Which composer would you eliminate from history?

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

[Christo]

ISIS and the Taliban have shown us the way.** **And frankly, some Christians were among those who showed them the way.

No doubt, but I think we learnt from John Gray that by far the main source of inspiration lies in their debt to modern secular ideologies: https://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaeda-What-Means-Modern/dp/1565849876

[Madiel]

Yeah. And there are plenty of Christians who owe their thinking to modern secular ideologies as well. Ironic, isn't it?

[Christo]

Yeah. And there are plenty of Christians who owe their thinking to modern secular ideologies as well. Ironic, isn't it?

Yep. That's exactly what makes 'Modernity' such a manysided thing.

[Jo498]

I might be unfair to some cultures that I don't remember now. But I cannot think of any other culture that took such pains to conserve (some) cultural artifacts they clearly disagreed with than (some) "dark ages" monks who dutifully copied classical pagan manuscripts and also some later missionaries who collected and conserved e.g. "tribal" art.

And, of course, all modern (Western) ideologies are historically daughters or granddaughters of Western christianity; for good or ill, this is just a fact in the history of ideas and has been recognized as such for quite a while.

[Madiel]

I might be unfair to some cultures that I don't remember now. But I cannot think of any other culture that took such pains to conserve (some) cultural artifacts they clearly disagreed with than (some) "dark ages" monks who dutifully copied classical pagan manuscripts and also some later missionaries who collected and conserved e.g. "tribal" art.

Yes, but I said some Christians. Thanks for picking out the good ones. Now let's talk about the Protestants (the English ones I'm particularly aware of) who painted over everything.

This is no different to the fact that many Muslims had lived next to the ancient cities of Mesopotamia, and the Buddhas of Bamiyan, without concern before the recent destruction of these things. Not all Christians are cultural vandals. Neither are all Muslims. Neither religion is the problem in and of itself, the problem is the kind of person who both burns with zeal and is deeply insecure in themselves, and must destroy things they disagree with in order to feel okay.

[Florestan]

How about cultural vandalism of the secular / atheist type?

Like, say, the orgy of destruction and vandalism directed against churches and cathedrals during the French Revolution.

Or the destruction by Stalin of the Cathedral "Jesus the Redeemer".

Or the burning of churches and convents during the Second Spanish Republic.

Or the destruction of a whole country, people and cultural heritage alike, by the Khmers Rouges.

Or Chairman Mao´s  cultural revolution.

Or the destruction by Ceauşescu of so many churches, monasteries, hospitals, private buildings and whole historical neighborhoods in Bucharest and other Romanian cities and villages.

Is secular / atheist fanaticism less bad and dangerous than religious fanaticism?

[Florestan]

[...] all modern (Western) ideologies are historically daughters or granddaughters of Western christianity; for good or ill, this is just a fact in the history of ideas and has been recognized as such for quite a while.

A point that is often overlooked or downplayed.

[71 dB]

Is secular / atheist fanaticism less bad and dangerous than religious fanaticism?

Fanaticism is always dangerous regardless of whether it is secular or religious.

Talking about dictators: Their fanaticism usually come from greed (and perhaps insanity) rather than a belief system. Religion/atheism is just a tool for them.

[Harry]

Wagner

[71 dB]

Wagner

Wagner is said to be the most influencial composer in history. Eliminating him would cause maximum chain effects...

[prémont]

Wagner

Seconded!

[Brian]

And, of course, all modern (Western) ideologies are historically daughters or granddaughters of Western christianity

Does this make them nieces and cousins of Greece and Rome?

[Gurn Blanston]

You're right, they didn't include Wagner...

But I did. I'm a Wagner First sort of guy.

[AndyD.]

Does this make them nieces and cousins of Greece and Rome?

This is more accurate, but there's a heck of a lot of Judaism, Hammurabi's edicts, all the Sumerian theological stuff. To think that all Western philosophy is the product "only" of Christianity, it's simply, hilariously uneducated. Go take philosophy (general), as well as theology classes, then you'll delete your posts (or else leave them and look like total boobs).

As is the idea of eliminating Wagner from history, though I realize it was probably meant to troll me from Harry, whom I mysteriously turned off at one point or another.

Either way, both of those excluding statements are, as mentioned, the height of hilarity to me, so I owe Bonehead Harry and whoever (about the Western philosophy, choking on my coffee in fits of loon-sounding laughter) a big thank you. Those are two of the most ignorant statements I've read in years, and a terrible affront to this board. To have members that would think that about Wagner....dude, movie soundtracks would be a VERY different thing without Wagner, to name just one, more obvious (for the aforementioned bonehead here) example of his influence.

Every time I see those members here from now on I'll be stifling a massive cackle. Opinions are inevitable, however, there is a difference between opinion and educated truth. I studied both of those subjects at length, as far as Wagner goes, you might as well say Mozart or Bach gets deleted, especially considered how much amazing influence he's had. Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Debussy, Mahler, all were massively influenced by him (even if Stravinsky would never admit to it). Anyone whom can read an orchestral score can be enlightened as to how brilliant all the above named composers were, but with Wagner it takes on a whole different, massively pioneering slant.

In any case, there's no more need to defend Wagner, he already is considered in the top 5 (I would put him, purely as a composer, just under Beethoven and Bach).

As for the philosophy well gee I had a degree in that (along with Literature) at age 18, so there's that.

Enough of the Riot Act, thanks for being a riot, people. And discrediting this forum. Now start bawling.

[Parsifal]

Or the destruction by Stalin of the Cathedral "Jesus the Redeemer".

They replaced it with a nice swimming pool, at least.

Or the destruction by Ceauşescu of so many churches, monasteries, hospitals, private buildings and whole historical neighborhoods in Bucharest and other Romanian cities and villages.

They did the same to build the Cross Bronx Expressway in New York.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

How about cultural vandalism of the secular / atheist type?

Like, say, the orgy of destruction and vandalism directed against churches and cathedrals during the French Revolution.

Or the destruction by Stalin of the Cathedral "Jesus the Redeemer".

Or the burning of churches and convents during the Second Spanish Republic.

Or the destruction of a whole country, people and cultural heritage alike, by the Khmers Rouges.

Or Chairman Mao´s  cultural revolution.

Or the destruction by Ceauşescu of so many churches, monasteries, hospitals, private buildings and whole historical neighborhoods in Bucharest and other Romanian cities and villages.

Is secular / atheist fanaticism less bad and dangerous than religious fanaticism?

The figure of a god, or a human replacement for a god (which is effectively what Mao and Stalin were) purely there as a means of control will cause this so called 'secular/atheist fanaticism' all the same. It is anti-humanist and inhumane and has just about as much to do with true humanistic secularism as it does with religion.

[Andy D.]

Junkie XL. His music was the worse part of his collaborations with Hans Zimmer, and his solo output is execrable imo.

[71 dB]

Junkie XL. His music was the worse part of his collaborations with Hans Zimmer, and his solo output is execrable imo.

I don't really know Junkie XL's music and I had no clue he has collaborated with Hans Zimmer, but then again, I don't watch modern superhero movies. I find them unwatchable. Every time I see these movies on TV I go "Who the hell can watch this ADHD garbage?" after 5 minutes and change the channel. I enjoy movies from 70's and 80's in this sense. Generally slow cutting, camera doesn't shake all the time, wide lenses and deep field of focus are used for more relaxing visuality that allows visual observation of enviromental details. In older movies you can see how the paint is coming off of door frames behind the actors (not with DVDs of course, but Blu-rays allow this). Makes the environment where the actors are feel real, you can almost smell the paint and wood. Try that with modern ADHD-movies! Only the actors' faces are in focus most of the time and if the stuff behind actors is in focus, the camera shakes so much everything is going around and there's cuts every 2 second so you don't have time to study paint on door frames! I don't like that. Another sin of modern action movies is the movies are almost non-stop action so after the first 20 minutes your action quota is full and the rest of the movie feels just mind-numbing. The action and effects lose their impact when you don't have long calm sections in between action scenes. It's like having a symphony build of four Scherzo movements.

[Andy D.]

I don't really know Junkie XL's music and I had no clue he has collaborated with Hans Zimmer, but then again, I don't watch modern superhero movies. I find them unwatchable. Every time I see these movies on TV I go "Who the hell can watch this ADHD garbage?" after 5 minutes and change the channel. I enjoy movies from 70's and 80's in this sense. Generally slow cutting, camera doesn't shake all the time, wide lenses and deep field of focus are used for more relaxing visuality that allows visual observation of enviromental details. In older movies you can see how the paint is coming off of door frames behind the actors (not with DVDs of course, but Blu-rays allow this). Makes the environment where the actors are feel real, you can almost smell the paint and wood. Try that with modern ADHD-movies! Only the actors' faces are in focus most of the time and if the stuff behind actors is in focus, the camera shakes so much everything is going around and there's cuts every 2 second so you don't have time to study paint on door frames! I don't like that. Another sin of modern action movies is the movies are almost non-stop action so after the first 20 minutes your action quota is full and the rest of the movie feels just mind-numbing. The action and effects lose their impact when you don't have long calm sections in between action scenes. It's like having a symphony build of four Scherzo movements.

I agree with you on the superhero movies...however, there are a few that bring me back to my comics day back in the 70s and are fine imo. I mostly have a problem with how the critics completely whore themselves out: when the superhero thing started really kicking into gear the critics were at times scathingly negative. Then the films made huge money; these days critics fall all over themselves excessively praising even the weakest comic book movies...this has gotta end somewhere.

Zimmer has some very good scores, forgetting his superhero stuff he did Lion King(s), Interstellar, and several others.

Imo.