Do you think too much pop/rock music can be a waste of time?

[The new erato]

  Art can elicit different responses from people. Doesn't have to be just emotional. It can be intellectual too, or a combination of both. There is many ways of looking at it.

You are probably right about that. My point was (or should have been) that emotion is part of the evaluation of art (music) as well as other aspects. It's just not about intellectual analysis. That Rembrandt I posted is a fine example of both aspects, superbly executed and constructed and very emotional (to me) as well. Somehow the visual arts are easier than music that way, most of us wouldn't be able to have much to say about the construction and craftsmanship of a piece of music.

Edit: I didn't see your previous post when I wrote this. And I find much the same in Bach, my favorite composer, superb structure and construction (I think; as a layman)), and extremely emotional.

[71 dB]

If one takes as cultural reference the Vedas, Mahbharata and Ramayana the Bollywood movies are still sentimental trash.

All I have to say is whatever, I don't watch Bollywood movies anyway. 

[Florestan]

Leiermann ... one of the scariest pieces of music ever written, not withstanding metal bands with tons of amplificatiion, ligting effects and supposedly scary make up and costumes. Schubert really scares me, while those guys make me roll around in laughter at the silliness of the human race. A valid point of Expression of course, but hardly what they were seeking I guess.

Excellent point. All metal bands past, present and future taken together with all their paraphernalia are not worth a single Lied from Winterreise. The former plumbs the depth of human emotions and penetrates straight into the heart of the human condition, while the latter reach the height of human stupidity and vulgarity.

[Florestan]

Bach, my favorite composer, superb structure and construction (I think; as a layman)), and extremely emotional.

Another essential point. If structure and technique are employed for the mere sake of it, without any emotional involvement or intent, the net result is, for me, sheer boredom.

[nathanb]

You are probably right about that. My point was (or should have been) that emotion is part of the evaluation of art (music) as well as other aspects. It's just not about intellectual analysis. That Rembrandt I posted is a fine example of both aspects, superbly executed and constructed and very emotional (to me) as well. Somehow the visual arts are easier than music that way, most of us wouldn't be able to have much to say about the construction and craftsmanship of a piece of music.

Edit: I didn't see your previous post when I wrote this. And I find much the same in Bach, my favorite composer, superb structure and construction (I think; as a layman)), and extremely emotional.

Cage and Stockhausen are every bit as emotional as Bach and Beethoven so why bring it up?

[nathanb]

Excellent point. All metal bands past, present and future taken together with all their paraphernalia are not worth a single Lied from Winterreise. The former plumbs the depth of human emotions and penetrates straight into the heart of the human condition, while the latter reach the height of human stupidity and vulgarity.

You sure make a lot of sweeping insults on your way to your point about not wanting to be insulted for your opinions.

[Florestan]

You sure make a lot of sweeping insults on your way to your point about not wanting to be insulted for your opinions.

And just whom did I insult, pray tell? That is my honest opinion about metal, and I was myself a heavy metal fan 20 years ago.

[Sergeant Rock]

And just whom did I insult, pray tell?

Our own Andy, for one, a Metal composer and producer

Sarge

[Parsifal]

...The former plumbs the depth of human emotions and penetrates straight into the heart of the human condition, while the latter reach the height of human stupidity and vulgarity.

Ironically, I feel this post reaches the height of human stupidity and vulgarity, at least to the extent that stupidity and vulgarity exist on this board.

[Florestan]

Our own Andy, for one, a Metal composer and producer

Sarge

Okay, I´ll reformulate: it is my honest opinion (as a former heavy metal fan) that for all their pretentions to profundity and quality, the music of metal bands is in general stupid (in lyrics) and vulgar (in instrumentation and paraphernalia); that is not to say that the musicians themselves are stupid and vulgar, and there are of course exceptions, our own Andy being one of them.

Better?

[Florestan]

Ironically, I feel this post reaches the height of human stupidity and vulgarity, at least to the extent that stupidity and vulgarity exist on this board.

I am utterly devastated.

[Rinaldo]

You know, Florestan, as a Schubert fan and not much of a metalhead, I still know and cherish metal songs that elicit a transcendence similar to what you're saying about Winterreise - but they achieve it through entirely different means, entirely different musical language and context not relevant / available to Schubert (or Beatles).

Sure, A LOT of metal is stupid and vulgar in a way that doesn't serve anything else but the vulgarity itself, but every musical genre has its trash and its filler, doesn't it? For every wonderful Schubert lied, there were heaps of romantic muzak that time filtered out.

[Ghost Sonata]

Not a fan of metal either but must say I have been impressed with what I have heard of Rammstein, lyrically and sonically. Still, I'm super glad I don't live next door to them.

[Florestan]

You know, Florestan, as a Schubert fan and not much of a metalhead, I still know and cherish metal songs that elicit a transcendence similar to what you're saying about Winterreise - but they achieve it through entirely different means, entirely different musical language and context not relevant / available to Schubert (or Beatles).

I have nothing to reply to this. Personal experiences can be neither denied nor dismissed. All I can say is; good for you!

Sure, A LOT of metal is stupid and vulgar in a way that doesn't serve anything else but the vulgarity itself, but every musical genre has its trash and its filler, doesn't it? For every wonderful Schubert lied, there were heaps of romantic muzak that time filtered out.

Sure. But I´d rather have the stupidity and vulgarity of romantic muzak (some examples of it would be much appreciated, actually) than the ones of metal. That is all.

[nathanb]

Politically correct culture wants you to know: "you are entitled to your opinion." Lol.

[North Star]

There's lots of trash in modern visual art (and other arts as well), but this painting:



is simply making a totally different statement from this one:



I don't think they were ever meant to be comparable. They are about totally different things, just as Lennon, Cage or Beethoven are operating in completely different contexts.

Well, in some way Rembrandt can be seen as making that same 'statement' (that the pictures are not what they depict, they are paintings, or drawings or etchings) with his paintings in the 'rough manner', that are by the conventional standards of the time (and up to the acceptance of the Impressionists) unfinished, trait also found in works by Titian and Frans Hals. See the lack of detail in the hands on that self-portrait, or the Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis (a massive commission that the city council refused to pay as it was all too eerie, grotesque and rough for them. Housed in Stockholm, if you want to see it, by the way.), or the Portrait of Jan Six - see the riding glove and the yellow streaks of paint on the red cloak.






Of course, this does not mean that I don't think Magritte didn't still need to make that point.


And we ought to remember that when looking at different works of art, judging them for lacking something that the other has is not of any value. Rembrandt's use of colour is quite dull in the Self-Portrait compared to Van Gogh's Self-Portrait with Grey Felt Hat, and vice versa, Van Gogh's painting is laughably bad if one considers how unsuccessful it is in being a realistic likeness, compared with the Rembrandt.




As for contemporary art, while there is stuff that is not so good, there's plenty of good stuff.


Norman Ackroyd


Aron Wiesenfeld



Jan van der Kooi


Maria Bablyak


Walton Ford

etc. (those are pretty much off the top of my head, there ought to be some abstract art in there too..)

Time will filter it eventually, just as it has always done.

[Monsieur Croche]

 

Another essential point. If structure and technique are employed for the mere sake of it, without any emotional involvement or intent, the net result is, for me, sheer boredom.

very much to your point:

In Art & Fear, a (very slim and worthwhile) book by David Bayles and Ted Orland, they make the point that works based solely upon a technical premise can appear beautiful, and even dazzling, while they are most often still quite empty, i.e. superficial and all about the technique, i.e. all about effect(s) and little if anything else.

In an article reviewing a performance of graduate student compositions from musicians studying in one or more Manhattan schools (New York Times, ca. early 2000's, is the most I can recall of the source), the author noticed that those student works seemed to rather clearly exhibit two different approaches affecting the quality of what one heard:
1.) pieces based on a technical premise alone.
2.) pieces based upon a musical idea that drew the composer's further interest. 

That reviewer said those pieces they felt were built upon that musical idea 'of interest,' fared much better than the ones more plainly based upon a technical idea alone. 

Of course there is an overlap between those poles, though the overlap is one-directional; an idea of musical interest has inherent technical aspects, where a technical premise as the basis for a piece may not have any musical interest at all.

[bluemooze]

These kinds of threads are never about music.  The question really is, and what the OP wants to know is, "Am I a 'superior' person because I listen to classical music?"  Or put another way, "Are people who listen to classical music 'better' than the drivel who listen to pop/rock/rap/whatever?"  Every time someone goes out of their way to proudly proclaim to the world that they prefer "X classical composer" to the Beatles they expect to be viewed as being of a higher 'class' than Beatles fans.

And of course, as we know from classical music forums, 'some' of the most rude, illogical, constipated, arrogant and phony people in the world are classical music fans.  :-)

[Jo498]

This is not true. Nowadays the social/cultural capital of proudly listening to classical music and deeming most popular music inferior is practically nil (except maybe in tiny niches but in them there would be not much gained because it would probably be a presupposition for entering the niche).
As your remarks show, quite the opposite is true. One is immediately confronted with the charge that one only wants so feel superior and that it is not about the music. This is the far more common stance today, even among those who listen to classical music as the debates in this forum indicate. The socially appropriate stance is to be open for almost everything, to have a very wide, eclectic taste for all kinds of music. Anything else is narrowmindedness or even elitism.

[71 dB]

The question really is, and what the OP wants to know is, "Am I a 'superior' person because I listen to classical music?"  Or put another way, "Are people who listen to classical music 'better' than the drivel who listen to pop/rock/rap/whatever?"

People who listen to classical music aren't superior, but they are very lucky for having found an virtually endless oasis of great music.