Frustrated/bored with GMG

[(poco) Sforzando]

Finally, the fact that not a single person on this board agrees with you convinces you that you are an even more brilliant, more misunderstood genius. 

Paulb agrees with him.

[Haffner]

I'm dying laughing!

[(poco) Sforzando]

Sorry, can someone sane please confirm that this thread has actually reached 30 pages?

No. It has now reached 31.

[knight66]

Yes, but to arrive at 31 pages 71db has sustained this level of boredom for seven months; yet remains with us. An achievement of kinds.

Mike

[paulb]

I would  be great to be able to read music.  I guess it is not too late to start, but it would take away from other things I enjoy too much to give up at this point.

Yes It would be nice to be able to read scores, even more play an instrument.
But this lack of academia and art skills does not prevent me from enjoying even the most complex of composers
Schonberg, Berg, Webern, Schnittke , Pettersson, Carter.
Strange that I am the least knowledgeable  in terms of musical education yet am attracted to the most complex of all the composers.
Composers that strike me as too conservative, repetitious *modal variations*, their music always comes across as "been there /done that".
When you think about the universe we live in, galxies upon galxies, why shouldn't music reflect this universe we live in , and not just planet earth? (refer to the topic *Brahms music as landscape and folk culture*)
The old Trekie theme *To go where no man has gone before* should be reflected in music.
One composer that seems to represent the voice of the old and the new, yet transcends both epochs,  is that of Maurice Ravel. So you see music doesn't have to be *weird* to get me to like it.

[greg]

wow......
i'm not "dying" laughing, but more like DEAD laughing at that!

how in the world did you think of pulling up those images from 3 totally different sites? And how'd you find them? Did you google "headache"?

the last one looks like an Animorphs picture, where they listen to Elgar and evolve into a superior advanced multidimensional being.

I suppose the monkey represents Beethoven and the human Mahler, maybe?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yes It would be nice to be able to read scores, even more play an instrument.
But this lack of academia and art skills does not prevent me from enjoying even the most complex of composers
Schonberg, Berg, Webern, Schnittke , Pettersson, Carter.
Strange that I am the least knowledgeable  in terms of musical education yet am attracted to the most complex of all the composers.
Composers that strike me as too conservative, repetitious *modal variations*, their music always comes across as "been there /done that".
When you think about the universe we live in, galxies upon galxies, why shouldn't music reflect this universe we live in , and not just planet earth? (refer to the topic *Brahms music as landscape and folk culture*)
The old Trekie theme *To go where no man has gone before* should be reflected in music.
One composer that seems to represent the voice of the old and the new, yet transcends both epochs,  is that of Maurice Ravel. So you see music doesn't have to be *weird* to get me to like it.

I am very impressed by the list of composers you like - at least four out of the six, Pettersson and Schnittke striking me as far less remarkable than the others. What I am less impressed by is your apparent inability or unwillingness to hear the complexity in composers from earlier ages, and your cavalier dismissals that seem based on little exposure to the music in question. Sometimes the past is more modern than the present.

[paulb]

I am very impressed by the list of composers you like - at least four out of the six, Pettersson and Schnittke striking me as far less remarkable than the others. What I am less impressed by is your apparent inability or unwillingness to hear the complexity in composers from earlier ages, and your cavalier dismissals that seem based on little exposure to the music in question. Sometimes the past is more modern than the present.

Brahms , Mahler, Tchaikovsky is by no means *simple music*. Sure the scores of these composers read as very complex. Listz, Dvorak, all the romantics have complex scores.
but there is something about their complexity that does not speak to my complexities in this world of 2008.
Nothing makes much sense. We live in a  strange world.
Brahms makes the world seemingly too *nice*, all the notes fakll right into perfect place.
Nazism was a  reality, the world which   Chopin knew nothing of.

[Gurn Blanston]

Brahms , Mahler, Tchaikovsky is by no means *simple music*. Sure the scores of these composers read as very complex. Listz, Dvorak, all the romantics have complex scores.
but there is something about their complexity that does not speak to my complexities in this world of 2008.
Nothing makes much sense. We live in a  strange world.
Brahms makes the world seemingly too *nice*, all the notes fakll right into perfect place.
Nazism was a  reality, the world which   Chopin knew nothing of.

Of course, you can like or dislike anything you wish, but your rationales for doing so are utterly mystifying to me. Chopin and Nazism are so at odds with each other that I can scarcely comprehend the connection. Do you presume that there was nothing in the world of the 1830's that was negative, perhaps? I don't know, Paul, I guess I am doomed to be mystified. 



----------------
Now playing:
K 546 Adagio & Fugue in c - The Griller Quartet - K 546 Adagio & Fugue in c for String Quartet

[greg]

Brahms , Mahler, Tchaikovsky is by no means *simple music*. Sure the scores of these composers read as very complex. Listz, Dvorak, all the romantics have complex scores.
but there is something about their complexity that does not speak to my complexities in this world of 2008.
Nothing makes much sense. We live in a  strange world.
Brahms makes the world seemingly too *nice*, all the notes fakll right into perfect place.
Nazism was a  reality, the world which   Chopin knew nothing of.

interesting perspective.

[PaulR]

Brahms , Mahler, Tchaikovsky is by no means *simple music*. Sure the scores of these composers read as very complex. Listz, Dvorak, all the romantics have complex scores.
but there is something about their complexity that does not speak to my complexities in this world of 2008.
Nothing makes much sense. We live in a  strange world.
Brahms makes the world seemingly too *nice*, all the notes fakll right into perfect place.
Nazism was a  reality, the world which   Chopin knew nothing of.

Yes, Chopin didn't know of Nazism, but why should that matter when looking at his music?  Does that make his music any less complex today than it was when he was composing?  No.  Does time make any of Beethoven's symphonies less complex today than it was in the early 1800s?  The perspective changes over time.  When Beethoven premiered his 1st symphony, they would've considered that with total different ears than we do, where we've grown up hearing Beethoven in the later parts of the 20th century and into the 21st.  Music does evolve, but time doesn't make older music less complex than current music. 

Edit:  Made my thoughts more clear....I hope

[Lethevich]

Yes, Chopin didn't know of Nazism, but why should that matter when looking at his music?  Does that make his music any less complex today than it was when he was composing?  No.  Does time make any of Beethoven's symphonies less complex today than it was in the early 1800s?  Maybe the perspective changes, where we've grown up hearing Beethoven in the later parts of the 20th century and into the 21st.  Music does evolve, but time doesn't make older music less complex than current music. 

Exactly. By Paul's logic a caveman banging on rocks after an apocalyptic nuclear war is the greatest composer in history.

[head-case]

Exactly. By Paul's logic a caveman banging on rocks after an apocalyptic nuclear war is the greatest composer in history.

So we come to Pettersson again?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Exactly. By Paul's logic a caveman banging on rocks after an apocalyptic nuclear war is the greatest composer in history.

Paul's position, insofar as I understand it (and I'm not sure I do, because he apparently likes Bach, Wagner, and Mozart while turning his back on Beethoven, Chopin, and Brahms) seems to be that most established classical music doesn't confront you with anything that matters in terms of our insane modern existence; instead, music such as Chopin's is a narcotic escape into in an irrelevant fantasy world. Add to this a feeling (like 71 dB's) that the vast majority of music lovers are spineless dupes, unable to think for themselves and hoodwinked by "academic" traditionalists whom they're too gullible to resist; and I think you've got most of the picture.

[71 dB]

Don't you get tired of always playing the fool?  It's so obvious that you downplay the significance of scores because of your inability to read them.

Most people NEVER read scores. That means scores do not have significance for most people. That doesn not mean scores are useless, they have enormous significance for certain people, just not to me.

[greg]

Most people NEVER read scores. That means scores do not have significance for most people. That doesn not mean scores are useless, they have enormous significance for certain people, just not to me.

or...........
you could start reading scores and understand why we mention some composers aren't actually that much more complex than others. 

[karlhenning]

Exactly. By Paul's logic a caveman banging on rocks after an apocalyptic nuclear war is the greatest composer in history.

Wow! What a cave, eh?

[karlhenning]

Some people never read books. That means books do not have significance for some people. That doesn't mean that books are useless, they have enormous significance for certain people. Just not for illiterates.

[71 dB]

or...........
you could start reading scores and understand why we mention some composers aren't actually that much more complex than others. 

I don't think I am rich enough to buy scores. How many of them do you have? 1000? 10000? How many million dollars have you spend on them?

[springrite]

I have maybe 20 or 30 scores (if I count the complete Beethoven quartets, complete Beethoven piano sonatas, Medtner sonatas and Scriabin sonatas as one each, that is). I don't read score well and have not really used them. But I will, when I am older, wiser and have more time on my hands. I know they are useful.

Come to think of it, I did follow the score on Goldberg a couple of times. Very very interesting...