Elgar, as good a composer as......

[Harry]

^It has rather become a bashers bashing thread hasn't it?^

Nah my friend, this is a friendly and open discussion, no fear.....

[Harry]

Agreed, but much of the tenor of the critcism here has been belittling.  Even so, I don't really have any problem with it for a few days in a row.  But this belittling criticism of Elgar and his champion on this list has been going on for weeks.

Exactly....

[AnthonyAthletic]

Certainly neither Elliott Carter nor Brian Ferneyhough has written anything more suitable for High School Graduation ceremonies

Not even his superb Piano concerto?

[karlhenning]

That's not what we want - is it? I think the rule of thumb should be one of respect.

I completely agree;  and it is the foundation of my objection to coddling Poju (d/b/a 71 dB) in his repeated rants about how anyone who doesn't agree with him (a) has been brainwashed, and (b) would clearly change his tune and agree with Poju, if only that benighted person were a "freethinker," just like Poju.

[Larry Rinkel]

Well, you don't appear to be disagreeing with me here at all. I don't hold such an idea. Besides, I was talking specifically about posting in this place, not face-to-face conversations or even one person to another in private communication. If I were to post an honest thread wanting to discuss Dittersdorf, his works, and recordings, do you honestly think that the people who don't like him would be mature and intelligent in that thread?

And yes, hypocrisy applies to some people on this message board. They ridicule someone for doing something that they do.  A lot. That's what hypocrisy means, isn't it?

No. Hypocrisy is pretending one has a virtuous character that one does not in fact possess. The congressman or minister who in public attacks homosexual sex while enjoying a boyfriend on the side is a hypocrite. That's the real key to hypocrisy: the pretense of being virtuous when one is not. Simply ridiculing another's actions or beliefs, whether or not one commits the same kind of actions one's self, may be objectionable on other grounds, but is not necessarily being a hypocrite.

As for your "face-to-face" comment, I was speaking metaphorically, as in putting on a happy face within the confines of an Internet forum.

I have no problem with your starting a Dittersdorf thread, but you'll have to expect some degree of honest, mature, and intelligent challenge, and on purely musical grounds.

As for Poju, he'll do fine so long as he lays off the "you're all brainwashed" stuff. Judging from a comment like, "I really feel people in general are not that free mentally," I'm not sure he's there yet.

[Don]

As for Poju, he'll do fine so long as he lays off the "you're all brainwashed" stuff. Judging from a comment like, "I really feel people in general are not that free mentally," I'm not sure he's there yet.

He certainly is not there.  I do wonder about his chronological age.  Assuming he's a young man, he has a wealth of the future in which to straighten himself out.

[JoshLilly]

No. Hypocrisy is pretending one has a virtuous character that one does not in fact possess. The congressman or minister who in public attacks homosexual sex while enjoying a boyfriend on the side is a hypocrite. That's the real key to hypocrisy: the pretense of being virtuous when one is not. Simply ridiculing another's actions or beliefs, whether or not one commits the same kind of actions one's self, may be objectionable on other grounds, but is not necessarily being a hypocrite.

All right then, I'll not use that word. Thanks for the correction.

I have no problem with your starting a Dittersdorf thread, but you'll have to expect some degree of honest, mature, and intelligent challenge, and on purely musical grounds.

But that's one thing right there: it would appear that your idea of bad music is not my idea of bad music. So what are the purely musical grounds on which people can "challenge"? How do you challenge what someone likes?

[johnQpublic]

So what are the purely musical grounds on which people can "challenge"? 

Imaginative usage of harmony, rhythm, structure, melodic design, orchestration, etc. that sets it apart from the ordinary.

I don't care if someone likes mediocre; just don't try to claim ordinary is "great".

[karlhenning]

Imaginative usage of harmony, rhythm, structure, melodic design, orchestration, etc. that sets it apart from the ordinary.

I don't care if someone likes mediocre; just don't try to claim ordinary is "great".

Entirely to the point, thank you.

[JoshLilly]

Clearly I find Dittersdorf's orchestral music to contain those things, otherwise I wouldn't like it. So why do others seem to not find the same thing, even though they're hearing the same exact music? And it's not mediocre, or ordinary, so if I claim Dittersdorf's Ovid Symphony #5 is great, I'm not claiming something mediocre is great. Actually, I think his best works are not to be found among his symphonies, other than Ovid #2 and Ovid #5.

[Great Gable]

But that's one thing right there: it would appear that your idea of bad music is not my idea of bad music. So what are the purely musical grounds on which people can "challenge"? How do you challenge what someone likes?

You can't reasonably challenge someone's likes and dislikes. In fact, is challenge the right term when applied to differing opinions in a musical context? After all, if I don't like a composer, on what basis can I challenge another listener. My bias and their's are often going to be diametrically opposite. You can challenge a person's understanding of a work or of a composer's philosophy or anything where ambiguity reigns supreme.

I would hate a situation, and I have encountered this elsewhere, where my opinion of a piece of music is deemed "wrong" by another. If I find Britten, for example, to be dissonant and strident then I am right. But then the person who finds Britten's works to be melodious and mellifluous is also right (however unlikely that may be - only joking)

[Harry]

But that's one thing right there: it would appear that your idea of bad music is not my idea of bad music. So what are the purely musical grounds on which people can "challenge"? How do you challenge what someone likes?

Exactly my point too.

[Great Gable]

Imaginative usage of harmony, rhythm, structure, melodic design, orchestration, etc. that sets it apart from the ordinary.

I don't care if someone likes mediocre; just don't try to claim ordinary is "great".

But who is to judge which is mediocre and which is great? A consensus is not necessarily going to be a correct or incontrovertible point of view.

[Harry]

Imaginative usage of harmony, rhythm, structure, melodic design, orchestration, etc. that sets it apart from the ordinary.

I don't care if someone likes mediocre; just don't try to claim ordinary is "great".

Right, and which definitions you have of what is ordinary and mediocre, is it your personal opinion or something you think because all say so, and so say I?

[Larry Rinkel]

Clearly I find Dittersdorf's orchestral music to contain those things, otherwise I wouldn't like it. So why do others seem to not find the same thing, even though they're hearing the same exact music? And it's not mediocre, or ordinary, so if I claim Dittersdorf's Ovid Symphony #5 is great, I'm not claiming something mediocre is great. Actually, I think his best works are not to be found among his symphonies, other than Ovid #2 and Ovid #5.

Best works, or works you particularly like? So presumably if there are works you like better, there are features in them you would lay on the table in challenging someone who finds D.'s work inferior. And that's how it should be.

[Harry]

Entirely to the point, thank you.

The question is, which point.....

[JoshLilly]

Best works, or works you particularly like? So presumably if there are works you like better, there are features in them you would lay on the table in challenging someone who finds D.'s work inferior. And that's how it should be.

I can hope someone will listen fairly and like it. I hope this for two reasons:

1) Just to have someone else to talk to positively about it. Positive reinforcement may seem shallow but sometimes it's psychologically enjoyable, as I've found.

2) To get more of the CDs bought, so hopefully more will be made, and I'll have more to listen to.

Sadly, what you run into more here is upfront decisions on a composer, sometimes literally without even hearing one note. Even if you convince the person to listen, they've already had a pre-emptive negative feeling simmering in their head, which is virtually guaranteed to influence or even overwhelm their listening experience.

[Larry Rinkel]

How do you challenge what someone likes?

I don't challenge your liking it. But I don't believe liking something necessarily indicates its degree of merit. Example: I like The Mikado a great deal more than I like Parsifal. I would never claim The Mikado is the greater of the two works.

In fact, many of the works I consider greatest are not necessarily those I like most. The greatest ones scare me too much. I have to rise up to the occasion if I'm to listen to them, while more likable works can be put on in the background, or don't require the same concentration of mind.

[Larry Rinkel]

Sadly, what you run into more here is upfront decisions on a composer, sometimes literally without even hearing one note. Even if you convince the person to listen, they've already had a pre-emptive negative feeling simmering in their head, which is virtually guaranteed to influence or even overwhelm their listening experience.

Here you're just grinding an axe and making assumptions. Over the years I've investigated a number of pieces you've enthused over. Some have panned out, not all. For instance, had it not been for you I wouldn't have known the marvelous Vorisek Symphony, a work I always talk up when people want to explore the Classic period beyond H-M-B.

[johnQpublic]

But who is to judge which is mediocre and which is great? A

It's called "studying" the scores. Study and the answers shall be revealed.