of life too.  May I direct your attention to the Festive Overture, the finale of Symphonies #10 and #13, and the whole of Symphonies #1 and #4 for examples of life and joy in DSCH's oeuvre. :)
Imagination + discipline = creativity

71 dB

Quote from: sanantonio on January 16, 2014, 06:50:55 AM
I thought I'd contribute this article to the general discussion that revolves around the claim that classical music is elitist or is an endangered genre or is irrelevant to most people.

Whenever I hear words like "relevant" or "important," I always want to ask, "relevant or important to whom?"

Classical music has been elitist (entertainment for upper classes) and it has elitist image in people's mind for that. However, classical music isn't elitist anymore. Today internet connection, curiosity and an open mind are all you need to browse the treasures of classical music. In western countries the internet connection part is easy. Curiosity and an open mind are harder and therefor important to work for.

Since classical music isn't elitist anymore, why do we still have the categorical separaration between classical music and "other music"? Music genres are different anyway. Country is so different from hip hop and Reggae is so different from death metal. Why can't we cram classical music amongst "other music"? It would ease the prejudice of classical music being "unsuitable for me".

Fans of classical music should not mock popular music in general. That will only widen the gap between "elitist" fans of classical music and fans of popular music. Calling popular music vulgar is not different from calling classical music elitist. It's the same kind of narrow-mindness both ways.

Sure, most popular music is bad. The main reason for that is it's "manufactured" to meet the preferences of people whose preferences were controlled by music that was "manufactured" to meet the preferences of people whose preferences were controlled by music that was ... (degenerative feedback). Luckily there's opposite feedbacks too to balance thing. That's why there's always artists whose music is good because the degenerative feedback was been weaker.

Is Fauré's Pavane better music than Katy Perry's Firework? How many hours Fauré spend composing his Pavane? How many hours were spend to produce Katy Perry's Firework? So far Fauré has survived the test of time. Katy Perry's Firework will probably been forgotten within 20 years. In spite of this, I must say I get more out of Firework than Pavane and I say this as a Fauré fan. Fauré has of course much better works but Pavane is classified as "elitist" music. The quality of Pavane and Firework is very different. In fact, to me it's meaningless to compare these to because it's apples and oranges. I listen to both Fauré and Katy. That makes my life worth living.  0:)
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

jut1972

I think elitist is the wrong word.  Overly intellectual is more apt.
Why do we debate the merits of this performance or that performance?  The reviews which harp on about departure from metronome readings as if it's really important and vital to the merit of the piece.

Why do you listen to music?  To relax, to enjoy.. to make an emotional connection with the music itself?
The intellectual debate we become bogged down in just widens the gap between us and that state of being.

You don't see pop fans debating the merits of a Beatles Hamburg 62 performance or a 66 Wembley Stadium gig of the same song, they just enjoy the craft. 

The elitism is intellectual flim flam, and new joiners to this wonderful world need to steer clear to avoid it's traps.

North Star

Quote from: jut1972 on January 17, 2014, 01:30:34 PMYou don't see pop fans debating the merits of a Beatles Hamburg 62 performance or a 66 Wembley Stadium gig of the same song, they just enjoy the craft.

You haven't looked in the right places.

"Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it." - Confucius

My photographs on Flickr

The Six

Music isn't elitist, it's the people who are. You can easily find elitists in pop/rock music circles - people who think they have better taste because they prefer one band over another, liked a certain band before they got popular, etc.

Madiel

Quote from: jut1972 on January 17, 2014, 01:30:34 PM
You don't see pop fans debating the merits of a Beatles Hamburg 62 performance or a 66 Wembley Stadium gig of the same song, they just enjoy the craft. 

Are you kidding? Come join me on a Tori Amos forum some time and you will see people nominating favourite performances of particular songs from a selection of sometimes several hundred options.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

starrynight

Quote from: The Six on January 17, 2014, 07:58:13 PM
Music isn't elitist, it's the people who are. You can easily find elitists in pop/rock music circles - people who think they have better taste because they prefer one band over another, liked a certain band before they got popular, etc.

Inverse snobbery is more prevalent in popular music I think, those who want to go with the crowd and are suspicious of anyone who knows something that is really less known.

starrynight

Quote from: 71 dB on January 17, 2014, 02:31:10 AM
Classical music has been elitist (entertainment for upper classes) and it has elitist image in people's mind for that. However, classical music isn't elitist anymore. Today internet connection, curiosity and an open mind are all you need to browse the treasures of classical music. In western countries the internet connection part is easy. Curiosity and an open mind are harder and therefor important to work for.

Since classical music isn't elitist anymore, why do we still have the categorical separaration between classical music and "other music"? Music genres are different anyway. Country is so different from hip hop and Reggae is so different from death metal. Why can't we cram classical music amongst "other music"? It would ease the prejudice of classical music being "unsuitable for me".

Fans of classical music should not mock popular music in general. That will only widen the gap between "elitist" fans of classical music and fans of popular music. Calling popular music vulgar is not different from calling classical music elitist. It's the same kind of narrow-mindness both ways.

Sure, most popular music is bad. The main reason for that is it's "manufactured" to meet the preferences of people whose preferences were controlled by music that was "manufactured" to meet the preferences of people whose preferences were controlled by music that was ... (degenerative feedback). Luckily there's opposite feedbacks too to balance thing. That's why there's always artists whose music is good because the degenerative feedback was been weaker.

Is Fauré's Pavane better music than Katy Perry's Firework? How many hours Fauré spend composing his Pavane? How many hours were spend to produce Katy Perry's Firework? So far Fauré has survived the test of time. Katy Perry's Firework will probably been forgotten within 20 years. In spite of this, I must say I get more out of Firework than Pavane and I say this as a Fauré fan. Fauré has of course much better works but Pavane is classified as "elitist" music. The quality of Pavane and Firework is very different. In fact, to me it's meaningless to compare these to because it's apples and oranges. I listen to both Fauré and Katy. That makes my life worth living.  0:)

I agree with a great deal of this.  It's just that I'm not sure necessarily the more time spent on something the better and more long lasting it will be.  That probably relates to the idea that the bigger and more ambitious something is the better it is supposed to be, which I think is faulty logic.  There's plenty of overwrought big works which because of their ambition have plenty of faults, and smaller less ambitious pieces could be better in some ways in their achievement.

As you say no point comparing music in different styles, just enjoy the best of every style.

71 dB

Quote from: The Six on January 17, 2014, 07:58:13 PM
You can easily find elitists in pop/rock music circles - people who think they have better taste because they prefer one band over another, liked a certain band before they got popular, etc.

Yes, it's common to say you prefer the music of a band before they got very popular. Sometimes there's ground for that if the band has compromised their art for commercial success.

Another common thing is to prefer "early stuff" over "later stuff". People let the early work define the artist for them meaning change/progress is almost prohibited. For example it's common among Tangerine Dream fans to say the band went downhill after the Virgin years. When I got into Tangerine Dream 6 years ago, first I avoided the releases of 90's because so many fans say it's sucks (it has flamengo guitar and saxophone blah blah...). Well, when I finally explored those releases I didn't find them bad at all, on the contrary I was pleased how different the music was compared to Tangerine Dream's music of 70's and 80's. It was just different, some kind of energetic "rocking" new age. Tangerine Dream has been making music for over 40 years now. Of course they have gone thru many phases and styles. Otherwise they would not be creative.

There's sad elitism/snobbism among the many genres and subgenres of underground electronic dance music. House DJs doen't play Trance and Old Skool DJs don't play Neurofunk. Genres and subgenres get inbred, dull and deprived. Artists balancing between underground and mainstream are often the most interesting. They are creative and have the edge of underground but also allow themselves various styles.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"