Is the composer obsolete?

[eyeresist]

I think this is the first time ever I have seen anyone suggest that Tchaikovsky's music "lacks soul."

You do understand that, as a complaint, this is nonsense?  Insofar as we can determine soul content of the music, there is a broad consensus in space and time that the Concerto is amply supplied with soul.  If you don't get it, that's your look-out.

It is funny the rhetorical excesses people go to to denigrate a piece of music they don't like.

I was explaining my feelings about the piece, not denigrating it. I understand the consensus contradicts me, but as aesthetic matters are finally subjective, my opinion is not "nonsense". Or at least no more than any other opinion.

[some guy]

I was explaining my feelings about the piece, not denigrating it.

Really? Here is what you said.

It's Tchaikovsky at his most appallingly ingratiating, everything done to curry favour with the listener. It reminds me of one of those creepy Victorian dolls in its fine detail and rich materials, an elaborate presentation completely without soul.

None of that sounds like someone explaining their feelings. "Appallingly ingratiating" is what you say to describe Tchaikovsky. Like a "creepy Victorian doll" is how you describe the concerto, "an elaborate presentation completely without soul." Sounds very much like you're denigrating the piece.

I understand the consensus contradicts me, but as aesthetic matters are finally subjective, my opinion is not "nonsense". Or at least no more than any other opinion.

Would you mind terribly giving us the missing link (links) in this syllogism?

Premise: aesthetic matters are subjective.
Conclusion: my opinion is not "nonsense."

Without that (them) your claim about your opinion is nonsense. Even with them, perhaps. (I at least was unable to get logically from your statement that "aesthetic matters are subjective" to your conclusion that your "opinion is not 'nonsense'.")

[eyeresist]

Sounds very much like you're denigrating the piece.

Well, I was trying to express how I feel about the piece, but I wasn't deliberately insulting it.

Would you mind terribly giving us the missing link (links) in this syllogism?

I understand the consensus contradicts me, but as aesthetic matters are finally subjective, my opinion is not "nonsense". Or at least no more than any other opinion.

Premise: aesthetic matters are subjective.
Conclusion: my opinion is not "nonsense."

Without that (them) your claim about your opinion is nonsense. Even with them, perhaps. (I at least was unable to get logically from your statement that "aesthetic matters are subjective" to your conclusion that your "opinion is not 'nonsense'.")

Aesthetic phenomena have no independent, objective existence.
A statement on aesthetic matters may be consistent or inconsistent with itself or with other such statements, but cannot be correct or incorrect in the sense of truly or falsely describing the world.
Because statements on aesthetic matters relate to things whose independent existence cannot be verified, and are not falsifiable, we may describe them as "nonsense".

[DavidRoss]

Aesthetic phenomena have no independent, objective existence.
A statement on aesthetic matters may be consistent or inconsistent with itself or with other such statements, but cannot be correct or incorrect in the sense of truly or falsely describing the world.
Because statements on aesthetic matters relate to things whose independent existence cannot be verified, and are not falsifiable, we may describe them as "nonsense".

These statements fail to distinguish between aesthetic experience and aesthetic object.  Both are aesthetic phenomena.  One's subjective experience of an independent aesthetic object is conditioned by many things:  mood; sensitivity; external conditions like weather, lighting, acoustics; and--perhaps most significantly--education.  Pushpin is not the equal of poetry, as anyone familiar with both will confirm.  Insofar as your aesthetic statement describes an aesthetic object and not merely your experience of it, the statement is verifiable by reference to the body of knowledge regarding objects of its sort.

Those who know art, know that Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is a masterpiece and know why.  If an art-illiterate (illarterate?  ) fails to "get it," his report of his subjective experience says nothing about the painting and everything about him.

[Ten thumbs]

Today's composers, and there are many of them, do not have a coherent tradition upon which to build. All he or she can do is listen  to some of the things that are going on and try and bring out there own ideas as best they can. It seems to me fairly obvious that in this environment even composers of the stature of Beethoven, Mozart or Bach will be unable to make sufficient impression to mark them out as amongst the great. Therefore the fact that we cannot point them out is scarcely surprising. All we can say is that statistically the probability that composers of this stature not being alive today is incredibly small.
Composers will continue to compose because the compulsion to do so is irrepressible. However, they need to earn a living and somehow their work must be presented to the public in a way that promotes widespread discussion. At the moment this does not seem to be happening.

[some guy]

eyeresist,

Your original conclusion was that your opinions could not be called nonsense. Your revised conclusion was that all statements about aesthetic matters could be called nonsense. Hmmm.

Today's composers, and there are many of them, do not have a coherent tradition upon which to build.

Really? This is going to come as a big surprise to a lot of composers.

All he or she can do is listen to some of the things that are going on and try and bring out [their] own ideas as best they can.

Sounds a pretty sensible way to go about one's business. Does there need to be anything more?

It seems to me fairly obvious that in this environment even composers of the stature of Beethoven, Mozart or Bach will be unable to make sufficient impression to mark them out as amongst the great. Therefore the fact that we cannot point them out is scarcely surprising.

Oh, we can point them out all right. It's just that the people who ask this question aren't seriously asking for information. All they want (or at least all that they actually do) is to say "Oh, but those people aren't 'great' or 'well-known' or whatever." So no one who has sussed this is inclined to play their silly games with them.

Besides, all of that ignores another point, even more important, which is that "composers of the stature of Beethoven, Mozart or Bach" is a non-statement. (Try a little experiment. Ask the esteemed members if Beethoven is of the stature of Bach and see what kinds of responses you'll get!)

All we can say is that statistically the probability that composers of this stature not being alive today is incredibly small.

If I have successfully maneuvered my way through this wee labyrinth, what you just said is that it's very likely that composers of Bach's stature are alive today. Is that what you meant to say? You didn't seem to be leading up to that conclusion, anyway!

Composers will continue to compose because the compulsion to do so is irrepressible. However, they need to earn a living and somehow their work must be presented to the public in a way that promotes widespread discussion. At the moment this does not seem to be happening.

Wait a tick! What are we doing at this moment? We're not widespread enough for you? Some of us are very widespread indeed, bucko! I must weigh at least 385 pounds by myself.*

*Joke. I'm only 185 stripped. The other 200 come from the body armor I put on to engage in these ferocious battles.

[karlhenning]

Today's composers, and there are many of them, do not have a coherent tradition upon which to build.

There is a rich variety of tradition;  it does in large part cohere, but it is not at all monolithic.

And, in general, artist have always exercised a creatively selective view of the past.  I don't see the present 'scene' in composition as the 'fatal break' from the past which a lot of alarmists fondly imagine they see.

[prémont]

I think this is the first time ever I have seen anyone suggest that Tchaikovsky's music "lacks soul."

But what is "soul" in a musical context? This very word makes the name of Ray Charles spring to my mind.

[karlhenning]

But what is "soul" in a musical context? This very word makes the name of Aretha Franklin spring to my mind.

Interesting; it does not thus spring to mine, though I am American.

[prémont]

I can write Ray Charles instead, - he may be better known, even in the USA.

[DavidRoss]

But what is "soul" in a musical context? This very word makes the name of Ray Charles spring to my mind.

Yep, that's it.  If it has soul, it speaks to the whole being, not just to the poor, retarded little corner of the mind known as the intellect.

[prémont]

Yep, that's it.  If it has soul, it speaks to the whole being, not just to the poor, retarded little corner of the mind known as the intellect.

Strange, because I think the Tchaikovsky Piano concerto has got a lot of body, but soul....?

[zamyrabyrd]

In view of the recording and computer revolution in music, wouldn't "performer as obsolete" be the more relevant question?

(ducking for cover)

[Christo]

(ducking for cover)

Aaaahh, missed! 

[Ten thumbs]

Really? This is going to come as a big surprise to a lot of composers.

If I have successfully maneuvered my way through this wee labyrinth, what you just said is that it's very likely that composers of Bach's stature are alive today. Is that what you meant to say? You didn't seem to be leading up to that conclusion, anyway!

Wait a tick! What are we doing at this moment? We're not widespread enough for you? Some of us are very widespread indeed, bucko! I must weigh at least 385 pounds by myself.*

*Joke. I'm only 185 stripped. The other 200 come from the body armor I put on to engage in these ferocious battles.

Point one above is quite clear to me having tried my hand at composing. There are a great many avenues that one can follow and no single coherent style.
Point two - exactly so. Its all perfectly logical.
Point three - I suggest some form of rapid transport system, or maybe cluster bombs.

[petrarch]

Point one above is quite clear to me having tried my hand at composing. There are a great many avenues that one can follow and no single coherent style.

Define coherent and define style, please. Is serialism not coherent? Is spectralism not coherent?

[karlhenning]

I can write Ray Charles instead, - he may be better known, even in the USA.

Oh, I know of both Aretha Franklin and Ray Charles;  my awareness of the word soul is larger than their corner of the musical world 

[greg]

The answer to the next 7 questions on this thread:

0. yes
1. yes
2. no
3. yesno
4. what does that have to do with anything?
5. Elgar
6.
6.5. ....

[Renfield]

The answer to the next 7 questions on this thread:

0. yes
1. yes
2. no
3. yesno
4. what does that have to do with anything?
5. Elgar
6.
6.5. ....

42. Never forget 42.

[greg]

42. Never forget 42.

Why is 44 scared of 42? Because 42 43 44.


(use your imagination with "43", i'm sure you could come up with something, like how it looks, maybe.......)