Rejected, then Embraced! And Vice-Versa!

[Danny]

My list is actually quite similar. I only recently began to appreciate Schoenberg. Now that I've crossed that bridge, I've been on a bit of a binge. 

Hey, me too!  I can't get enough of Arnold now! 

[Steve]

I just purchased a great compilation on DG with Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg. Just a wonderful set. Any Schoenberg reccomendations, Danny?

[Cato]

I just purchased a great compilation on DG with Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg. Just a wonderful set. Any Schoenberg reccomendations, Danny?

I assume that is the compilation with Karajan?

Jakobsleiter is always highly recommended!

[Steve]

I assume that is the compilation with Karajan?

Jakobsleiter is always highly recommended!

Yes, it features HvK. Thanks for the recc. 

[Grazioso]

What I find disturbing on this forum is that fact that it is a crime to criticize any established composer but mocking less known composers is okay.  All Tchaikovsky works are supreme masterpieces and if the listener does not see that it is listener's fault. On the other hand, it's okay to totally ignore ALL works by such composers as Dittersdorf, Taneyev, Wolfrum, Bruhns, Fasch, Hasse, Torke and Rosenmüller to mention few. I apply exactly the same critisism to ALL composers because that's the right thing to do! I am not a fasist.

You conflate "holding an offbeat opinion" with "free thinking". Taste is not thought. If you don't like Tchaikovsky or whomever, no problem, but if you start making generalizations about the nature of his work on a classical music forum without supplying evidence, you're going to get called on it, if only to facilitate discussion instead of simple "I (dis)like X" posts.

And like Karl said, you're setting up a straw man. Maybe someone here does reflexively mock/ignore non-canonical composers and unthinkingly bow before the established "greats," but I haven't witnessed that, and I'm not one of them. I see rather the opposite, with a lot of enthusiasm here for exploring the byways of the classical music.

[karlhenning]

I both like, and mildly distrust, the market analogy, Steve & Steve;  I do enjoy how you've both worked it here.

The 'market' offers sound enough evidence that, by now (with centuries of cultural absorption), it would be most peculiar to 'buck the market' and claim that (say) Dittersdorf were a greater composer than (or even, as great a composer as) Mozart.  There's a case where the 'market' sustains a quasi "PepsiCo VS. Coca-Cola" comparison.

Across stylistic eras (and partly because a composer from 400 years ago has been part of the landscape to a degree impossible for a composer born 120 years ago), our musical market has less reliable tools for a comparison (unlike qualified metrics for comparing, to say at random, Caterpillar and Kimberley-Clark).  Perhaps it were something eccentric to claim that (say) Elgar is a composer equally great to Mozart.  Meanwhile, we know at least one virtual neighbor who will passionately aver that Elgar is not worthy to unlatch Dittersdorf's sandal 

[Steve]

I both like, and mildly distrust, the market analogy, Steve & Steve;  I do enjoy how you've both worked it here.

The 'market' offers sound enough evidence that, by now (with centuries of cultural absorption), it would be most peculiar to 'buck the market' and claim that (say) Dittersdorf were a greater composer than (or even, as great a composer as) Mozart.  There's a case where the 'market' sustains a quasi "PepsiCo VS. Coca-Cola" comparison.

Across stylistic eras (and partly because a composer from 400 years ago has been part of the landscape to a degree impossible for a composer born 120 years ago), our musical market has less reliable tools for a comparison (unlike qualified metrics for comparing, to say at random, Caterpillar and Kimberley-Clark).  Perhaps it were something eccentric to claim that (say) Elgar is a composer equally great to Mozart.  Meanwhile, we know at least one virtual neighbor who will passionately aver that Elgar is not worthy to unlatch Dittersdorf's sandal 

I'm only waiting for his response, Karl

[71 dB]

Either way, your comments should be substantiated with some justification. No one is preventing you from airing your preferences, but don't be alarmed when many people disagree. Attacking a canonical composer is difficult because vast numbers of people appreciate his work. While, you might believe that Chopin's music doesn't suit you, you have to understand that its in the standard repoitoire for a reason. While my opinion is no more valid than your's, by no means will that mean that you will have many members here who agree with you. Their thoughts are predicated on their experiences just as your's are.

Never confuse dislike with mockery. I may not appreciate some composers as wholeheartedly as you do, but I would never consider mocking their contributions to music.

I agree with you on this except that I want to bring up the idea that people tend to prefer already prefered things (imitation process). I think many people "force" themselves to like/prefer things others like too (feel of alliance). I think this happens if a person starts to listen music in early age. A young person doesn't have good judging ability. So, he/she starts to listen Beethoven and reads how good this composer was. The brain is programmed to prefer Beethoven and later this person has difficulties to realise Dittersdorf composer very good music too. It sounds non-Beethovenic and is declared inferior music for a stupid reason.

I started to listen to music when I was 18! Later I understood this was a good thing as I skipped all kind of naive things. I was old enough to have some judging ability. I treat all composet equally, they all have to earn my respect. Beethoven does not get bonus points and Dittersdorf is not ignored.

sometimes it may seem I mock some composers. I am only very critical. Generally all classical music is very good but I am very demanding. 95 % of all popular music is UTTER CRAP for me.

[71 dB]

Mozart really is better than Dittersdorf

Perhaps, but Dittersdorf does not enjoy the respect he deserves. Being second best doesn't mean you are bad. Listen to Dittersdorf's Giob. It's fantastic, surely better music than many works by Mozart.

[Steve]

I agree with you on this except that I want to bring up the idea that people tend to prefer already prefered things (imitation process). I think many people "force" themselves to like/prefer things others like too (feel of alliance). I think this happens if a person starts to listen music in early age. A young person doesn't have good judging ability. So, he/she starts to listen Beethoven and reads how good this composer was. The brain is programmed to prefer Beethoven and later this person has difficulties to realise Dittersdorf composer very good music too. It sounds non-Beethovenic and is declared inferior music for a stupid reason.

I started to listen to music when I was 18! Later I understood this was a good thing as I skipped all kind of naive things. I was old enough to have some judging ability. I treat all composet equally, they all have to earn my respect. Beethoven does not get bonus points and Dittersdorf is not ignored.

sometimes it may seem I mock some composers. I am only very critical. Generally all classical music is very good but I am very demanding. 95 % of all popular music is UTTER CRAP for me.

Yes, I do recall such a phenomenon from my Psychology course, but I must say, you still manage to fall into a hasty generalization fallacy. While that sort of "imitation" might be the cause some listener's proclivities, you say that "many" people here are guilty of this sort of thing. Where, Sir, is your evidence? I pointed out in my previous post, that canonical composers are generally appreciated by masses of people, and so calling them 'crap' will generally not sit to well here. I found that point to be rather uncontentious. Now, while you do agree about the mass support of canonical composers, you've invented a plausible explaination to account for it.

Your argument, if I understand correctly, refutes my market analogy, by accusing people of the inablility to make judgements about music for themselves. My friend, If that accusation has any ground whatsoever, you have failed to demonstrate it. You might have refuted my arguement with something along the lines of 'popularity is not a measure of greatness'. Now that argument could have weight. But, accusing people of being easily impressionable, simply does not. Especially, at this forum. Have you read the numerous, diverse, and intelligent responses on this board? This is a poor rhetorical scam on your part.

[71 dB]

Where, Sir, is your evidence?

Haydn, Beethoven and Mozart are significantly more popular composers than Dittersdorf. The tiny difference in the quality of music can't explain this huge difference.

Your argument, if I understand correctly, refutes my market analogy, by accusing people of the inablility to make judgements about music for themselves.

Well, people are bad at making judgements about music! People have tons of fixations about how things should be done in music. If something is done differently, people freak out and call that music bad. Musicality is a by-product of communication skills and pretty useless in evolutionary point of view. It shows! Only the most musical people understand something.

[Steve]

Haydn, Beethoven and Mozart are significantly more popular composers than Dittersdorf. The tiny difference in the quality of music can't explain this huge difference.

Well, people are bad at making judgements about music! People have tons of fixations about how things should be done in music. If something is done differently, people freak out and call that music bad. Musicality is a by-product of communication skills and pretty useless in evolutionary point of view. It shows! Only the most musical people understand something.

No, not what is your evidence of their popularity. The meaning of my statement was 'what is you evidence that we are being disingenuous.' That is not evidence! 'small difference in quality'!! Quality, is just another term here for preference which is entirely subjective. You might not appreciate Mozart as highly as I do, but that does not make my statement of his music any more reliable than yours. Who are you to decide that there is only a small difference in quality between Dittersorf and Mozart? You're scale of sophistication? That scale is entirely laughable.

Have you even considered the possiblily that more people simply appreicate the music of Mozart. Perhaps he is so popular, because there exists a vast difference in quality- one your scale could never detect.

[71 dB]

You might not appreciate Mozart as highly as I do.

Mozart is number 4 in my list of greatest composer ever. How high is he in your list?

Have you even considered the possiblily that more people simply appreicate the music of Mozart.

I don't just accept everything in the world if it does not make sense to me.

[Steve]

Mozart is number 4 in my list of greatest composer ever. How high is he in your list?

I don't just accept everything in the world if it does not make sense to me.

We aren't talking about scientific hypotheses, but rather people's musical preferences. No one needs a rational justification for enjoying a piece of music. I enjoy listening to Elgar, but I find my admiration for him is far less that that of Mahler, who is, probably my favorite composer. This is not something you will ever be able to 'accept' because we hve different tastes/preferences in music. If you consider sophistication, as an objective characteristic that can be quantified, than there can no debate on the topic. Months ago, I found the music of Arnold Schoenberg to be minimalist, and lacking in any real intrinsic complexity. Now, after some exposure to his music, my opion has entirely changed. The music is still the same, but I now consider sufficiently complicated to warrant repeated listening. Which perspective is correct? Neither is more correct than the other, of course. Schoenberg's music is neither intrinsically good or bad; that judgement is predicated upon the invidual tastes/preferences of each listener.

Once again, you may not see a great deal of difference in the quality of Dittersdorf and Mozart, but I do. Whereas the former has offered me some moments of pleasure, the latter has afforded countless hours of discovery. Perhaps someday, I will come to appreciate the music of Dittersdorf more than I do now. If I do, it will not be that I have arrived at a more valid judgement than I am at now.

Sophistication, Quality, Greatness, and Perfection, are all predicated not on a piece of music, but on the listener. As no two listeners experience music in the same fashion, there can be no one value of each of these characteristics for every composer. Your opinions, are no more valid than mine. Your formula may adequatley account for your preferences, but they cannot account for mine. Your theories, therefore, could only be verififable, if they accounted the preferences of every listener in the world. Trust me, many thinkers before you, (Aristotle, Plato, James...) have tried to arrive at a formula for the instric value of art, but none have succeeded. They failed because they were trying to objectify, characteristics which are inherantly subjective.

My opinons, and yours, are not verifiable scientific hypotheses, and so can never be demonstratably correct. Use your mathematical prowless as I do, to understand more about individual pieces, instead of wasting your time trying to objectify art. People's preferences are not for you to accept or reject.

[71 dB]

As a free thinker I can make only one conclusion:

My opinions and thoughs have no value to anyone except myself.

This makes me ask:

What is my place in this world if everything I say is nonsense to others?
What can I give to the world?

[mahlertitan]

As a free thinker I can make only one conclusion:

My opinions and thoughs have no value to anyone except myself.

This makes me ask:

What is my place in this world if everything I say is nonsense to others?
What can I give to the world?

endless frustration due to your apparent "free-thinking".

[71 dB]

endless frustration due to your apparent "free-thinking".

Yes, free thinking is frustrating. Occupational intellectual disease.

I "see" oddities everywhere, it's my sixth sense.

[karlhenning]

Meanwhile, back to the topic . . . .

I suppose I should add the Shostakovich First here.

The first time I heard the piece was live in Tallinn, Estonia, and it made no great impression on me.

Since then, I have seen the Light, of course  0:)

[Steve]

Meanwhile, back to the topic . . . .

I suppose I should add the Shostakovich First here.

The first time I heard the piece was live in Tallinn, Estonia, and it made no great impression on me.

Since then, I have seen the Light, of course  0:)

You mean the title of this forum wasn't 'intellectual skirmish' 


Karl, I would add 2 and 3 to that list. Until I heard the Jansons set, I really coudn't bring myself to listen to these.

[Cato]

We aren't talking about scientific hypotheses, but rather people's musical preferences. No one needs a rational justification for enjoying a piece of music. I enjoy listening to Elgar, but I find my admiration for him is far less that that of Mahler, who is, probably my favorite composer. This is not something you will ever be able to 'accept' because we hve different tastes/preferences in music. If you consider sophistication, as an objective characteristic that can be quantified, than there can no debate on the topic. Months ago, I found the music of Arnold Schoenberg to be minimalist, and lacking in any real intrinsic complexity. Now, after some exposure to his music, my opinion has entirely changed. The music is still the same, but I now consider sufficiently complicated to warrant repeated listening. Which perspective is correct? Neither is more correct than the other, of course. Schoenberg's music is neither intrinsically good or bad; that judgement is predicated upon the invidual tastes/preferences of each listener.

(My emphasis above)

In a sense it is the experience itself which has changed your judgment perhaps.  Walking away with a shrug and not returning to, in your example, Schoenberg's music, would prevent the possibility of a future embrace.

This is exactly parallel with how my wife and I met: she was actually somewhat hostile to me in our first meeting, because of some comments I made (which were true, but...) and for which she scolded me.  However, I did not shrug and walk away: this scolding made me wonder: "I wonder if that girl maybe likes me?"

Rejected, then embraced!  Many times since then!