Recordings That You Are Considering

[Karl Henning]

Then, I disagree.

And?

[Mirror Image]

Then, I disagree.

And?

Glad, you agree, but the argument I made to Dave was this:

How many times do I have to go down this road? I like what I like. Whether it's ignorant or not is not your judgement to make. Besides this, I could make the same points to you about Schoenberg or Berg, music you have willfully ignored and don't bother to acknowledge as influential. In fact, didn't you cite Schoenberg as the destroyer of all things classical? You said something to the effect that Schoenberg destroyed what Sibelius had done with music, which is, quite frankly, an absurd opinion to hold.

This said, I admire and acknowledge Bach's influence, but this doesn't mean I have to like the music.

[Mirror Image]

One thing that tires me about you, Karl, is the fact that you back someone like Dave Ross up and agree with what he says, but will not even bother to acknowledge my own point. I definitely think I'm right in feeling the way I do about this. You will quickly point out the error of my ways, but you won't bother confronting Dave about the error of his ways? Dave said he never said these things about Schoenberg or Berg, but yet I have the quote to back it up, but he has the audacity to belittle me for not enjoying Bach's music? I don't get it.

[Karl Henning]

This said, I admire and acknowledge Bach's influence, but this doesn't mean I have to like the music.

Right: the premise is false, and you are underscoring the impression that you dislike the music out of contrariety.  You appear so dogged to defend your "right" to dislike the music, that you entirely miss my point: Bach wrote such a great deal, and of so wide a range, that (heck, I'll repeat myself a second time) I find it very difficult to imagine that anyone should like nothing of Bach's, that this very statement smacks of someone ready to say he dislikes a piece if only he hears the name Bach attached to it.  And that is not any exercise of intelligence, it is not any reflection of a cultured soul, it's not even an opinion: it is the irrational hatred of the name of Bach.

And why? Because, like Shakespeare, he permeates all of the exercise of his artistic medium since his time?  That's not the exercise of reason; it is the spite of a two-year-old.

Now, because I invite you to consider whether you want to consider using your noggin, or whether you are fonder to embrace that hobgoblin of Emerson's, allow me to ask:

Is it not possible that there is one piece written by Bach which, in an unguarded moment, you might enjoy? (Separately, by the way:  when you listen to the Berg Violin Concerto, do you find yourself raging at the speakers because the composer is forcing you to endure a Bach quotation? The question is rhetorical.)

There are two answers. The answer No, there cannot possibly be even one piece by Bach which I might enjoy is nowise defensible as the statement of an open mind, is it?

[Mirror Image]

Right: the premise is false, and you are underscoring the impression that you dislike the music out of contrariety.  You appear so dogged to defend your "right" to dislike the music, that you entirely miss my point: Bach wrote such a great deal, and of so wide a range, that (heck, I'll repeat myself a second time) I find it very difficult to imagine that anyone should like nothing of Bach's, that this very statement smacks of someone ready to say he dislikes a piece if only he hears the name Bach attached to it.  And that is not any exercise of intelligence, it is not any reflection of a cultured soul, it's not even an opinion: it is the irrational hatred of the name of Bach.

And why? Because, like Shakespeare, he permeates all of the exercise of his artistic medium since his time?  That's not the exercise of reason; it is the spite of a two-year-old.

Now, because I invite you to consider whether you want to consider using your noggin, or whether you are fonder to embrace that hobgoblin of Emerson's, allow me to ask:

Is it not possible that there is one piece written by Bach which, in an unguarded moment, you might enjoy? (Separately, by the way:  when you listen to the Berg Violin Concerto, do you find yourself raging at the speakers because the composer is forcing you to endure a Bach quotation? The question is rhetorical.)

There are two answers. The answer No, there cannot possibly be even one piece by Bach which I might enjoy is nowise defensible as the statement of an open mind, is it?

There probably is a Bach work out there that I would enjoy. Yes, the man composed a lot of music, but did you ever wager in the possibility that that I don't really care about Bach nor do I care to explore his music? Can you not accept someone doing what they want and enjoying what they want? Can you not understand that I have said many times already that I don't enjoy Baroque music? Is it okay with you that I dislike this era of music? Is it okay with you that I put Haydn over Beethoven? Is it okay with you that I would rather listen to an old man farting on the toilet than listen to one of Mozart's compositions? Is it okay with you that I will continue to listen to music that I want to listen to?

I don't NEED you thumbing your nose at me, Karl. There's a reason I don't listen to a lot of the music you listen to, I simply have no interest in it.

[DavidRoss]

The bolded text ["Sad that the 20th Century's horrors (including the legacy of Schoenberg and his moronic disciples) derailed the explosion of creative genius with which the century began"] tells me everything I need to know I think.

Thanks for finding that post. It confirms exactly what I suspected, that

...it's conceivable that I might have said something that you would completely misunderstand -- and then that you would mistakenly identify me as the author of whatever you imagine I said.

Even one who reads as shallowly and inaccurately as you should readily recognize the difference between what I said, above, and what you mistakenly imagine I said: "didn't you cite Schoenberg as the destroyer of all things classical? You said something to the effect that Schoenberg destroyed what Sibelius had done with music."

Even in a Sociology 1 course at Podunk Jr. College such meretricious "support" for your assertions would make you the laughingstock of the class. 

Seriously, John, if you have any respect for yourself, or even if you don't but still hope that reasonable people will respect the opinions you express and not just your right to express them, then please get some instruction in what beginning philosophy courses often call "critical thinking."

[Sadko]

... that I don't really care about Bach nor do I care to explore his music? ...

I find that totally ok, obviously. I prefer an honest utterance of disinterest to "p.c." respect. I wondered though why you often get such reactions. I do find your way of expressing your views sometimes a bit provocative or lacking a (heart-felt) ingredient of "in my opinion", modesty. If you don't enjoy these exchanges ... Maybe it is more the way you express yourself ...

[PaulR]

Back to the topic....

does anyone have this recording?  [asin]B000HKDCJY[/asin]

I remember seeing it and being intrigued, but never pulled the trigger.

[Mirror Image]

Thanks for finding that post. It confirms exactly what I suspected, that Even one who reads as shallowly and inaccurately as you should readily recognize the difference between what I said, above, and what you mistakenly imagine I said: "didn't you cite Schoenberg as the destroyer of all things classical? You said something to the effect that Schoenberg destroyed what Sibelius had done with music."

Even in a Sociology 1 course at Podunk Jr. College such meretricious "support" for your assertions would make you the laughingstock of the class. 

Seriously, John, if you have any respect for yourself, or even if you don't but still hope that reasonable people will respect the opinions you express and not just your right to express them, then please get some instruction in what beginning philosophy courses often call "critical thinking."

Sounds like you're, again, clutching at straws here, Dave. Since I'm apparently misreading your quote, what exactly did you mean when you said that Schoenberg and his 'moronic' disciples derailed the explosion of creative genius with which the century began? Did I misread this obvious ill-informed comment as a compliment in disguise?

Please reveal your wise ways, my master. I'm obviously blind to your all-knowing superiority of all things classical.

[flyingdutchman]

Does anyone know what we'll get with the upcoming ICON Constantin Silvestri 15 CD box set?  I can't find a playlist anywhere.

[DavidRoss]

Total ignorance of Shakespeare would have improved not only countless works of literature, but countless works of theater in particular; not only that, but it would have improved lots of people as well.  Any institution/shibboleth so top-heavy can only become dead weight, even against its greater qualities.  Latin isn't essentially pretentious, for example; but it was put to pretentious uses, so frequently, in the modern world over maybe merely a few/several generations.  What's the phrase I'm looking for....."pretentions of timelessness"?  It might be good for his works to be totally forgotten for a few generations, so there can be another renaissance.  Shoot, even genius is tarnished by servility to "greatness".  The worst parts/aspects of Melville seem like he's trying for a "Shakespearean" idiom and just coming off a ponce.  And he's Melville (i.e. a genius)!

I'm for the abolition of pretty much all universals, especially when it comes to standards of literacy. 

Yeah, DRR, I don't think you're shedding much light on anything, lecturing people on the greatness and mandatoriness of Bach.  Courageous, that.  Nothing is mandatory anymore; nothing is essential.  Plus you make it sound like the 20c's horrors started after the beginning of the century and not before.  Plus you refer to Schoenberg's "disciples" as "moronic".  Are you talking about Hollywood film composers?  They might be the actual (unintended) fulfillment of his own intended legacy i.g. buying time for a (Germanic) tradition that he saw, with dread, as sinking.  That seems like a total continuity of 19c to 20c: a marginalized person trying to help out the tradition of a people who despises that marginalized person.  It's incredibly poignant.  It makes me think of Bach, in a sense; trying to serve a God who he knows despises him.

God, how pompous.

Apparently you, too, imagine that what you mistakenly read into things tells something you about the things themselves, instead of revealing only your own prejudices and your unwillingness to question them. Nothing to beat yourself up over, however, for it's a common failing and easily remedied if you have the capacity for reason and the self-respect to seek intellectual integrity.

I would say that it's nice to make your acquaintance, but in this case that would be stretching the truth a bit much. It is a pleasure, however, and I'm happy to welcome you to GMG, even if somewhat belatedly. I might have welcomed you sooner, but I haven't been around much lately ... and given the way things seem here today, I may not be around much in the future! 

[Mirror Image]

Again, Dave:

Since I'm apparently misreading your quote, what exactly did you mean when you said that Schoenberg and his 'moronic' disciples derailed the explosion of creative genius with which the century began?

Did I misread this obvious ill-informed comment as a compliment in disguise? What is supposed to be understood in this opinion you gave?

[TheGSMoeller]

Back to the topic....

does anyone have this recording?  [asin]B000HKDCJY[/asin]

I remember seeing it and being intrigued, but never pulled the trigger.

Yes, get it.

[Mirror Image]

and given the way things seem here today, I may not be around much in the future! 

After the way you treated me today, good riddance!

[flyingdutchman]

Not unlike Dave to make his acerbic comments.  He did the same at classicalmusicguide and he's doing the same here.

[Gurn Blanston]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. What a strange place to discover this essay into miscreancy. I mean; no God involved (well, maybe Bach but...), no 18th v 20th (or 21st), only, apparently, pernicious obstinacy. Seems like I (  ) can't take time to enjoy an 18th century symphony without coming back to philosophical disaster.  Instead of so easily getting our tits in an uproar, some thoughtful, empathetic cogitation might be in order before pressing the 'Post' button. If you please. Just so I don't have to be a dickweed for once.

[Brian]

Instead of so easily getting our tits in an uproar,

I would go see a band called the Uproarious Tits.

[Gurn Blanston]

I would go see a band called the Uproarious Tits.

Shhh, Auntie Google is watching....

[Sammy]

Is it okay with you that I would rather listen to an old man farting on the toilet than listen to one of Mozart's compositions? Is it okay with you that I will continue to listen to music that I want to listen to?

You sure have a way about you - indicating that you prefer what goes on in a toilet bowl to Mozart's music.

But you are certainly cleared to listening to whatever music turns you on.  I'm confident nobody on this board gives a fig what you listen to.

[Mirror Image]

You sure have a way about you - indicating that you prefer what goes on in a toilet bowl to Mozart's music.

But you are certainly cleared to listening to whatever music turns you on.  I'm confident nobody on this board gives a fig what you listen to.

The remark about Mozart was merely a joke, but I'm not surprised that didn't get it.