There's some music out there that I care for, and then there is music that I don't care for so much, and could do without.
I care for:
http://www.youtube.com/v/Fo0K_n3VLG4&feature=related
I don't care for:
http://www.youtube.com/v/4Ud_wGMXRnQ
Are you comparing composers or music?
What's the difference?
Quote from: Saul on June 21, 2010, 07:28:41 PM
What's the difference?
A composer is a human being, and piece of music is a bunch of black marks on a piece of paper.
It is quite possible to like a work by a given composer without feeling the same way about everything written by that composer. I'm not thrilled with the Rach 2, but there are other pieces by Rachmaninoff that I enjoy a lot.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 21, 2010, 08:38:44 PM
A composer is a human being, and piece of music is a bunch of black marks on a piece of paper.
It is quite possible to like a work by a given composer without feeling the same way about everything written by that composer. I'm not thrilled with the Rach 2, but there are other pieces by Rachmaninoff that I enjoy a lot.
I'm talking about composers in the context of their music, I thought that this was obvious.
Quote from: Saul on June 21, 2010, 09:03:12 PM
I'm talking about composers in the context of their music, I thought that this was obvious.
Whatever. So where are you going with this comparison?
Quote from: Saul on June 21, 2010, 06:42:37 PM
There's some music out there that I care for, and then there is music that I don't care for so much, and could do without.
I loved the Rachmaninov clip, very romantic, exciting and beautiful (I wish it had better sound quality) I didn't care much for the Bach clip you provided.
Symphonic Dances is my favorite composition by Rachmaninov
http://www.youtube.com/v/TF1pGMsxX5M
Quote from: Scarpia on June 21, 2010, 08:38:44 PM
and piece of music is a bunch of black marks on a piece of paper.
No, a piece of music is a series of predetermined pitches of chosen duration, volume, and articulation, usually but not always intended for some specific instrument(s).
The "black marks on a piece of paper" are merely one way of recording a set of instructions for playing the piece of music, but they aren't the only way. Memory is another way, and encoding the pitches, durations etc into a computer is a further way. The primacy of the sound over its notation is paramount - the music has a life independent of its notation, and could continue to exist without its notation. Composers from Landini to Handel to Paganini to Zappa have avoided notating their more advanced compositions, for varying reasons.
Your description of "music" could equally apply to Stendhal's THE RED & THE BLACK, a supermarket bar-code for parsnips, or Rowlandson's cartoon about gas street-lighting. These things may each be fine in their own way, but none of them are music, nor make any claims to be music ;)
Let us be careful not to mistake a magnificent train journey through the French Alps for the ticket that allows you to board the train ;)
QuoteA composer is a human being, and piece of music is a bunch of black marks on a piece of paper.
WHAT?
Quote
No, a piece of music is a series of predetermined pitches of chosen duration, volume, and articulation, usually but not always intended for some specific instrument(s).
JEEZ! I'm outta here
Quote from: Bulldog on June 21, 2010, 09:28:50 PM
Whatever. So where are you going with this comparison?
As I think about it more deeply, I come to the conclusion that much of the music written after Chopin's time is completely worthless.
The Rachmaninov music is narcissistic autobiographical nonsense and a total waste of time. The Music of Bach and his famous contemporaries and those who came after them who adhered to the traditional forms and styles of harmony and counterpoint and melody, such as Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn and to some extend Brahms and the latest Grieg is what I call real and meaningful classical music. Almost everything else and that's including the Music of Mahler, Prokofiev and Shostakovich is utterly worthless music. That's not even mentioning the worthlessness of the modernists and the atonalists, such as Schoenberg and Webern among others who wrote the poorest music, and its a shame that their music is included within 'classical music'.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 02:42:18 AM
As I think about it more deeply, I come to the conclusion that much of the music written after Chopin's time is completely worthless.
The Rachmaninov music is narcissistic autobiographical nonsense and a total waste of time. The Music of Bach and his famous contemporaries and those who came after them who adhered to the traditional forms and styles of harmony and counterpoint and melody, such as Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn and to some extend Brahms and the latest Grieg is what I call real and meaningful classical music. Almost everything else and that's including the Music of Mahler, Prokofiev and Shostakovich is utterly worthless music. That's not even mentioning the worthlessness of the modernists and the atonalists, such as Schoenberg and Webern among others who wrote the poorest music, and its a shame that their music is included within 'classical music'.
What about Bloch?
Quote from: Guido on June 22, 2010, 03:25:45 AM
What about Bloch?
Yes, him too. After Chopin and Grieg basically much of the music is worthless.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 03:37:38 AM
Yes, him too. After Chopin and Grieg basically much of the music is worthless.
Yours included, I presume.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 02:42:18 AM
As I think about it more deeply, I come to the conclusion that much of the music written after Chopin's time is completely worthless.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I just wish you'd share it less.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 02:42:18 AM
As I think about it more deeply, I come to the conclusion that much of the music written after Chopin's time is completely worthless.
Sounds like deep thinking is not one of your strengths. ::)
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 02:42:18 AM
As I think about it more deeply, I come to the conclusion that much of the music written after Chopin's time is completely worthless.
Quote from: Dax on June 22, 2010, 12:26:58 AM
WHAT?JEEZ! I'm outta here
A sensible decision...I'm not staying either.
Sarge
Saul, if you spent more time and thought on which opinions you made public, you might get more respect.
Quote from: Saul on June 21, 2010, 06:42:37 PMThere's some music out there that I care for, and then there is music that I don't care for so much, and could do without.
None of that is about the music; it's all about Saul. People who are interested in Saul might find that expression interesting, but this is a music board, not a Saul board. Ask yourself this, who cares what I care for and what I don't care for? If the answer is "Saul," then that opinion probably isn't for public consumption.
Also, it might help to support your opinions. Even a good opinion is valueless without support. What is the evidence that music went into a permanent decline after Chopin? And if the evidence is "Saul's biasses," then that's not very supportive support. I think one could make a case that music after Berlioz went into a decline that didn't really turn until Ives--a case that goes against some of my biasses, just by the way--but to make that case, you'd have to marshal evidence about compositional styles and practices. You'd have to argue that the greats between 1860 and 1910 weren't really advancing the boundaries of music in the same way that the greats of 1760 to 1810 were. (And you'd have to argue that "advancing the boundaries of music" is a good thing and must always be happening. No time off for a decade or two!!)
And you'd have to deal with Richard Wagner at the very least.
I'm not going to make that case, myself. I just bring it up to illustrate that expressing and supporting valid opinions is a lot of work and involves more that just making empty and highly personal assertions.
And thank you for this opportunity to remember my days teaching freshman writing!! :-*
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 22, 2010, 08:45:03 AM
A sensible decision...I'm not staying either.
Great! Bye!
Quote from: Florestan on June 22, 2010, 05:19:54 AM
Yours included, I presume.
Yes, a good part of it, I have written over 60 works, and I only value about a third of them. Those works that sound classical and were built on classical forms and styles, the rest I would say are just studies.
As I said the adventurous departure by many composers after Chopin and Grieg, resulted in much poorly written music.
There was plenty of poorly written music before Chopin and Grieg too (Chopin and Grieg aren't contemporaries of each other, you know, btw). There's always plenty of poorly-written music. But I don't think you mean poorly-written; I think you mean 'stuff you don't like'.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 02:42:18 AM
As I think about it more deeply,
You lost me after that.
Quote from: Luke on June 22, 2010, 01:26:16 PM
There was plenty of poorly written music before Chopin and Grieg too (Chopin and Grieg aren't contemporaries of each other, you know, btw). There's always plenty of poorly-written music. But I don't think you mean poorly-written; I think you mean 'stuff you don't like'.
There is plenty of music that I don't like. Some of it is just music that I haven't gotten around to liking yet, and perhaps never will, time being limited. And some music seems to me of limited worth, produced for a commercial purpose or in pursuit of fashion or high dogma. Yet even in egregious cases I hesitate to say such music is worthless. The most I'd be willing to say is that persons of wide experience will not get much from it. For classical music that has survived for a century or more I wouldn't dream of putting it in a category like that, no matter how uninteresting it might be for me.
Quote from: Luke on June 22, 2010, 01:26:16 PM
There was plenty of poorly written music before Chopin and Grieg too (Chopin and Grieg aren't contemporaries of each other, you know, btw). There's always plenty of poorly-written music. But I don't think you mean poorly-written; I think you mean 'stuff you don't like'.
I mean to say that whatever music was composed after these composers, just doesnt match in anyway with the Greats. And I believe that this is the case because they departed from the Traditional classical forms.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 01:43:01 PM
I mean to say that whatever music was composed after these composers, just doesnt match in anyway with the Greats. And I believe that this is the case because they departed from the Traditional classical forms.
The classical forms weren't
traditional when Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven were using them. They were inventing them as they went along. Clearly you prefer music from that era, and you have confuse your own preference with the quality of the music itself.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 22, 2010, 01:45:43 PM
The classical forms weren't traditional when Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven were using them. They were inventing them as they went along. Clearly you prefer music from that era, and you have confuse your own preference with the quality of the music itself.
I believe that it has to do with greatness too. No serious musician or music student will tell you that Rachmaninov was greater then Beethoven.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 03:37:38 AM
Yes, him too. After Chopin and Grieg basically much of the music is worthless.
Worthless to you, but not to me and others who
LOVE late romantic and modern classical music. Not big on Chopin but Grieg is one of my favorite composers along with Sibelius, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky and hundreds of other composers born after 1800. I personally feel orchestral music GREATLY improved after Rimsky-Korsakov as composers started using the orchestral as a musical canvas giving us much more colorful music. In short I love and adore what you feel is worthless.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 01:51:24 PM
Worthless to you, but not to me and others who LOVE late romantic and modern classical music. Not big on Chopin but Grieg is one of my favorite composers along with Sibelius, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky and hundreds of other composers born after 1800. I personally feel orchestral music GREATLY improved after Rimsky-Korsakov as composers started using the orchestral as a musical canvas giving up much more colorful music. In short I love and adore what you feel is worthless.
I have never said that it was more then an opinion.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 01:51:02 PM
I believe that it hasto do with greatness too.No serious musician or music student will tell you that Rachmaninov was greater then Beethoven.
OK I will, I play Guitar and Piano, compose Folk and Classical music and without any doubt whatsoever will say that Rachmaninov is a FAR greater composer than Beethoven! The greatness of Rachmaninov's Symphonies and Symphonic Poems have never been surpassed by anyone IMHO.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 01:51:02 PM
I believe that it hasto do with greatness too.No serious musician or music student will tell you that Rachmaninov was greater then Beethoven.
Most serious students of music waste little or no time with such comparisons. It's fun to do lists and rankings on a forum (I think so, anyway) but it has little relevance to the pleasures of listening, where you may want to hear a wide variety of music without bothering very much about rankings.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 01:57:26 PM
OK I will, I play Guitar and Piano, compose Folk and Classical music and without any doubt whatsoever will say that Rachmaninov is a FAR greater composer than Beethoven! The greatness of Rachmaninov's Symphonies and Symphonic Poems have never been surpassed by anyone IMHO.
So you rate composers according to how much you like them. So do I, in an informal sense. I do more than that, though, and so do many others. Many of us consider how widely composers have affected music lovers over time, and how they have influenced the course of music. Besides, if greatness is just equal to what you like there isn't much to think deeply about, is there? It's great because you like it, you like it because it's great.
I have a question about that simple equation. How is it that you learn to love new music that you did not value before? Has the music suddenly become great? What if you cease to find it interesting? Has it acquired the objective property of worthlessness?
* *(OK, that's 3 questions. So what?? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif))
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 01:57:26 PM
OK I will, I play Guitar and Piano, compose Folk and Classical music and without any doubt whatsoever will say that Rachmaninov is a FAR greater composer than Beethoven! The greatness of Rachmaninov's Symphonies and Symphonic Poems have never been surpassed by anyone IMHO.
The Masters of the Baroque and Classical era are just the greatest. All others composers who came after them acknowledge that not because they were humble but because they knew it to be true, it wasn't a statement of an opinion, but it was an acknowledgment of fact. And if you pay close attention, all those Romantic composers who came after the classical era and composed their music in accordance to the classical style and form, are far greater composers in quality then those who didn't. Mendelssohn for example was a purist and composed his music in the style of the Baroque and Classical masters, of course he had his own unique style but it was largely built upon the greats. They were his foundations when it came to composing music, this is why Mendelssohn is by far a superior composer then rachmaninov, precisely because of that, the crystal clarity and vividness and astonishing logic and pureness of his 3rd and 4th symphonies overpowers anything that Rachmaninov produced, and even Rach would have told you the same thing. Brahms, a romantic composer also attuned his works to the examples of the greats, and therefore he is a greater composer then Rachmaninov.
Rachmaninov is all about passion, lots of notes and little content, almost a banal in a sense, this is why Arthur Rubinstein said famously that Rachmaninov's music lacks Nobility. And I totally agree with it.
Also its not only about liking one type of music over the other, but understanding the quality of music and how it was composed. Classical music written by the greats was thought out way more then any modern music beginning with Rachmaninov. His third piano concerto for example, is a total banal, while his second concerto is totally un interesting and boring. I didn't have the urge to listen to these concertos for a long time... I mean who wants to go through his autobiographical sketches that lack, unity, form and exhibit an unrestrained passion, even Liszt knew how to dress those un controlled musical ballistic urges with a solid classical framework. And I don't even want to go and talk about Prokofiev and Poulenc, I mean the music that they have written would have made the Greats roll in laughter at best, or in disgust at worst.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 01:52:53 PM
I have never said that it was more then an opinion.
And an opinion based on nothing but personal preference. You, Teresa, and a few other members keep singing the same song - If I love it, it's great; If I don't like it, it's not worthy. That's a child-like attitude where each of you is the center of the universe.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 22, 2010, 02:20:34 PM
And an opinion based on nothing but personal preference. You, Teresa, and a few other members keep singing the same song - If I love it, it's great; If I don't like it, it's not worthy. That's a child-like attitude where each of you is the center of the universe.
Happy news for you (I hope)
EVERYONE is the center of their own universe. And everyone loves what they love. If that is child-like, let us all remain children until the end of our days!
Finally what I love is great to me, what I do not love is not worthy. By the same token what you love is great to you, what you do not love is not worthy. This is the way the world is.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 02:15:29 PM
Rachmaninov is all about passion, lots of notes and little content, almost a banal in a sense, this is why Arthur Rubinstein said famously that Rachmaninov's music lacks Nobility. And I totally agree with it.
It didn't lack notes, though. Rubenstein played them well, too. I seriously doubt that he thought the music was worthless. And if, against all reason, he did think that, I would think his own contributions would render that judgment plainly false.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BnsdlZ9kL._SS400_.jpg)
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 02:29:42 PM
Happy news for you (I hope) EVERYONE is the center of their own universe. And everyone loves what they love. If that is child-like, let us all remain children until the end of our days!
Finally what I love is great to me, what I do not love is not worthy. By the same token what you love is great to you, what you do not love is not worthy. This is the way the world is.
You are confusing child-like with childish.
Quote from: drogulus on June 22, 2010, 02:34:52 PM
It didn't lack notes, though. Rubenstein played them well, too. I seriously doubt that he thought the music was worthless. And if, against all reason, he did think that, I would think his own contributions would render that judgment plainly false.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BnsdlZ9kL._SS400_.jpg)
Yes this is a fact, that pianists sometimes perform music that they are not really excited about because performing them is important for them as pianists.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 02:29:42 PM
Happy news for you (I hope) EVERYONE is the center of their own universe. And everyone loves what they love. If that is child-like, let us all remain children until the end of our days!
Finally what I love is great to me, what I do not love is not worthy. By the same token what you love is great to you, what you do not love is not worthy. This is the way the world is.
You're partly right, but the part you're wrong about is too important to ignore since it's central to claims about the value of art, which is both personally and socially derived. So I'd say that
this is the way the world seems, and it's a discovery that everyone must make that there is a world outside of ones seemings, and aesthetic values exist in that world in addition to the seemingly private one.
Here's an example of banality:
http://www.youtube.com/v/cC4kJiTHTtQ
Quote from: drogulus on June 22, 2010, 02:13:27 PM
So you rate composers according to how much you like them. So do I, in an informal sense. I do more than that, though, and so do many others. Many of us consider how widely composers have affected music lovers over time, and how they have influenced the course of music. Besides, if greatness is just equal to what you like there isn't much to think deeply about, is there? It's great because you like it, you like it because it's great.
I have a question about that simple equation. How is it that you learn to love new music that you did not value before? Has the music suddenly become great? What if you cease to find it interesting? Has it acquired the objective property of worthlessness?*
*(OK, that's 3 questions. So what?? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif))
I either like or dislike music on first hearing it. Sometimes I even love music on first exposure and sometimes it takes many playings to fall in-love with a composition. Also sometimes if I only slightly like a composition on first hearing, after repeated hearings I turn out I do not like it after all. Generally I know for sure within five playings. And for some works such as Prokofiev's Scythian Suite or Nielsen's Aladdin Suite that love continues to grow stronger over many decades.
That music that is not worth listening to is what I consider unworthy to me, it will be different for other listeners depending on how they FEEL about the music under consideration. Each listener will choose the music they like.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 02:29:42 PM
Finally what I love is great to me, what I do not love is not worthy. By the same token what you love is great to you, what you do not love is not worthy. This is the way the world is.
Please don't take your personal views and assign them to me. I don't think like you do; consider it a fact.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 22, 2010, 03:03:59 PM
Please don't take your personal views and assign them to me. I don't think like you do; consider it a fact.
Are you trying to tell me what you love is NOT great to you, what you do not love is SOMEHOW worthy to you? That makes no sense whatsoever to me!
My logical statement applies to the majority of human race, people like what they like and do not like what they do not like. The only exception would he masochists.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 03:13:25 PM
Are you trying to tell me what you love is NOT great to you, what you do not love is SOMEHOW worthy? That makes no sense whatsoever to me!
You're such a rigid thinker.
The best example I can offer as to how we differ would be my views on Vivaldi's music. I don't enjoy it much, so I rarely listen to it. Is it worthy music? I would have to say yes, since so many folks do love it. I simply conclude that Vivaldi and I are not a good match - we don't connect.
Your views on Mozart's music are quite different. You don't enjoy it so you reach the conclusion that it isn't worthy. Everything about you screams "ME ONLY".
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 03:13:25 PM
Are you trying to tell me what you love is NOT great to you, what you do not love is SOMEHOW worthy? That makes no sense whatsoever to me!
My logical statement applies to the majority of human race, people like what they like and do not like what they do not like. The only exception would he masochists.
No, your views are simply yours. It is a sure sign of self-absorption when anyone sets themself up as the spokesperson for humanity. There are many people who do not think like you, who are aware of the music they love but do not leap to the equation "I love it = greatness; I do not like it = unworthy" - in fact I could not describe a way of thinking I find less like mine than the one you claim as your own.
Why can't you be satisfied with saying "I love composer X" and not add anything about whether you think he is great or not? I can imagine that GMG folks may be interested in the composers whose music you like, but are immediately turned off when you go on to denigrate other composers you don't like as worthless, etc., because they are in all likelihood loved by someone, or most, on this forum and just as you might find it bothersome to constantly be told that a composer you love is worthless, please don't tell us that about our own favorites.
And if you were to reply that you don't care if someone denigrates a composer you love - just accept that it is generally considered impolite to insult someone's taste over and over.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 22, 2010, 03:20:24 PM
You're such a rigid thinker.
The best example I can offer as to how we differ would be my views on Vivaldi's music. I don't enjoy it much, so I rarely listen to it. Is it worthy music? I would have to say yes, since so many folks do love it. I simply conclude that Vivaldi and I are not a good match - we don't connect.
Your views on Mozart's music are quite different. You don't enjoy it so you reach the conclusion that it isn't worthy. Everything about you screams "ME ONLY".
You are LETTING other peoples likes and dislikes influence your judgement of Vivaldi or any other composer you do not like. STAND UP FOR YOURSELF, do not be taken in by other peoples opinions. If you do not like something, you do not like it and it can NEVER be great to you no matter how hard you try.
Music is ME ONLY to every single person living on Planet Earth, whither they are honest with themselves or not. Let other people decide what is GREAT for them.
My views on Mozart are shared by many composers and musicians, but they are personal opinions all. Every opinion about classical music greatness, worthness, etc. is all personal opinion, every single word uttered by anyone. However many love Mozart and for his fans he is great but not for us. The Anti-Mozart League (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-mozart-league.html)
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 02:41:19 PM
Here's an example of banality:
http://www.youtube.com/v/cC4kJiTHTtQ
I've enjoyed that music for many years. Me thinks that the banality comes entirely from you.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 03:41:36 PM
You are LETTING other peoples likes and dislikes influence your judgement of Vivaldi or any other composer you do not like. STAND UP FOR YOURSELF, do not be taken in my other peoples opinions. If you do not something, you do not like it and it can NEVER be great to you no matter how hard you try.
Music is ME ONLY to every single person living on Planet Earth, whither they are honest with themselves or not. Let other people decide what is GREAT for them.
My views on Mozart are shared by many composers and musicians, but they are personal opinions all. Ever opinion about classical music greatness, worthness, etc. is all personal opinion, every single word uttered by anyone. However many love Mozart and for his fans he is great but not for us. http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-mozart-league.html (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-mozart-league.html)
Zero comments to your blog and all of 22 members on the Facebook anti-Mozart group.
You have a lot of work to do before you can speak for the entire human race.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 22, 2010, 03:48:01 PM
I've enjoyed that music [Poulenc Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra] for many years.
Totally agree. Actually I had never heard this performance and listened to all three movements on YouTube. It's quite a treasure (early 1960s?), with Francis Poulenc himself and Jacques Février on pianos, and the Orchestra National de la RTF conducted by Georges Prêtre. Saucy, delicious stuff--hardly banal--and I bet the audience went nuts at the end.
--Bruce
Quote from: Franco on June 22, 2010, 03:27:09 PM
No, your views are simply yours. It is a sure sign of self-absorption when anyone sets themself up as the spokesperson for humanity. There are many people who do not think like you, who are aware of the music they love but do not leap to the equation "I love it = greatness; I do not like it = unworthy" - in fact I could not describe a way of thinking I find less like mine than the one you claim as your own.
Why can't you be satisfied with saying "I love composer X" and not add anything about whether you think he is great or not? I can imagine that GMG folks may be interested in the composers whose music you like, but are immediately turned off when you go on to denigrate other composers you don't like as worthless, etc., because they are in all likelihood loved by someone, or most, on this forum and just as you might find it bothersome to constantly be told that a composer you love is worthless, please don't tell us that about our own favorites.
And if you were to reply that you don't care if someone denigrates a composer you love - just accept that it is generally considered impolite to insult someone's taste over and over.
Yes my views are my own, as are everyone else's views. Greatness, enjoyment, love are all personal opinions, DO NOT LET ANYONE TRY TO CONVINCE YOU OTHERWISE. If they do run far, far away as they are bullying you.
My statement was "
what you love is great to you, what you do not love is not worthy to you", where is that in error? And as I said it applies to the ENTIRE human race unless you are a masochist.
BTW greatness is the finest compliment that one can endow on a beloved composer or composition.
You are wrong I have not denigrated a single composer in this thread, only gave examples of why composers born after 1800 are worthy of consideration. However it is up to the listener to decide what they themselves like.
In all fairness I DO NOT understand how you can disagree with
"people like what they like and do not like what they do not like". Are you just disagreeable today?
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 03:41:36 PM
You are LETTING other peoples likes and dislikes influence your judgement of Vivaldi or any other composer you do not like. STAND UP FOR YOURSELF, do not be taken in my other peoples opinions. If you do not something, you do not like it and it can NEVER be great to you no matter how hard you try.
Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. I've already stated that I don't like Vivaldi's music and rarely listen to it. So obviously, my personal world of music is not influenced by what others say or think about his works. What I refuse to do is routinely dump on composers I don't like. You need to stop taking your personal preferences and objectify them; frankly, you aren't up to the task (very few are).
Quote from: Franco on June 22, 2010, 03:49:10 PM
Zero comments to your blog and all of 22 members on the Facebook anti-Mozart group.
You have a lot of work to do before you can speak for the entire human race.
What does Mozart have to do the belief that people like what they like? Some people love Mozart, some people like Mozart and some people hate Mozart. I can live with all of that. What I cannot live with is people who try to push their likes on others.
Other than people who like to torture themselves I do not know of anyone who loves to listen to music they do not like. Thus my logical statement applies to the majority of human race, people like what they like and do not like what they do not like. In addition what they love is great to them, what they do not love is not worthy to them, the only exception would he masochists. And that IS NOT speaking for the entire human race, it is just pure simple logic.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 03:58:27 PM
Yes my views are my own, as are everyone else's views. Greatness, enjoyment, love are all personal opinions, DO NOT LET ANYONE TRY TO CONVINCE YOU OTHERWISE. If they do run far, far away as they are bullying you.
Actually, "greatness" is not a personal opinion.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 03:58:27 PMMy statement was "what you love is great to you, what you do not love is not worthy to you", where is that in error? And as I said it applies to the ENTIRE human race unless you unless you are a masochist.
The error is confusing your personal opinion with an objective critical judgment of greatness. I don't use the language you wish to attirbute to the entire human race to describe the music I love, I simply say I like it and do not include any mention of greatness.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 03:58:27 PMYou are wrong I have not denigrated a single composer in this thread, only gave examples of why composers born after 1800 are worthy of consideration. However it is up to the listener to decide what they themselves like.
You have denigrated Mozart but referring to him as a worthless composer. Now maybe he is worthless to you, but your opinion means nothing to the consensus critical judgment that Mozart is one of the greatest composer to have lived. At some point, it may dawn on you that the world is not your oyster.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 03:58:27 PMIn all fairness I DO NOT understand how you can disagree with "people like what they like and do not like what they do not like". Are you just disagreeable today?
I don't disagree with that sentence. I disagree with your confusing your opinion about a composer with that composer's intrinsic worth - which is not up to you to decide, that judgment is made by history.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 22, 2010, 03:59:06 PM
Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. I've already stated that I don't like Vivaldi's music and rarely listen to it. So obviously, my personal world of music is not influenced by what others say or think about his works. What I refuse to do is routinely dump on composers I don't like. You need to stop taking your personal preferences and objectify them; frankly, you aren't up to the task (very few are).
I know very well what I am taking about! If you are NOT letting others influence your opinion, then you agree that people listen to what they like and do not listen to what they do not like. Also greatness, musical enjoyment, etc. are all personal opinions.
You are just shy about letting your feelings about composers known.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 04:10:28 PM
What does Mozart have to do the belief that people like what they like? Some people love Mozart, some people like Mozart and some people hate Mozart. I can live with all of that. What I cannot live with is people who try to push their likes on others.
Nobody is trying to push their likes on you. It's when you take a subjective preference and try to objectify it that some fellow posters react negatively to your illogical and inconsiderate meanderings.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 04:21:54 PM
I know very well what I am taking about! If you are NOT letting others influence your opinion, then you agree that people listen to what they like and do not listen to what they do not like. Also greatness, musical enjoyment, etc. are all personal opinions.
You are just shy about letting your feelings about composers known.
Let me be upfront about one thing - I think you're an idiot.
Quote from: Franco on June 22, 2010, 04:16:50 PM
Actually, "greatness" is not a personal opinion.
ACTUALLY
GREATNESS is highly personal and differs with every listener!
QuoteYou have denigrated Mozart but referring to him as a worthless composer. Now maybe he is worthless to you, but your opinion means nothing to the consensus critical judgment that Mozart is one of the greatest composer to have lived. At some point, it may dawn on you that the world is not your oyster.
He is worthless to me and others who do not enjoy his music, why you have such a hard time with this I will never understand? No composer is the greatest composer who ever lived to everyone as greatest is HIGHLY PERSONAL, see above!
QuoteI don't disagree with that sentence. I disagree with your confusing your opinion about a composer with that composer's intrinsic worth - which is not up to you to decide, that judgment is made by history.
A composer only has worth if he is enjoyed by the listener. History is good for group consensus by not for individual listeners. Individual listeners must make their own decisions. It's called
FREEDOM!!!
Quote from: Bulldog on June 22, 2010, 04:26:49 PM
Nobody is trying to push their likes on you. It's when you take a subjective preference and try to objectify it that some fellow posters react negatively to your illogical and inconsiderate meanderings.
I have NEVER done what you are saying, my personal opinions have alway been my personal opinions. I have indeed defended everyone to be able to express their personal opinions even when they disagree with mine.
I BELIEVE IN FREEDOM!Also I try to be as logical as possible, and make corrections when I am in error. So point me to any illogical statement I have made and I will revisit it.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 22, 2010, 04:34:06 PM
Let me be upfront about one thing - I think you're an idiot.
Is English your second language or are you just mean and nasty? I think you have a very hard time understanding simple logic, but I would never call you names. I am willing to help you understand, but you are wearing my patience thin.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 04:41:29 PM
Also I try to be as logical as possible, and make corrections when I am in error. So point me to any illogical statement I have made and I will revisit it.
Let's start with your reply #515 on the Mozart thread.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 04:44:47 PM
Is English your second language or are you just mean and nasty? I think you have a very hard time understanding simple logic, but I would never call you names. I am willing to help you understand, but you are wearing my patience thin.
I think it's great that your patience is wearing thin. What are you going to do about it?
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 04:44:47 PM
Is English your second language or are you just mean and nasty? I think you have a very hard time understanding simple logic, but I would never call you names. I am willing to help you understand, but you are wearing my patience thin.
He's just refusing to be shy about letting his feelings about you known.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 22, 2010, 03:48:01 PM
I've enjoyed that music for many years. Me thinks that the banality comes entirely from you.
Its entirely possible to enjoy banality, case in point Picasso, but that doesn't make it great.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 04:36:32 PM
ACTUALLY GREATNESS is highly personal and differs with every listener!
Teresa,
I would say that this statement is false because some things are not a matter of argument.
For example take the concept of music in general without the different various streams and styles, if one would have an 'opinion' that music is worthless, that opinion would be considered idiotic by the intelligent communities of the world.
One could favor or dislike a great composer , but no one can take away his greatness.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 04:36:32 PM
ACTUALLY GREATNESS is highly personal and differs with every listener!
...
A composer only has worth if he is enjoyed by the listener. History is good for group consensus by not for individual listeners. Individual listeners must make their own decisions. It's called FREEDOM!!!
Perhaps you should consult a dictionary for the definition of "greatness." Websters has numerous varients, but these two apply to the situation at hand.
1) markedly superior in character or quality; especially : noble <great of soul>
2) remarkably skilled <great at tennis>
"Greatness" is an objective quantity. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc (you can add others to the list) are objectively "great" composers because of their skill. Because they invented new forms of music, imagined harmonies, melodies, and varieties of music that had never been heard before, because they were dominant influences on the music that came after, and above all because they wrote music that continues to excite people hundreds of years after they died. If you don't like the music of one of these composers it is not because the composer is not "great," but because for whatever reason it does not appeal to you. This is what "greatness" means in the English language You have freedom to loath Bach, to claim that Bach was not a great composer is only a proof of ignorance.
If, after all this, you do not understand this simple fact, it only proves that your ability to comprehend the English language is limited, and I will have to agree with Bulldog, there is no point in trying to pursue this discussion further.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 22, 2010, 04:48:17 PM
Let's start with your reply #515 on the Mozart thread.
I just reread that post twice, it is completely logical has some fabulous quotes and explains my feelings about all aspects of Mozart's music. I spent a long time on that post and am very proud of it.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 05:07:02 PM
Teresa,
I would say that this statement is false because some things are not a matter of argument.
For example take the concept of music in general without the different various streams and styles, if one would have an 'opinion' that music is worthless, that opinion would be considered idiotic by the intelligent communities of the world.
One could favor or dislike a great composer , but no one can take away his greatness.
Musical greatness is in the
EAR of the listener nothing more, nothing less. Pure simple logic!
Not all music I love is great, only that which sounds great to me is great. The same for everyone else and this varies from person to person.
No one takes away greatness, they just bestow it upon that which TO THEM is great!
UPDATE: My uncle was tone-deaf, music was nothing but noise to him. So to him music itself is worthless, I seriously doubt ANY musical authority would be able to call him idiotic! Maybe they might feel sorry for him but that is the strongest action I believe they would take!
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 05:13:28 PM
I just reread that post twice, it is completely logical has some fabulous quotes and explains my feelings about all aspects of Mozart's music. I spent a long time on that post and am very proud of it.
Anyone who says that Mozart was not a great composer is in fact calling Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Brahms and Chopin fools for they all were dedicated fans and admirers of Mozart's music and tried in many ways to look up to his music, maybe not to him as person but his music, they loved and cherished it very much.
Think about it, if the Greats said that Mozart was great, who are we to come and belittle that?
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 05:18:13 PM
Musical greatness is in the EAR of the listener nothing more, nothing less. Pure simple logic!
Not all music I love is great, only that which sounds great to me is great. The same for everyone else and this varies from person to person.
No one takes away greatness, they just bestow it upon that which TO THEM is great!
There were times that I held some similar opinions, but I have matured and understood that it was a mistake to think this way.
Some facts don't need you, me or anyone else to support. The facts of reality can take care of themselves.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 22, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
Perhaps you should consult a dictionary for the definition of "greatness." Websters has numerous varients, but these two apply to the situation at hand.
1) markedly superior in character or quality; especially : noble <great of soul>
2) remarkably skilled <great at tennis>
"Greatness" is an objective quantity. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc (you can add others to the list) are objectively "great" composers because of their skill. Because they invented new forms of music, imagined harmonies, melodies, and varieties of music that had never been heard before, because they were dominant influences on the music that came after, and above all because they wrote music that continues to excite people hundreds of years after they died. If you don't like the music of one of these composers it is not because the composer is not "great," but because for whatever reason it does not appeal to you. This is what "greatness" means in the English language You have freedom to loath Bach, to claim that Bach was not a great composer is only a proof of ignorance.
If, after all this, you do not understand this simple fact, it only proves that your ability to comprehend the English language is limited, and I will have to agree with Bulldog, there is no point in trying to pursue this discussion further.
greatness |ˈgrātnəs|
noun
the quality of being great, distinguished, or eminent : Elgar's greatness as a composer.NOTE: These qualities are NOT universal and greatness varies from person to person. Why is this so hard to understand?
You are attempting to create universal greatness out of personal greatness. Since there will never be a unanimous consensus on who the great composers are, personal greatness is the only greatness that matters to anyone.
For any composer you care to list as the greatest composer, I can find plenty of written quotes claiming they are not and even possible the worst.
What you do not understand is you are trying to destroy
PERSONAL FREEDOM in deciding what is great and what is not great to any individual listener!
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 05:24:50 PM
greatness |ˈgrātnəs|
noun
the quality of being great, distinguished, or eminent : Elgar's greatness as a composer.
NOTE: These qualities are NOT universal and greatness varies from person to person. Why is this so hard to understand?
You are attempting to create universal greatness out of personal greatness. Since there will never be a consensus on who the great composers are, personal greatness is the only greatness that matters to anyone.
For any composer you care to list as the greatest composer, I can find plenty of written quotes claiming they are not and even possible the worst.
What you do not understand is you are trying to destroy PERSONAL FREEDOM in deciding what is great and what is not great to any individual listener!
I'm afraid I will have to defer to Bulldog's opinion. The torrent of gibberish you type into this site is just too much of a distraction from legitimate discussion. You are now the sole entry on my "ignore" list. What a relief it will not to see it anymore!
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 05:13:28 PM
I just reread that post twice, it is completely logical has some fabulous quotes and explains my feelings about all aspects of Mozart's music. I spent a long time on that post and am very proud of it.
That's just the type of answer I expected from you.
Do you find Bach's music on the same lowly level as Mozart's?
You say this:
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 05:24:50 PM
What you do not understand is you are trying to destroy PERSONAL FREEDOM in deciding what is great and what is not great to any individual listener!
But you spend your time and energy creating this:
The Anti-Mozart League (http://the%20anti-mozart%20league)
which to me says what you're saying is all BS.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 05:24:50 PM
greatness |ˈgrātnəs|
noun
the quality of being great, distinguished, or eminent : Elgar's greatness as a composer.
NOTE: These qualities are NOT universal and greatness varies from person to person. Why is this so hard to understand?
You are attempting to create universal greatness out of personal greatness. Since there will never be a consensus on who the great composers are, personal greatness is the only greatness that matters to anyone.
For any composer you care to list as the greatest composer, I can find plenty of written quotes claiming they are not and even possible the worst.
What you do not understand is you are trying to destroy PERSONAL FREEDOM I deciding what is great and what is not great to any individual listener!
No one is taking away from you the freedom to say who you believe is a great composer. Just don't expect dedicated music lovers and listeners to take your 'opinion' seriously because its just plain wrong.
Mozart's music is superior to many other composers who lived before him , in his life time, and after his time. This is not my opinion or anyone's opinion, but a statement of fact. Not only did he create great music, the way he composed the music was great too, and the way he influenced others to compose similarly was great too. A composer's work doesn't end with his pen, it's the entire process of composing.
Prodigious talent is one thing, memory of sound and music is another, improvisation and performance another, been prolific or not is yet another, and perfection and dedication yet another. Mozart excelled in all of these fields, and believe it or not this is what spells out Genius and greatness and not only the written score or the opinion of the listener.
Quote from: Teresa on June 22, 2010, 05:24:50 PM
You are attempting to create universal greatness out of personal greatness. Since there will never be a consensus on who the great composers are, personal greatness is the only greatness that matters to anyone.
For any composer you care to list as the greatest composer, I can find plenty of written quotes claiming they are not and even possible the worst.
"Consensus" is another word you don't understand. For a consensus to exist, not everybody has to share the same views, so those quotes you find mean nothing.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 22, 2010, 05:30:33 PM
I'm afraid I will have to defer to Bulldog's opinion. The torrent of gibberish you type into this site is just too much of a distraction from legitimate discussion. You are now the sole entry on my "ignore" list. What a relief it will not to see it anymore!
I am sorry you feel that way, I never attacked your personal opinions. My post was not gibberish, however yours was very rude, trying to make composers you feel are great UNIVERSAL. It is NOT universal and the sooner you understand that the better. I answered you questions point by point.
Quote from: Szykniej on June 22, 2010, 05:32:33 PM
You say this:
But you spend your time and energy creating this:
The Anti-Mozart League (http://the%20anti-mozart%20league)
Now that's something I have trouble understanding. Specifically, why would a person want to spend any appreciable time and energy on composers and music he/she doesn't appreciate?
There's only one way to settle this matter. Teresa and I should go out on a date. I'm confident that my magnetic personality would win her heart. By the way, I'm a Scorpio so be on guard.
Quote from: Szykniej on June 22, 2010, 05:32:33 PM
You say this:
But you spend your time and energy creating this:
The Anti-Mozart League (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2214914335)
which to me says what you're saying is all BS.
I didn't create the The Anti-Mozart League, I reported on it's existance on my blog The Audio Iconoclast (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/) and my personal experience with Mozart's music. I would love to join the League but I'm not a member as I heard about security issues with Facebook.
I do firmly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and everything I have said is true to my beliefs.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 22, 2010, 05:37:38 PM
"Consensus" is another word you don't understand. For a consensus to exist, not everybody has to share the same views, so those quotes you find mean nothing.
Thanks for catching my error. What I mean is
unanimous consensus with NO dissenting voters. I do not believe it will ever happen with music.
Quote from: Saul on June 22, 2010, 05:37:16 PM
No one is taking away from you the freedom to say who you believe is a great composer. Just don't expect dedicated music lovers and listeners to take your 'opinion' seriously because its just plain wrong.
Mozart's music is superior to many other composers who lived before him , in his life time, and after his time. This is not my opinion or anyone's opinion, but a statement of fact. Not only did he create great music, the way he composed the music was great too, and the way he influenced others to compose similarly was great too. A composer's work doesn't end with his pen, it's the entire process of composing.
Prodigious talent is one thing, memory of sound and music is another, improvisation and performance another, been prolific or not is yet another, and perfection and dedication yet another. Mozart excelled in all of these fields, and believe it or not this is what spells out Genius and greatness and not only the written score or the opinion of the listener.
Saul personal opinions are never WRONG, they are personal opinions. I am a dedicated music lover, musician and composer and I do take myself seriously. I cannot speak for others, their opinions are uniquely their own.
Opinions of a composers greatness is NEVER a statement of fact as you suggest as one can NEVER get a unanimous consensus. However as a composer I can recognize a composer's technical expertise. But what makes a composer great is the final result:
The Music. And this is different for every listener.
It would be difficult to be wrong about what you like. However, unless greatness is just identical to what you like it's not a matter of opinion. Instead it's a matter of many opinions which comprise a social fact, which is the greatness of composers that, in some cases, I don't care much for. How else can you understand the social quality of aesthetic choices? Why do we teach music and art if it's all just whatever you think? What could there possibly be to teach?
Another thing to notice is that most of the education in the arts is about what has been valued by people over time and how they have reacted to it, and only secondarily (if at all) concerned with the objective features of art works. How a Beethoven symphony is constructed is important to that symphony and to music history, but it is not the correct way to construct a symphony because such a procedure does not and on my view cannot exist. So, there. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: Bulldog on June 22, 2010, 04:34:06 PM
Let me be upfront about one thing - I think you're an idiot.
My thoughts exactly, although I am more than willing to give her the benefit of trolling.
(Not asking this question of anyone in particular)
Is all the name calling necessary?
Is it an insult to have someone disagree with you? Post something you don't agree with?
Is it too much to scroll past a poster who's opinions cause you stress?
Is it remotely logical and realistic to assume that you can convince someone on the internet to agree with your own view of the world, and to get stressed out if this doesn't happen. Are these realistic expectations?
Doesn't everyone have the right to post their own opinions and hold to them, particularly if they are civil and label their opinions as such? . If we criticize, can't we take apart the ideas, and not go after the people?
Have you ever REALLY seen trollling before? I've been on listserves where the stuff degenerated in stalking, one person threatened to blow his head off online and wanted somebody to dial up and listen in, people getting other people fired from their jobs, etc. My best personal experience was when I expressed a somewhat negative opinion of Lynard Skynard, and a gentleman took offense, and said that he and a bunch of his motorcycle buddies were going to come and 'have it out with me'-- and i don't think he was talking about a gentle discussion over scones and tea. This forum has a long way to go to meet common internet standards for trolling-- and for that I'm very grateful!
Uhhh- to get on thread for a moment-- if you look at the history of musical criticism for the last 300 years, and also consider some of the things that the "great" composers said about each other's work, and consider how someone like Bach would need to be "rediscovered" in the 1800s, it's hard for me to assume that there is an object criteria for greatness. We learn more in these discussions by getting a better understanding of our personal criteria. There is much understanding to be gained from Apples to Oranges comparisons if one starts looking at the subjective factors we all bring to the discussion.
I'm willing to be considered an "idiot" and a "troll" in typing this response, and I'll also take responsibility for breaking up Al and Tipper Gore.
(And I'm not too crazy about Mozart either-- but that is probably a weakness of my own...)
Quote from: jowcol on June 23, 2010, 08:13:12 AM
Is all the name calling necessary?
It was harsh, but if you can't say negative things about people then that is an awfully large section of the expressive potential of the English language that has been designated out of bounds.
Just as a person could communicate their respect for a poster based on their various messages, some people in this thread evidently have drawn the opposite conclusion about another poster - and it was after a lot of discussion, so wasn't a snap judgement. Nothing wrong with giving the straight dime - it's going the excessively polite way that allows some people to live in ignorance of their failings.
Quote from: Lethe on June 23, 2010, 08:56:59 AM
It was harsh, but if you can't say negative things about people then that is an awfully large section of the expressive potential of the English language that has been designated out of bounds.
I still see a difference between saying "that's a dumb idea" and "you are a dumb person". Yes, a lot of ideas a given poster presents may attract flack, but we still only see a small fraction of a given person. And there is a lot of expressive ways to illustrate how dumb an idea may be from your point of view.
Quote from: Lethe on June 23, 2010, 08:56:59 AM
. Nothing wrong with giving the straight dime - it's going the excessively polite way that allows some people to live in ignorance of their failings.
My take on human nature may be questionable, but it seems to me that most people willingly live in ignorance of their failings no matter what well-meaning (or not-so-well meaning) people say. Would you really think that words (either politely stated, or blunt) will change the tightly held opinions of a poster that have changed in the past? Based on my experience in this forum or elsewhere, that never happens, and assuming you can "convert" someone is setting yourself up for failure. Do you really think in this case it will do any good, or is this just venting?
There are other people (on this and other forums) that have their sacred cows, and I've never seen a discussion, whether friendly or hostile, get them to change their mind. But I've also seen threads where disagreement led to some fascinating revelations and nuances to an issue, and others where they quickly degenerated into name calling and unsubstantiated generalities. The former I learn a lot from, even if I still disagree. The latter are only interesting from the "viewing a train wreck" perspective.
Finally, one consider that the best way to put our of fire is not to feed it. And the best way to get out of a Chinese Finger trap is not to apply pressure....
Fair points. Sometimes on message boards I've felt like banging my face against the screen after seeing someone after many pages of correcting still not undertanding key points, and this is what makes me lean towards feeling that an ever-increasing bluntness is a useful tool to try to prevent the cycle repeating indefinitely.
However, your temper must be less quick to rise than mine ;D
Quote from: jowcol on June 23, 2010, 09:13:37 AMMy take on human nature may be questionable, but it seems to me that most people willingly live in ignorance of their failings no matter what well-meaning (or not-so-well meaning) people say. Would you really think that words (either politely stated, or blunt) will change the tightly held opinions of a poster that have changed in the past? Based on my experience in this forum or elsewhere, that never happens, and assuming you can "convert" someone is setting yourself up for failure. Do you really think in this case it will do any good, or is this just venting?
There have been many occasions when my mind has been changed on this board. Most recently I expressed the opinion that Elgar's violin concerto was a senseless flurry of notes. After considerable discussion of the work itself and the various recordings available on the Elgar thread I've come to respect the work, and realized that the recording I had of the work was not helping me appreciate it. But there were intelligent people in that thread. On the other hand, there are some people on this board who can't be persuaded of anything, and who are not able to put together a sentence that would persuade anyone of anything.
Quote from: Lethe on June 23, 2010, 09:22:18 AM
However, your temper must be less quick to rise than mine ;D
Actually, I have a very healthy temper... and I've lost it in the past in discussion groups more times than I'd care to admit. Some of the approach I take is based on the results (and lack thereof) from my losing it in the past, and also going through some unpleasant real world events that put even the most annoying forum discussions into different perspective.
I think you set a better example when you state your arguments thoughtfully and politely. You are more convincing than someone who directly attacks which represents to me a loss of control.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 23, 2010, 11:11:40 AM
I think you set a better example when you state your arguments thoughtfully and politely. You are more convincing than someone who directly attacks which represents to me a loss of control.
Yes, practically an admission that one's 'argument' possesses no merit.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 23, 2010, 11:14:26 AM
Yes, practically an admission that one's 'argument' possesses no merit.
Or if it does, no one's going to take it seriously.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 23, 2010, 09:52:18 AM
There have been many occasions when my mind has been changed on this board. Most recently I expressed the opinion that Elgar's violin concerto was a senseless flurry of notes. After considerable discussion of the work itself and the various recordings available on the Elgar thread I've come to respect the work, and realized that the recording I had of the work was not helping me appreciate it. But there were intelligent people in that thread. On the other hand, there are some people on this board who can't be persuaded of anything, and who are not able to put together a sentence that would persuade anyone of anything.
I fully agree-- particularly with the last sentence (although that is not unique to this board-- this one is quite civilized compared to most I've been on) . The best disagreements (and disagreements are healthy, IMO) are not circular and repetitive, but evolve, and respond to each others points. If the disagreement is no longer bringing up any new points, it becomes a Chinese Finger trap.
To get back on the thread, I can't really assume that there is an object standard of greatness-- the proverb of the blind men and the elephant says a lot to me about how music is experienced and interpreted. One can talk about composers in terms of the musical elements they apply, how they develop material, how consistent their canon is, etc.
I've mentioned this example before, if we could only say that Wagner or Satie is great, who would we pick? Their strengths are pretty much opposites. For me, I'd pick Satie if I had to pick one I'd rather have on a desert Island, but that's not to say that Satie had revolutionized opera and wrote the most stirring overtures. Of course, if we had to grade Wagner by his intimate, eccentric,, understated style and the subtle quality of his miniatures, he would not score so well. Both of them had their followers, and a strong impact on the music world. Defining the "greatness" they have in common would be a challenge.
So, why compare apples and oranges? (or different composers?) The only reason to make such a comparison it so get a better handle on what we are looking for in a composer, and in the music itself. If someone likes Bach over Mozart (such as myself) , that says something about the specific criteria the person is using to make that assessment.
There are a few musical forms I am a sucker for-- much I've learned by analyzing what I like. I love a ii-V vamp. I love 3 on 4 and other polyrthmic structures, and I love polymeter as well. I like modal music a lot. I prefer minor key. I like accidentals and 9 and 10 note scales, but most twelve tone music bores me after a while(there are some great exceptions!). I like strong multi-voice counterpoint. I tend to like solo keyboard or orchestral works, and I'm not a keen on chamber. Given this list of very subjective hot-buttons I carry around (I tend to think most of us are hard wired to some degree), a lot of my preferences tend to make "sense" -- but not all of them-- there is always an exception to every rule. And also my musical needs keep evolving. I used to have a stronger need for Avante-Garde stuff than I do now. And, as you pointed out, sometimes it's important to go back to a work with another sense of expectations, or listen to a different interpretation.
So, to compare composers, rather than rate them on a scale from "sucks" to "awesome", I find it usually better to dig into some specifics about what elements of their style is great. One of my favorite composers, Mussorgsky, can't really be praised for formal structure-- but his expressive, assymetrical melodies and the ability to catch emotion in sound I would rank very highly.
Ideally "greatness" is objective, although there will always be a subjective component. I think the most workable definition of greatness in music would involve artistic innovation, perfection of craft, influence on later composers, and durable appreciation by audiences and performers. Wagner is "great" by any measure, despite commonly perceived weaknesses in his works (mostly connected with libretti). Satie may or may not be, I can't say. I'll admit to never having listen to one of his works all the way through. ???
While I am convinced that there is an objective standard for awarding a label of greatness among composers, writers, painters, etc. I am not convinced it is an important qualifier.
There is just such an enormous amount of very worthwhile music and art created by all the composers, writers, painters, etc. that while arguably may not rise to the level of great, that, for me, renders the label "great" somewhat irrelevant.
I think Teresa is on pretty solid ground that musical status and greatness is subjective and personal and not objective. (I think the name-calling is incredible partly because the people doing it have failed to even try to make their case.) Beyond jowcol's excellent and thoughtful post, I'd like to suggest two ideas that I think present problems for the idea of objective greatness:
1) Subjective tastes are formed by repetition and social approval. They are not innate. Do we like Chopin because we like it or because we have been exposed it to repeatedly since childhood? Would we still like Chopin even if we were regularly informed that it was bad by authority sources? I'd have to say the answer is no for most humans.
2) If popular consensus is important in defining "objective greatness," how do we deal with the fact that the Black-eyed Peas outsold Mozart last year? Well, we resort to expertise and sophistication. That has its own problems.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 23, 2010, 11:43:44 AM
Ideally "greatness" is objective, although there will always be a subjective component. I think the most workable definition of greatness in music would involve artistic innovation, perfection of craft, influence on later composers, and durable appreciation by audiences and performers. Wagner is "great" by any measure, despite commonly perceived weaknesses in his works (mostly connected with libretti). Satie may or may not be, I can't say. I'll admit to never having listen to one of his works all the way through. ???
Thanks for making the case.
artistic innovation - I deny this is important.
perfection of craft - I believe the perception of craft is highly subjective and socially malleable
influence on later composers - who did Vivaldi ever influence?
, and durable appreciation by audiences and performers - see my point 2. The "Elvis is way better than Beethoven - who has more gold records?" argument.
Quote from: cosmicj on June 23, 2010, 12:11:10 PM
Thanks for making the case.
artistic innovation - I deny this is important.
perfection of craft - I believe the perception of craft is highly subjective and socially malleable
influence on later composers - who did Vivaldi ever influence?
, and durable appreciation by audiences and performers - see my point 2. The "Elvis is way better than Beethoven - who has more gold records?" argument.
Without artistic innovation we would still be beating two sticks together to make music. I think it is an important attribute, although I can imagine "great" composers who were not particularly innovative.
Perfection of craft may be impossible to define precisely and depends on context, but is something that people who have taken the time to study music can recognize and usually agree on. (They may not agree on whether they enjoy the music in question).
Vivaldi influenced Bach and many other composers. Bach transcribed numerous works by Vivaldi and studied it because he wanted to master innovative elements in Vivaldi's music. Ultimately, I think Bach wrote music much better than Vivaldi ever could after he had assimilated these characteristics.
Elvis is a great rock singer, Beethoven was a great composer. Greatness exists within the genre. Some genre's have more potential for greatness. How many "great" tic-tac-toe players are there?
Quote from: cosmicj on June 23, 2010, 12:07:01 PM
how do we deal with the fact that the Black-eyed Peas outsold Mozart last year?
Ayyyyyy!!
Because the world is a messed up place. :-\
Quote from: Brahmsian on June 23, 2010, 12:28:19 PM
Ayyyyyy!!
Because the world is a messed up place. :-\
Simple pop tunes sell. Most people don't require anything greater.
This thread is about the comparisons of composers as presented by Saul, in his YouTubes of Bach's Double Violin Concerto and Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 2. He liked the Bach the best and I liked the Rachmaninov the best and I provided a YouTube of my favorite Rachmaninov composition Symphonic Dances. Since no one else presented any YouTubes or even commented on the subject at hand I guess Saul and I are the only ones interested in the actual subject matter. :o
Sad to say many posters came here not for the comparisons but to attack the actual meaning of words.
I've had time to sleep on some of the issues brought up and here is my personal opinions.
This idea that any composer is great outside of one's self is high offensive to me and to personal freedom in general. The musical establishment in proclaiming certain composers as great at the detriment of others is IMHO doing severe damage to the future recruitment of new classical music listeners. These choices should be made by the listeners NOT the establishment. Personal opinions of greatness should never be presented as facts. And no listener should ever be attacked for disagreeing with another listener's ideas of greatness, as greatness in all walks of life differs greatly from person and person. By hitting people over the head with whom you personally believe is great is bullying and rude in the extreme.
These are ALL personal opinions and personal observations based on each individual actually listening to music.
Worst
Bad
Poor
Good
Great
Greatest
These can NEVER be universal as claimed by some posters. By the musical establishment proclaiming certain composers as great based perhaps on technical skill and number of performances or popularity over centuries is wrong. It should be clearly stated it is ONLY their personal opinion, and that there are hundreds of other deserving composers just as talented and great as the ones the writer is pushing.
Scarpia gave this definition of why his favorite composers are great "Because they invented new forms of music, imagined harmonies, melodies, and varieties of music that had never been heard before, because they were dominant influences on the music that came after, and above all because they wrote music that continues to excite people hundreds of years after they died." This defines nearly every single composer (especially modern ones). They all have their own unique composition style and recognizable sound, most are inventive, most of their new compositions are unlike anything that came before. And music that people love excites them hundreds of years after the composers are dead. What I strongly disagree with Scarpia is that this is NOT a constant but varies from listener to listener. No single human being believes the exact same things are great.
To use a food metaphor, If I ate a filet mignon and felt it was the greatest tasting steak I had ever consumed I would not expect ever single person to agree with me, especially people who do not like steak. No because I have known for decades greatness is a highly personal issue and not to be imposed on others. :)
Quote from: Lethe on June 23, 2010, 08:56:59 AM
It was harsh, but if you can't say negative things about people then that is an awfully large section of the expressive potential of the English language that has been designated out of bounds.
Just as a person could communicate their respect for a poster based on their various messages, some people in this thread evidently have drawn the opposite conclusion about another poster - and it was after a lot of discussion, so wasn't a snap judgement. Nothing wrong with giving the straight dime - it's going the excessively polite way that allows some people to live in ignorance of their failings.
I don't know why we can't disagree like normal human beings without destroying another person's dignity. There was no need to call Teresa an 'idiot', it was indeed in poor taste..
(http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2007/11/16-22/train_wreck-782867.jpg)
Scarpia - Good response. Speaking for myself, I do think greatness features a varying combination of the traits you list. Because the people on this forum align in many (not all) aesthetic norms, there is a consensus on whether artists qualify under your criteria. The problem is that all of the judgements rely heavily on the weight of authority and popularity. I fear that objective musical greatness then is the sum total of a cultural subset's group norms, which reflect/inform subjective tastes/judgements in a feedback loop. So does this greatness exist outside of the group norms? Probably not.
So Theresa is making a "subjectivist" argument, I am taking an "intersubjectivist" position and Scarpia and bulldog are taking an "objectivist" position.
Hey, at least in our undergrad days we were consuming this:
(http://www.alcohol-stuff.co.uk/images/extra/mug.JPG)
Quote from: cosmicj on June 23, 2010, 12:49:10 PM
Scarpia - Good response. Speaking for myself, I do think greatness features a varying combination of the traits you list. Because the people on this forum align in many (not all) aesthetic norms, there is a consensus on whether artists qualify under your criteria. The problem is that all of the judgements rely heavily on the weight of authority and popularity. I fear that objective musical greatness then is the sum total of a cultural subset's group norms, which reflect/inform subjective tastes/judgements in a feedback loop. So does this greatness exist outside of the group norms? Probably not.
As you suggest, there is the possibility that arbitrary social norms have an influence on our judgment on what is great and what is not. I do not claim that this effect does not exist. My view depends on an "efficient market" view of music, in which composers who are popular with the establishment but not really so remarkable will loose support, and undiscovered geniuses will gradually find the support they deserve. This definitely happens at some level; composers that were famous in the past sometimes falter in popularity, and composers such as Mahler, Sibelius, Petterson and others are finding greater and greater enthusiasm with the public. And now that we have record labels searching archives for undiscovered composers and recording their works, we can confirm that the contemporaries of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, had their moments, but in the long run don't measure up to the ones that transcended their own times.
Quote from: Teresa on June 23, 2010, 12:36:11 PM
This thread is about the comparisons of composers as presented by Saul, in his YouTubes of Bach's Double Violin Concerto and Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 2. He liked the Bach the best and I liked the Rachmaninov the best and I provided a YouTube of my favorite Rachmaninov composition Symphonic Dances. Since no one else presented any YouTubes or even commented on the subject at hand I guess Saul and I are the only ones interested in the actual subject matter. :o
Sad to say many posters came here not for the comparisons but to attack the actual meaning of words.
I've had time to sleep on some of the issues brought up and here is my personal opinions.
This idea that any composer is great outside of one's self is high offensive to me and to personal freedom in general. The musical establishment in proclaiming certain composers as great at the detriment of others is IMHO doing severe damage to the future recruitment of new classical music listeners. These choices should be made by the listeners NOT the establishment. Personal opinions of greatness should never be presented as facts. And no listener should ever be attacked for disagreeing with another listener's ideas of greatness, as greatness in all walks of life differs greatly from person and person. By hitting people over the head with whom you personally believe is great is bullying and rude in the extreme.
These are ALL personal opinions and personal observations based on each individual actually listening to music.
Worst
Bad
Poor
Good
Great
Greatest
These can NEVER be universal as claimed by some posters. By the musical establishment proclaiming certain composers as great based perhaps on technical skill and number of performances or popularity over centuries is wrong. It should be clearly stated it is ONLY their personal opinion, and that there are hundreds of other deserving composers just as talented and great as the ones the writer is pushing.
Scarpia gave this definition of why his favorite composers are great "Because they invented new forms of music, imagined harmonies, melodies, and varieties of music that had never been heard before, because they were dominant influences on the music that came after, and above all because they wrote music that continues to excite people hundreds of years after they died." This defines nearly every single composer (especially modern ones). They all have their own unique composition style and recognizable sound, most are inventive, most of their new compositions are unlike anything that came before. And music that people love excites them hundreds of years after the composers are dead. What I strongly disagree with Scarpia is that this is NOT a constant but varies from listener to listener. No single human being believes the exact same things are great.
To use a food metaphor, If I ate a filet mignon and felt it was the greatest tasting steak I had ever consumed I would not expect ever single person to agree with me, especially people who do not like steak. No because I have known for decades greatness is a highly personal issue and not to be imposed on others. :)
Greatness is not a subjective matter, anyone who believes in this is just plain wrong.
Lets forget about music for a second. We have many different kinds of greatness. For example we had great presidents, great educators, great athletes and great intellectual and philosophers, religious leaders and personalities and so on.
Everyone would agree that greatness just exists and has a unanimous appreciation by the vast majority of the world on certain people. Otherwise if we didn't have 'great people' then we are all the same, and there is no one great or small.
Let's check out an example of Greatness let's choose 'Great Presidents'.
No one would say that George Washington was just one regular President. He was great because he was the very first President of the United States, who fought the critical battles and showed remarkable intellect and leadership and was a valiant military leader.
Why then don't we say like Teresa suggests that the Greatness of George Washington is not true but it depends only on her own subjective judgment?
No one would bet on anything like this. Some people were great, and that is a statement of fact, seeing reality clearly as it is.
If this is so in the case of 'Great presidents' and any other 'Great individuals' why then can't we have a unified consensus about certain composers who did so much for the art of music and touched the hearts of so many millions around the world like no others have ever touched with their art, why then can't we call them 'Greats'?
Leaving the word 'great' when it comes to music and composers lowers the art and the greatness of music in general. Not everything has to go through the needle thin personal analysis of a given composer, and Greatness can't be decided by one person's 'opinion'. It must be supported by many others who share similar interests and posses the more or less the same love of music and the same understanding of music.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 12:59:26 PM
Greatness is not a subjective matter, anyone who believes in this is just plain wrong.
Personal opinion about anyone's greatness is NEVER wrong, not even yours. It is personal opinion and differs from one person to another, you will never get 100% agreement on the greatness of one single thing in the entire universal. It's just not possible.
All famous people have supporters and detractors, greatness is in the ears, eyes and minds of the beholder.
Greatness does not just exist, it is a quality that has to be recognized by actual real people and bestowed on ones whom the individual believes is deserving.
Using your example of US Presidents, many people believe that Nixon was the worst president ever because of Watergate, others believe he was the best based on his negotiations with China. Same can be said for JFK, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington all have been called the greatest and the worst presidents.
No one has to leave the word Great behind, it is personal growth to realize it is wrong and hurtful to impose ONE'S idea of greatness on any other human being. Allow all humans to think for themselves and make their own decisions about the worthiness of anything and everything.
Greatness can ONLY be decided on an individual basis. Blindly trusting groupthink is lazy and wrong.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 23, 2010, 11:43:44 AM
Ideally "greatness" is objective, although there will always be a subjective component. I think the most workable definition of greatness in music would involve artistic innovation, perfection of craft, influence on later composers, and durable appreciation by audiences and performers. Wagner is "great" by any measure, despite commonly perceived weaknesses in his works (mostly connected with libretti). Satie may or may not be, I can't say. I'll admit to never having listen to one of his works all the way through. ???
Some interesting points here-- innovation and perfection may not always occur together. IMNSHO, Bach would represent perfection-- he took a style of music and basically put it to bed. Some of the innovators, on the other hand, may not capture perfection. Mussorgsky would be in ideal candidate for me-- innovative to the extreme, but formal craft is not one of his strong points.
I would have to pose the question, however, that if greatness is objective, how come we cannot agree on what it means? If it is objective, that means it would need to meet objective criteria that would be evaluated the same by anyone-- such as something you can measure with a ruler, or scale. If anything, we can expand on what Scarpia has started here, we can at least define several different dimensions by which it can be measured.
jowcol I love your signature quote:
"If it sounds good, it is good."
Duke Ellington
I agree totally with the provision that, of course, what sounds good differs from person to person.
Quote from: Teresa on June 23, 2010, 12:36:11 PM
This thread is about the comparisons of composers as presented by Saul, in his YouTubes of Bach's Double Violin Concerto and Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 2. He liked the Bach the best and I liked the Rachmaninov the best and I provided a YouTube of my favorite Rachmaninov composition Symphonic Dances. Since no one else presented any YouTubes or even commented on the subject at hand I guess Saul and I are the only ones interested in the actual subject matter. :o
Although on the whole, I'm violently in agreement with your stance on the subjectiveness of "greatness", "beauty",etc, I'm not sure if copying links from youtube would constitute the only type of comparative musical analysis, or the only way to answer question posed.
The cultural angle is also interesting. To many people, all Indian Ragas sound alike, and they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Hindustani or Karnatic Raga. But, to someone from another culture not familiar with our traditions, could they tell the differnce between a Mozart or a Salieri?
It's interesting to see how greatness would apply to someone like Schoenberg, who was first widely reviled, and then overly hyped, and has now settled into a more steady position. His music has not changed after it was written-- our perceptions have.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 12:59:26 PM
Greatness is not a subjective matter, anyone who believes in this is just plain wrong.
How does one prove this? I don't mind being wrong, but if you asked 100 people to list the 5 greatest presidents, you won't get the same answer from each. Are the 99 that don't agree with you wrong?
Quote
Why then don't we say like Teresa suggests that the Greatness of George Washington is not true but it depends only on her own subjective judgment?
That's not what she said at all. She said the everyone would have a different perception of his greatness. Which I would agree with.
Quote
Greatness can't be decided by one person's 'opinion'.
I strongly agree. I also would take this further to say the Greatness cannot be decided for all time and people-- historical evaluations of many of our heroes change over time. Its a constantly evolving process.
Quote from: jowcol on June 23, 2010, 02:28:17 PMI would have to pose the question, however, that if greatness is objective, how come we cannot agree on what it means? If it is objective, that means it would need to meet objective criteria that would be evaluated the same by anyone-- such as something you can measure with a ruler, or scale. If anything, we can expand on what Scarpia has started here, we can at least define several different dimensions by which it can be measured.
There may be people who refuse to believe that 1 + 1 = 2. (And I think there may be some such people participating on this board.) That does not mean that 1 + 1 = 2 is not an objective fact.
I think if you went to a place and spoke to people who have actually studied music successfully you could get 99.9% to agree that Beethoven is a "great" composer. You may not be able to reach consensus on whether Mendelssohn, or Dukas, or Hindemith are really great composers, but there would be a core group of composers that any educated person would agree are "great." That is as close to objective as human beings can normally get, except in questions of arithmetic.
Quote from: Teresa on June 23, 2010, 02:34:56 PM
jowcol I love your signature quote:
"If it sounds good, it is good."
Duke Ellington
I agree totally with the provision that, of course, what sounds good differs from person to person.
Ellington said this in the fact that he hated categories and artificial barriers in music, such as the ongoing debate between jazz and "serious" music, since be believed that all great music (oops-- the "g word") was beyond category.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 23, 2010, 02:45:41 PM
There may be people who refuse to believe that 1 + 1 = 2. (And I think there may be some such people participating on this board.) That does not mean that 1 + 1 = 2 is not an objective fact.
I think if you went to a place and spoke to people who have actually studied music successfully you could get 99.9% to agree that Beethoven is a "great" composer. You may not be able to reach consensus on whether Mendelssohn, or Dukas, or Hindemith are really great composers, but there would be a core group of composers that any educated person would agree are "great." That is as close to objective as human beings can normally get, except in questions of arithmetic.
I'd certainly agree with the notion of what statisticians would call a "central" tendency, and that if a group of knowledgeable people compiled their top-10 lists, you'd see some names appearing frequently. But I also think that the list of top 10s would change over time. Stravinsky found it fashionable to bash Beethoven in the 20s, and later had much good to say about him. I would certainly give him credit for knowing something about music-- but if his initial assessment was subjective, why did he change it mind later?
Quote from: Scarpia on June 23, 2010, 02:45:41 PM
There may be people who refuse to believe that 1 + 1 = 2. (And I think there may be some such people participating on this board.) That does not mean that 1 + 1 = 2 is not an objective fact.
I think if you went to a place and spoke to people who have actually studied music successfully you could get 99.9% to agree that Beethoven is a "great" composer. You may not be able to reach consensus on whether Mendelssohn, or Dukas, or Hindemith are really great composers, but there would be a core group of composers that any educated person would agree are "great." That is as close to objective as human beings can normally get, except in questions of arithmetic.
Even Wagner didn't let his Anti Semitism blur reality when it came to greatness in music, this famous passage heard by all serious music lovers was made by non other then Richard Wagner on Mendelssohn:
"The Greatest specifically musical genius the world has had since Mozart".
This is from someone that wrote a book about Music and Jews.
Some facts are not a matter of 'opinion' , Wagner was not saying his 'personal opinion' but he was reading the hand on the wall, that in fact Mendelssohn was one of the Greatest ever.
Anyone who says otherwise, anyone, is making an error, the same goes for Mozart, anyone who says that he was not a Great Composer, doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to classical music.
If anyone wants to prove to me that he or she has no knowledge or understanding of classical music then let them say that Mendelssohn, Mozart or Beethoven or Bach were not great composers, you don't need to say anything else, this will be just enough.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 03:22:57 PMIf anyone wants to prove to me that he or she has no knowledge or understanding of classical music then let them say that Mendelssohn, Mozart or Beethoven or Bach were not great composers, you don't need to say anything else, this will be just enough.
I think that Mendelssohn, Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven were great composers, but I'm looking at this from an objective point-of-view and not from a subjective one. I think it's pretty much a universal consensus that these four composers are acknowledged as great composers. My own personal opinion of them however is that I seldom listen to them or really care anything about them. They simply don't do much for me emotionally or intellectually, but I can see the writing on the wall, and I'm quite adamant in my overall opinion that they were great.
You can personally dislike a composer, but that doesn't mean that they weren't great or acknowledged by others to be great. A lot of people hate Bruckner and Mahler, but to say they're terrible is simply letting your own likes/dislikes get in the way of the truth, which is that these two composers were radical and groundbreaking. Maybe you don't "get it," but, again, this doesn't mean that they should be ignored.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 03:41:59 PM
I think that Mendelssohn, Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven were great composers, but I'm looking at this from an objective point-of-view and not from a subjective one. I think it's pretty much a universal consensus that these four composers are acknowledged as great composers. My own personal opinion of them however is that I seldom listen to them or really care anything about them. They simply don't do much for me emotionally or intellectually, but I can see the writing on the wall, and I'm quite adamant in my overall opinion that they were great.
A fine post!
Quote from: Scarpia on June 23, 2010, 12:20:32 PM
Elvis is a great rock singer, Beethoven was a great composer. Greatness exists within the genre. Some genre's have more potential for greatness. How many "great" tic-tac-toe players are there?
Fascinating thought. Kinda JDP-ish, but... there maaaay be something to this.
Quote from: Greg on June 23, 2010, 03:44:30 PM
Fascinating thought. Kinda JDP-ish, but... there maaaay be something to this.
Yes it makes much sense, I agree with that.
Quote from: jowcol on June 23, 2010, 03:04:30 PM
I'd certainly agree with the notion of what statisticians would call a "central" tendency, and that if a group of knowledgeable people compiled their top-10 lists, you'd see some names appearing frequently. But I also think that the list of top 10s would change over time. Stravinsky found it fashionable to bash Beethoven in the 20s, and later had much good to say about him. I would certainly give him credit for knowing something about music-- but if his initial assessment was subjective, why did he change it mind later?
Do you think that Stravinsky seriously thought Beethoven was not a great composer? He was fed up with German expressionist school of music and wanted to make room for a different kind of music, so he ridiculed Beethoven. Do you think, at that time, Stravinsky would have seriously advised a student not to bother studying Beethoven?
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 03:41:59 PM
You can personally dislike a composer, but that doesn't mean that they weren't great or acknowledged by others to be great. A lot of people hate Bruckner and Mahler, but to say they're terrible is simply letting your own likes/dislikes get in the way of the truth, which is that these two composers were radical and groundbreaking. Maybe you don't "get it," but, again, this doesn't mean that they should be ignored.
This is exactly my view of the topic, and IMO, it seems to be where we part ways with the published views of those in the "Mozart was Terrible" camp. It is perfectly acceptable, brave even, to not like Mozart's music. However, his greatness is not dependent on the complete approval of all interested parties in order to be validated. And really,
that is what this entire, week-long+ disagreement has been about. Not sure I can figure out why that point is even arguable. ???
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Andreas Staier - Scarlatti K 264 Sonata E for Clavier - Vivo
Quote from: jowcol on June 23, 2010, 02:50:14 PM
Ellington said this in the fact that he hated categories and artificial barriers in music, such as the ongoing debate between jazz and "serious" music, since be believed that all great music (oops-- the "g word") was beyond category.
I love nearly everything by "Duke" Ellington from Big Band to orchestral works especially
Harlem and
The River: SuiteI like this quote from Arthur Fiedler who also didn't like divisive categories in music:
"There are only two kinds of music, good music and bad. If it is good -- I play it." Arthur Fiedler
I have never held it against Mr. Fiedler that he thought one of my favorite composers, Mahler was boring. As I have known for four decades it is his opinion and does not affect my enjoyment of Mahler. If only others would learn this simple truth, their lives would be so much easier and calmer. Listen to what one likes and forget the rest. :)
Quote from: Scarpia on June 23, 2010, 04:10:23 PM
Do you think that Stravinsky seriously thought Beethoven was not a great composer?
Yes I do! You can read about Stravinsky telling Proust how much he hates Beethoven in Book of Musical Anecdotes (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Musical-Anecdotes-Norman-Lebrecht/dp/0029187109)
Stravinsky is one of my favorite composers and one of my heros! And yes to me Stravinsky is one of the greatest composers of all time. :)
Quote from: Teresa on June 23, 2010, 06:12:29 PM
Yes I do! You can read about Stravinsky telling Proust how much he hates Beethoven in Book of Musical Anecdotes (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Musical-Anecdotes-Norman-Lebrecht/dp/0029187109)
Stravinsky is one of my favorite composers and one of my heros! And yes to me Stravinsky is one of the greatest composers of all time. :)
Stravinsky doesnt reach Beethoven's toes.
I know that people shouldnt post their performances outside the performing section, but please I just had to post this!
I play his music anyday, and Stravinsky is anything but a great composer.
http://www.youtube.com/v/D9LrOVfMXNY
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 06:33:14 PM
Stravinsky doesnt reach Beethoven's toes.
Stravinsky is anything but a great composer.
Why would you say that Stravinsky isn't a great composer when he's acknowledged as one of the greatest of the 20th Century? Do I really have to tell you about the importance of "The Rite of Spring"? While it may be said that Stravinsky's success rests on three ballets: "The Firebird," "Petrushka," and "The Rite of Spring," it should be noted that Stravinsky brought about a change in music. Everybody knows the story of the "Rite" premiere, but imagine having that kind of reaction and it's just the premiere? While it may have been a negative reaction at that time, the influence of this work still lingers heavily into our present time. But the question is does influence actually translate to greatness? I think in Stravinsky's case it does.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 03:22:57 PM
Even Wagner didn't let his Anti Semitism blur reality when it came to greatness in music, this famous passage heard by all serious music lovers was made by non other then Richard Wagner on Mendelssohn:
"The Greatest specifically musical genius the world has had since Mozart".
I tried to find that quote but was unsuccessful, can you please provide a link?
Here is what I found that Wagner said about Mendelssohn:
"Richard Wagner, great composer but despicable human being, saw Mendelssohn as one of his major rivals. Everyone held up Mendelssohn as embodying the highest ideals of culture in Germany, a level of esteem that Wagner desperately coveted. For Wagner, it was not a question of simply criticizing a colleague. He wanted to destroy Mendelssohn.
To that end, three years after Mendelssohn's death, Wagner wrote one of the most infamous publications in German history — or musical history, for that matter: "Das Judenthum in Musik" ("Judaism in Music") A vicious appeal to antisemitism, it proposed that Jews were parasites and incapable of expressing the sublimities of the German soul. Specifically naming Mendelssohn, Wagner claimed that what Jews produced was "artificial" and "imitative" culture. In contrast, he promoted his own appeals to unreason as "authentic." Wagner concluded there should be what he called an "Untergang" of Jews in general. (The word is ambiguous, meaning "decline" and also "destruction.") So when Mendelssohn had the misfortune to die young, his music was left to fend for itself against the Untergang smear campaign that festered into the following century and resurfaces regularly to this day."http://www.forward.com/articles/15115/ (http://www.forward.com/articles/15115/)
"In the racial outlook of Richard Wagner we are confronted with concepts of "Volk," language, "Kultur," anti-Christianity, anti-Semitism, anti-Mendelssohnism, that resolve themselves into one complex, with reciprocal interrelationships all oriented around music, yet extending into every aspect of life, German life in particular."http://www.nazi.org.uk/wagner-nazism.htm (http://www.nazi.org.uk/wagner-nazism.htm)
QuoteIf anyone wants to prove to me that he or she has no knowledge or understanding of classical music then let them say that Mendelssohn, Mozart or Beethoven or Bach were not great composers, you don't need to say anything else, this will be just enough.
I am totally and completely INSULTED by your insensitive comment that one cannot LOVE classical music without thinking the four composers you mentioned are great. I SAY HOGWASH! in my 40 years of enjoying classical music none of those you listed I would consider great composers. They range from bad to competent.
I love CLASSICAL MUSIC DEARLY and own works by 319 composers! Not only do I understand classical music, have studied, learned orchestration and writing for the effective range of all orchestral instruments. I am a musician and a composer, admittedly a poor one.
Here are the greatest composers I've ever heard:
ARNOLD, MALCOLM (1921-
BARBER, SAMUEL (1910-1981)
BERLIOZ, HECTOR (1803-1869)
BERNSTEIN, LEONARD (1918-1990)
BIZET, GEORGES (1838-1875)
BORODIN, ALEXANDER (1833-1887)
BRITTEN, BENJAMIN (1913-1976)
CHABRIER, EMMANUEL (1841-1894)
CHADWICK, GEORGE (1854-1931)
CHIHARA, PAUL (1938-
COPLAND, AARON (1900-1990)
DEBUSSY, CLAUDE (1862-1918)
DUKAS, PAUL (1865-1935)
DVORÁK, ANTONÍN (1841-1904)
FALLA, MANUEL DE (1876-1946)
GERSHWIN, GEORGE (1898-1937)
GOULD, MORTON (1913-1996)
GOUNOD, CHARLES (1818-1893)
GRIEG, EDVARD (1843-1907)
GROFÉ, FERDE (1892-1972)
HOLST, GUSTAV (1874-1934)
IBERT, JACQUES (1890-1962)
IPPOLITOV-IVANOV, MIKHAIL (1859-1935)
JANÁÇEK, LEO· (1854-1928)
KABALEVSKY, DMITRI (1904-1987)
KHACHATURIAN, ARAM (1903-1978)
KODÁLY, ZOLTÁN (1882-1967)
LISZT, FRANZ (1811-1886)
LLOYD, GEORGE (1913-1998)
MAHLER, GUSTAV (1860-1911)
MASSENET, JULES (1842-1912)
MEIJ, JOHAN DE (1953-
MENOTTI, GIAN CARLO (1911-
MILHAUD, DARIUS (1892-1974)
MINKUS, LEON (1826-1917)
MUSSORGSKY, MODEST (1839-1881)
NELHYBEL, VACLAV (1919-1996)
NIELSEN, CARL (1865-1931)
PISTON, WALTER (1894-1976)
PROKOFIEV, SERGEI (1891-1953)
RACHMANINOV, SERGEI (1873-1943)
RAVEL, MAURICE (1875-1937)
REED, HERBERT OWEN (1910-
RESPIGHI, OTTORINO (1879-1936)
RIMSKY-KORSAKOV, NIKOLAI (1844-1908)
RODRIGO, JOAQUÍN (1902-1999)
ROGERS, BERNARD (1893-
ROSSINI, GIOACCHINO (1792-1868)
RUSSO, WILLIAM (1928-
SAINT-SAËNS, CAMILLE (1835-1921)
SATIE, ERIK (1866-1925)
SHOSTAKOVICH, DMITRI (1906-1975)
SIBELIUS, JEAN (1865-1957)
SMETANA, BEDRICH (1824-1884)
STRAUSS, RICHARD (1864-1949)
STRAVINSKY, IGOR (1882-1971)
SUPPÉ, FRANZ VON (1819-1895)
TCHAIKOVSKY, PETER ILYICH (1840-1893)
THOMSON, VIRGIL (1896-1989)
TURINA, JOAQUÍN (1882-1949)
VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, RALPH (1872-1958)
VILLA-LOBOS, HEITOR (1887-1959)
WAGNER, RICHARD (1813-1883)
WALTON, WILLIAM (1902-1983)
WEILL, KURT (1900-1950)
WILLS, ARTHUR (1926-
These are the composer's I feel are Great composers, I can also make a list of over a hundred composers I feel are good composers. And lists of fair, poor and bad composers, such lists are my personal opinion and what someone else considers Great, good and bad would be totally different.
I would NEVER be such a bully to proclaim that those who didn't think my choice of Great composers were also their choice of Great composers and claim they have no knowledge or understanding of classical music as you have, I am not that arrigant or mean. I
FIRMLY believe people choose their own greatness wherever they can find it, and it is solely up to them. Personal freedom!
By claiming that your Great composers must be everyone's Great composers you are being rude and a bully of the worst kind.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 07:03:28 PM
Why would you say that Stravinsky isn't a great composer when he's acknowledged as one of the greatest of the 20th Century? Do I really have to tell you about the importance of "The Rite of Spring"? While it may be said that Stravinsky's success rests on three ballets: "The Firebird," "Petrushka," and "The Rite of Spring," it should be noted that Stravinsky brought about a change in music. Everybody knows the story of the "Rite" premiere, but imagine having that kind of reaction and it's just the premiere? While it may have been a negative reaction at that time, the influence of this work still lingers heavily into our present time. But the question is does influence actually translate to greatness?
Let me explain to you why Stravinsky is not a Great composer.
His and the other composers' mistake and miscalculation was based on the wrong assumption that their unique creativity and originality can't be produced if they wrote their music within the traditional Baroque and Classical forms and styles. They began to venture to completely adventurous harmonies and forms thinking that this will boost their originality. Well there was no boost, what happen was that they created banal music which some people decided to call it 'art' and attach to it all their intellectual weight to support this almost delusional fantasy like 'consensus' much like the modernists of visual arts when they began throwing and spilling buckets of paint on empty canvases believing in their petty minds that this is 'art'.
To me Greatness in composition , is when you produce amazingly beautiful music that touches the soul without breaking the rules, sticking to the rules and finding your own distinctive style within the classical rules of music, is what makes a great composer.
Now, if you go the extreme, you will have pop music lovers laugh at classical music, expressing complete love for junkies such as Britney Spears and Pink, in fact you would have millions of people who hate classical music and consider it inferior to any other genre of music.
I say, down with their 'opinions' numbers don't matter here. Even of the whole world will believe that Mozart was not a Great composer, I would be the only one still believing that he indeed was.
Therefore this is where 'popular opinion', influence to other modern composers, and Greatness meet up head to head.
Popular opinion by those who don't know enough about classical music is pointless and doesn't effect the reality . Influence on other modern composers to continue to compose in 'error' is plainly a shame and a misdirection of real authentic classical music. And Greatness is not a matter of just personal opinion and personal enjoyment, it must be evaluated on the quality of the compositions, their technical aspects, their innovation, their adherence to the rules of music, the forms, the styles and the harmonies, and last but not least, the orderly intelligent and logical construction of the music from beginning to end.
Music is like Poetry, just like in Poetry you can't expect to throw in words in a banality and then decide that its great. No it must have intelligence behind it, and if this intelligence was constructed with order and logic, then and only then it can be called great. Music is a serious thing, otherwise you can just open up the window and listen to the birds sing and the wind whisper and the trees move, this is also 'music' but its not human made art.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 07:25:13 PM
Let me explain to you why Stravinsky is not a Great composer.
His and the other composers' mistake and miscalculation was based on the wrong assumption that their unique creativity and originality can't be produced if they wrote their music within the traditional Baroque and Classical forms and styles. They began to venture to completely adventurous harmonies and forms thinking that this will boost their originality. Well there was no boost, what happen was that they created banal music which some people decided to call it 'art' and attach to it all their intellectual weight to support this almost delusional fantasy like 'consensus' much like the modernists of visual arts when they began throwing and spilling buckets of paint on empty canvases believing in their petty minds that this is 'art'.
To me Greatness in composition , is when you produce amazingly beautiful music that touches the soul without breaking the rules, sticking to the rules and finding your own distinctive style within the classical rules of music, is what makes a great composer.
Now, if you go the extreme, you will have pop music lovers laugh at classical music, expressing complete love for junkies such as Britney Spears and Pink, in fact you would have millions of people who hate classical music and consider it inferior to any other genre of music.
I say, down with their 'opinions' numbers don't matter here. Even of the whole world will believe that Mozart was not a Great composer, I would be the only one still believing that he indeed was.
Therefore this is where 'popular opinion', influence to other modern composers, and Greatness meet up head to head.
Popular opinion by those who don't know enough about classical music is pointless and doesn't effect the reality . Influence on other modern composers to continue to compose in 'error' is plainly a shame and a misdirection of real authentic classical music. And Greatness is not a matter of just personal opinion and personal enjoyment, it must be evaluated on the quality of the compositions, their technical aspects, their innovation, their adherence to the rules of music, the forms, the styles and the harmonies, and last but not least, the orderly intelligent and logical construction of the music from beginning to end.
Music is like Poetry, just like in Poetry you can't expect to throw in words in a banality and then decide that its great. No it must have intelligence behind it, and if this intelligence was constructed with order and logic, then and only then it can be called great. Music is a serious thing, otherwise you can just open up the window and listen to the birds sing and the wind whisper and the trees move, this is also 'music' but its not human made art.
You make some excellent points and I'm not disputing them nor am I going to argue those points with you. I can simply say that I know what I enjoy and Stravinsky's music has always been special to me. I think keeping an open-mind about music can allow some truly great things to happen. If you think Stravinsky is hack or terrible composer, then that's your prerogative, but bare in mind, his influence is massive and I certainly enjoy what he brings to the table musically. I'm also not the only person on this forum who feels this way.
I also feel some of the best music is achieved by breaking the rules. Rules are meant to be broken. That's what I enjoy about the Romantic and 20th Century periods. All of these composers were just so tired of adhering to these rules and restrictions. That's what I love about a composer like Debussy for example. He tore down those walls of restriction and created his own idiom. The best composers in my opinion are the ones that can create beautiful music, but at the same time, ignore what academia deems acceptable.
Quote from: Teresa on June 23, 2010, 07:10:17 PM
I tried to find that quote but was unsuccessful, can you please provide a link?
Here is what I found that Wagner said about Mendelssohn:
"Richard Wagner, great composer but despicable human being, saw Mendelssohn as one of his major rivals. Everyone held up Mendelssohn as embodying the highest ideals of culture in Germany, a level of esteem that Wagner desperately coveted. For Wagner, it was not a question of simply criticizing a colleague. He wanted to destroy Mendelssohn.
To that end, three years after Mendelssohn's death, Wagner wrote one of the most infamous publications in German history — or musical history, for that matter: "Das Judenthum in Musik" ("Judaism in Music") A vicious appeal to antisemitism, it proposed that Jews were parasites and incapable of expressing the sublimities of the German soul. Specifically naming Mendelssohn, Wagner claimed that what Jews produced was "artificial" and "imitative" culture. In contrast, he promoted his own appeals to unreason as "authentic." Wagner concluded there should be what he called an "Untergang" of Jews in general. (The word is ambiguous, meaning "decline" and also "destruction.") So when Mendelssohn had the misfortune to die young, his music was left to fend for itself against the Untergang smear campaign that festered into the following century and resurfaces regularly to this day."
http://www.forward.com/articles/15115/ (http://www.forward.com/articles/15115/)
"In the racial outlook of Richard Wagner we are confronted with concepts of "Volk," language, "Kultur," anti-Christianity, anti-Semitism, anti-Mendelssohnism, that resolve themselves into one complex, with reciprocal interrelationships all oriented around music, yet extending into every aspect of life, German life in particular."
http://www.nazi.org.uk/wagner-nazism.htm (http://www.nazi.org.uk/wagner-nazism.htm)
I am totally and completely INSULTED by your insensitive comment that one cannot LOVE classical music without thinking the four composers you mentioned are great. I SAY HOGWASH! in my 40 years of enjoying classical music none of those you listed I would consider great composers. They range from bad to competent.
I love CLASSICAL MUSIC DEARLY and own works by 319 composers! Not only do I understand classical music, have studied, learned orchestration and writing for the effective range of all orchestral instruments. I am a musician and a composer, admittedly a poor one.
Here are the greatest composers I've ever heard:
ARNOLD, MALCOLM (1921-
BARBER, SAMUEL (1910-1981)
BERLIOZ, HECTOR (1803-1869)
BERNSTEIN, LEONARD (1918-1990)
BIZET, GEORGES (1838-1875)
BORODIN, ALEXANDER (1833-1887)
BRITTEN, BENJAMIN (1913-1976)
CHABRIER, EMMANUEL (1841-1894)
CHADWICK, GEORGE (1854-1931)
CHIHARA, PAUL (1938-
COPLAND, AARON (1900-1990)
DEBUSSY, CLAUDE (1862-1918)
DUKAS, PAUL (1865-1935)
DVORÁK, ANTONÍN (1841-1904)
FALLA, MANUEL DE (1876-1946)
GERSHWIN, GEORGE (1898-1937)
GOULD, MORTON (1913-1996)
GOUNOD, CHARLES (1818-1893)
GRIEG, EDVARD (1843-1907)
GROFÉ, FERDE (1892-1972)
HOLST, GUSTAV (1874-1934)
IBERT, JACQUES (1890-1962)
IPPOLITOV-IVANOV, MIKHAIL (1859-1935)
JANÁÇEK, LEO· (1854-1928)
KABALEVSKY, DMITRI (1904-1987)
KHACHATURIAN, ARAM (1903-1978)
KODÁLY, ZOLTÁN (1882-1967)
LISZT, FRANZ (1811-1886)
LLOYD, GEORGE (1913-1998)
MAHLER, GUSTAV (1860-1911)
MASSENET, JULES (1842-1912)
MEIJ, JOHAN DE (1953-
MENOTTI, GIAN CARLO (1911-
MILHAUD, DARIUS (1892-1974)
MINKUS, LEON (1826-1917)
MUSSORGSKY, MODEST (1839-1881)
NELHYBEL, VACLAV (1919-1996)
NIELSEN, CARL (1865-1931)
PISTON, WALTER (1894-1976)
PROKOFIEV, SERGEI (1891-1953)
RACHMANINOV, SERGEI (1873-1943)
RAVEL, MAURICE (1875-1937)
REED, HERBERT OWEN (1910-
RESPIGHI, OTTORINO (1879-1936)
RIMSKY-KORSAKOV, NIKOLAI (1844-1908)
RODRIGO, JOAQUÍN (1902-1999)
ROGERS, BERNARD (1893-
ROSSINI, GIOACCHINO (1792-1868)
RUSSO, WILLIAM (1928-
SAINT-SAËNS, CAMILLE (1835-1921)
SATIE, ERIK (1866-1925)
SHOSTAKOVICH, DMITRI (1906-1975)
SIBELIUS, JEAN (1865-1957)
SMETANA, BEDRICH (1824-1884)
STRAUSS, RICHARD (1864-1949)
STRAVINSKY, IGOR (1882-1971)
SUPPÉ, FRANZ VON (1819-1895)
TCHAIKOVSKY, PETER ILYICH (1840-1893)
THOMSON, VIRGIL (1896-1989)
TURINA, JOAQUÍN (1882-1949)
VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, RALPH (1872-1958)
VILLA-LOBOS, HEITOR (1887-1959)
WAGNER, RICHARD (1813-1883)
WALTON, WILLIAM (1902-1983)
WEILL, KURT (1900-1950)
WILLS, ARTHUR (1926-
These are the composer's I feel are Great composers, I can also make a list of over a hundred composers I feel are good composers. And lists of fair, poor and bad composers, such lists are my personal opinion and what someone else considers Great, good and bad would be totally different.
I would NEVER be such a bully to proclaim that those who didn't think my choice of Great composers were also their choice of Great composers and claim they have no knowledge or understanding of classical music as you have, I am not that arrigant or mean. I FIRMLY believe people choose their own greatness wherever they can find it, and it is solely up to them. Personal freedom!
By claiming that your Great composers must be everyone's Great composers you are being rude and a bully of the worst kind.
If you flip the coin you will begin to understand that your 'opinion' that Mozart wasn't a great composer is insulting to those of us who believe he is whether we like his music or not. But I was not insulted, and you shouldn't be either.
About the Wagner Quote, too bad you didn't take my word, but here's the source:
If you will purchase Felix Mendelssohn's Songs without Words Song Book Published by ALFRED and edited by Maurice Hinson, in the beginning , to be precise on page 8 you will see a quote made by the German Conductor Huns Von Bulow saying the following :
"Richard Wagner used to call Mendelssohn (in conversation at least) the Greatest Specifically musical genius the world has had since Mozart".
Amazing comment by the famous German conductor who was contemporary of Wagner and a great fan of Mendelssohn.
Quote from: Teresa on June 23, 2010, 07:10:17 PM
Here are the greatest composers I've ever heard:
And it's a fine list. I did notice that all of your favorite composers were born after 1800. Given that Bach and Mozart are from earlier periods, is it possible that some of your negative reaction to those two composers are time-based?
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 07:40:38 PM
You make some excellent points and I'm not disputing them nor am I going to argue those points with you. I can simply say that I know what I enjoy and Stravinsky's music has always been special to me. I think keeping an open-mind about music can allow some truly great things to happen. If you think Stravinsky is hack or terrible composer, then that's your prerogative, but bare in mind, his influence is massive and I certainly enjoy what he brings to the table musically. I'm also not the only person on this forum who feels this way.
I also feel some of the best music is achieved by breaking the rules. Rules are meant to be broken. That's what I enjoy about the Romantic and 20th Century periods. All of these composers were just so tired of adhering to these rules and restrictions. That's what I love about a composer like Debussy for example. He tore down those walls of restriction and created his own idiom. The best composers in my opinion are the ones that can create beautiful music, but at the same time, ignore what academia deems acceptable.
And this is the heart of the matter...
Enjoyment and Greatness are two different things and are not tied to one another necessarily.
LOL just ask those who enjoy Britney Spears.. They love it!! They go crazy for it!!!
But both of us know and agree that her music is nothing and anything but Great!!!
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 07:49:21 PM
And this is the heart of the matter...
Enjoyment and Greatness are two different things and are not tied to one another necessarily.
LOL just ask those who enjoy Britney Spears.. They love it!! They go crazy for it!!!
But both of us know and agree that her music is nothing and anything but Great!!!
It's all subjective my friend, but, yes, we both know Britney Spears is garbage, but we're in a completely different universe than those uncultured, tasteless, uneducated baboons.
I'm simply saying that I think Stravinsky was a great composer, not because I said he was, but because he's acknowledged by classical musicians, scholars, and listeners from all over the world who have proven his music's staying power.
Mirror Image,
Those composers who feel they must break the rules in order to write beautiful meaningful music are not great, because the rules of music are not a contradiction to beauty and meaning and originality, case in point Mendelssohn and Brahms. Its entirely possible to compose original amazing music within the rules of classical music, if you can't do that, then you're just not great, you maybe an interesting composer or perhaps, an adventurous composer or better yet, a fine composer, but greatness is kept for those who don't view the rules as 'walls' but as mediums of creativity and expression.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 07:57:02 PM
It's all subjective my friend, but, yes, we both know Britney Spears is garbage, but we're in a completely different universe than those uncultured, tasteless, uneducated baboons.
I'm simply saying that I think Stravinsky was a great composer, not because I said he was, but because he's acknowledged by classical musicians, scholars, and listeners from all over the world who have proven his music's staying power.
I have responded to this before hand :
They began to venture to completely adventurous harmonies and forms thinking that this will boost their originality. Well there was no boost, what happen was that they created banal music which some people decided to call it 'art' and attach to it all their intellectual weight to support this almost delusional fantasy like 'consensus' much like the modernists of visual arts when they began throwing and spilling buckets of paint on empty canvases believing in their petty minds that this is 'art'.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 07:58:53 PM
Mirror Image,
Those composers who feel they must break the rules in order to write beautiful meaningful music are not great, because the rules of music are not a contradiction to beauty and meaning and originality, case in point Mendelssohn and Brahms. Its entirely possible to compose original amazing music within the rules of classical music, if you can't do that, then you're just not great, you maybe be an interesting composer or perhaps, an adventurous composer or better yet, a fine composer, but greatness is kept for those who don't view the rules as 'walls' but as mediums of creativity and expression.
Again, this is all subjectivity and your personal opinion. Your opinion isn't the only valid one on this forum. There are always two sides to the coin. What you just stated above is your own point-of-view. My own point-of-view is that I believe that great composers felt a need for change, but at the same, remained loyal to the beauty of music.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 08:04:10 PM
I have responded to this before hand :
They began to venture to completely adventurous harmonies and forms thinking that this will boost their originality. Well there was no boost, what happen was that they created banal music which some people decided to call it 'art' and attach to it all their intellectual weight to support this almost delusional fantasy like 'consensus' much like the modernists of visual arts when they began throwing and spilling buckets of paint on empty canvases believing in their petty minds that this is 'art'.
Again, this is just your opinion and as I have stated your opinion isn't the only one on this forum. There are plenty of people who love Stravinsky's music. It doesn't make them wrong for liking him nor is somebody wrong if they say Stravinsky is great. I believe he is and so do thousands of other people.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 08:04:24 PM
Again, this is all subjectivity and your personal opinion. Your opinion isn't the only valid one on this forum. There are always two sides to the coin. What you just stated above is your own point-of-view. My own point-of-view is that I believe that great composers felt a need for change, but at the same, remained loyal to the beauty of music.
I don't know where did I hinted that youre not entitled to your opinion... :)
But this is great and interesting indeed, this conversation...
I will continue to demonstrate the great deterioration of classical music after Grieg and its origins and causes and you have all the rights to agree or disagree with me...
;)
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 08:10:31 PM
I don't know where did I hinted that youre not entitled to your opinion... :)
But this is great and interesting indeed, this conversation...
I will continue to demonstrate the great deterioration of classical music after Grieg and its origins and causes and you have all the rights to agree or disagree with me...
;)
You never said I was not entitled to my opinion. That's not the point I'm making. The point to all of my posts is that there are those who have closed-minds and there are those who have open-minds. Which category do you belong in?
I can happily listen to A. Scarlatti, Gluck, Berg, Schmidt, Sibelius, and Sculthorpe one after the other and not feel the least bit impartial to any of them. The reason I can do this is because I have an open-mind.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 08:13:36 PM
You never said I was not entitled to my opinion. That's not the point I'm making. The point to all of my posts is that there are those who have closed-minds and there are those who have open-minds. Which category do you belong in?
I belong to the category of correct-minds.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 08:16:33 PM
I belong to the category of correct-minds.
I would be very interested in knowing your listening patterns. What time period is the cut-off point for you?
I would like to make another point.
The modernist approach to music , the departure from traditional classical forms and rules, the breaking of these rules is directly responsible for the limitation of classical music and its power, and handing the greatness of music to today's pop, rap, hip hop junkies.
If no one would have broken the rules back then, classical music today would be the King of Music, and would have had a much wider following and a greater respect.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 08:21:21 PM
I would like to make another point.
The modernist approach to music , the departure from traditional classical forms and rules, the breaking of these rules is directly responsible for the limitation of classical music and its power, and handing the greatness of music to today's pop, rap, hip hop junkies.
If no one would have broken the rules back then, classical music today would be the King of Music, and would have had a much wider following and a greater respect.
You can't blame the "breaking of classical forms and rules" for classical music's unpopularity. I think that in itself is a very narrow-minded approach to enjoying the music you claim to enjoy. Stop playing the blame game and open your ears a little to newer possibilities.
As I have asked you, what are your listening patterns? What time period is the cut-off point for you?
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 08:29:38 PM
You can't blame the "breaking of classical forms and rules" for classical music's unpopularity. I think that in itself is a very narrow-minded approach to enjoying the music you claim to enjoy. Stop playing the blame game and open your ears a little to newer possibilities.
Its not a blame game but an investigation to why it happened. Surely everything has a reason, you know cause and effect.
I care for classical music, not just 'enjoying it' but as a concept. And you can see how it was diminished with the beginning of an adventurous modernist approach. I view classical music beginning from the Baroque Era as the High Mountain, those who tried to stay on the mountain were great, those who decided to leave it, departed from greatness and contributed to its diminishing.
What are these mysterious rules, Saul? Where can I buy a book which tells me what I should or shouldn't do, as a composer, in order to follow them.
There is no one set of rules. There are guidelines which composers set for themselves. Brahms has a different set of guidlines to Mendelssohn, who had a different set to Chopin, who had a different set to Schumann, who had a different set to Beethoven, who had a different set to Mozart, and so on and on. That's why their music sounds different, after all. And thank goodness it does, too. If all composers adhered to some single set of rules, how devoid of personality and interest it would all be.
You can wrap it up in talk about rule-breaking if you want, what this is really about is your taste. You like music composed within the guidelines which Brahms set himself, but not, presumably, those composed within the guidlines which, say, Medtner set himself (to mention a composer of rigorous skill and enormous historical awareness who is nevertheless the halfway point between Brahms and Rachmaninov, to invoke the traditional Medtnerian cliche). That's OK, Saul, but you shouldn't really extrapolate further from that personal taste of yours any of this stuff about 'composers who follow the rules/break the rules' because, as I say, there are as many sets of rules as there are composers.
Honestly, this thread is just too bonkers for words....
Quote from: Luke on June 23, 2010, 08:35:26 PM
What are these mysterious rules, Saul? Where can I buy a book which tells me what I should or shouldn't do, as a composer, in order to follow them.
There is no one set of rules. There are guidelines which composers set for themselves. Brahms has a different set of guidlines to Mendelssohn, who had a different set to Chopin, who had a different set to Schumann, who had a different set to Beethoven, who had a different set to Mozart, and so on and on. That's why their music sounds different, after all. And thank goodness it does, too. If all composers adhered to some single set of rules, how devoid of personality and interest it would all be.
You can wrap it up in talk about rule-breaking if you want, what this is really about is your taste. You like music composed within the guidelines which Brahms set himself, but not, presumably, those composed within the guidlines which, say, Medtner set himself (to mention a composer of rigorous skill and enormous historical awareness who is nevertheless the halfway point between Brahms and Rachmaninov, to invoke the traditional Medtnerian cliche). That's OK, Saul, but you shouldn't really extrapolate further from that personal taste of yours any of this stuff about 'composers who follow the rules/break the rules' because, as I say, there are as many sets of rules as there are composers.
Honestly, this thread is just too bonkers for words....
Its called music theory, sonata form, exposition , development and conclusion, Harmony and Melody, rhythm and tone color. And an overall good feel of sounding classical, and harmonious.
All the greats Bach, Haydn, Beethoven Mozart Mendelssohn, Brahms, Vivaldi Chopin and even to some extend Schuman, Shubert and Grieg attuned their music to these set of rules, mediums and forms.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 08:34:49 PMI view classical music beginning from the Baroque Era as the High Mountain, those who tried to stay on the mountain were great, those who decided to leave it, departed from greatness and contributed to its diminishing.
You have a very closed-mind. You think every composer should walk in the same line and eat the same foods. I don't. Thanks for an enlightening conversation. I know now that you and I could never possibly agree on anything, so let's just part ways.
Anyway, Teresa has made some excellent points and I agree with her kind of thinking. She and I should have some great conversations down the road.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 08:40:22 PM
Its called music theory, sonata form, exposition , development and conclusion, Harmony and Melody, rhythm and tone color. And an overall good feel of sounding classical, and harmonious.
All the greats Bach, Haydn, Beethoven Mozart Mendelssohn, Brahms, Vivaldi Chopin and even to some extend Schuman, Shubert and Grieg attuned their music to these set of rules, mediums and forms.
music theory doesn't end after the Romantic period, nor does the application of the said theory ends. Different styles of composition (such as 12-tone music) are added to the theory. Different composers use a different "set of rules", as well as different set of tools.
By the way, you can still find sonata form in 20th century music, in some form or another.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 08:46:16 PM
I know now that you and I could never possibly agree on anything, so let's just part ways.
Funny,
I'm looking to find people who don't agree with me so we can have a fruitful discussion.
What is there to talk about with those that I already agree with?
Anyways,
Cheers
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 08:40:22 PM
Its called music theory, sonata form, exposition , development and conclusion, Harmony and Melody, rhythm and tone color. And an overall good feel of sounding classical, and harmonious.
All the greats Bach, Haydn, Beethoven Mozart Mendelssohn, Brahms, Vivaldi Chopin and even to some extend Schuman, Shubert and Grieg attuned their music to these set of rules, mediums and forms.
Really, Saul, no, they didn't. Sonata form as you are thinking of it was not conceived of in Bach's day. It wasn't even really conceived of in Mozart's or Beethoven's day - they followed what you could call the sonata
principle, which was a feeling for the confluence of key and structure, not a set of rules. The sonata form rules you are talking about were only codified later, and were arguably pretty stultifying, except in the case of genius - Brahms, Alkan, and others, who were able to see the wood for the trees.
So, all that you have said above could be applied, for instance, to a piece like Berg's Piano Sonata - a piece written within the context of an immeasurably better command of music theory than you or I will ever have, a piece clearly in this ellusive sonata form of exposition, development and conclusion, (recapitulation, if you are wanting to give it the rulebook name), a piece which undeniably has 'Harmony and Melody, rhythm and tone color', though I guess these aren't to your taste in this particular work.
Which issue - taste - leads on to the last of your rules, snuck in round the back - 'an overall good feel of sounding classical, and harmonious.' In your own words, Saul, that's a 'feel' not a rule. IOW, it's a matter of personal taste*. I reckon Berg had a pretty darned impeccable sense of what sounded classical and harmonious, even if he chose to use more complex harmonies and more extreme textures and rhythms than suits your own tastes.
* the danger on this crazy thread is that in saying those words one ends up putting oneself closer to Teresa's equally crazy mantras, a world in which Mozart can be described not merely as 'not to my taste' but as incompetent. I'd better get out of this mad thread before it implodes....
Quote from: Ring of Fire on June 23, 2010, 08:48:59 PM
music theory doesn't end after the Romantic period, nor does the application of the said theory ends. Different styles of composition (such as 12-tone music) are added to the theory. Different composers use a different "set of rules", as well as different set of tools.
By the way, you can still find sonata form in 20th century music, in some form or another.
Exactly, classical music didn't end after the Romantic period. Anybody willing to listen to Webern, Berg, or Prokofiev with an open-mind are able to understand that music has to grow and breathe. It can't possibly do this by conforming to the same practices that made Brahms or Haydn great. There has to be growth, experimentation, and new developments in music in order for great things to happen.
Quote from: Ring of Fire on June 23, 2010, 08:48:59 PM
music theory doesn't end after the Romantic period, nor does the application of the said theory ends. Different styles of composition (such as 12-tone music) are added to the theory. Different composers use a different "set of rules", as well as different set of tools.
By the way, you can still find sonata form in 20th century music, in some form or another.
Then its not 'Classical music', call it something else.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 08:54:25 PM
Funny,
I'm looking to find people who don't agree with me so we can have a fruitful discussion.
What is there to talk about with those that I already agree with?
Anyways,
Cheers
Who actually agrees with you on this thread?
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 08:57:36 PM
Exactly, classical music didn't end after the Romantic period. Anybody willing to listen to Webern, Berg, or Prokofiev with an open-mind are able to understand that music has to grow and breathe. It can't possibly do this by conforming to the same practices that made Brahms or Haydn great. There has to be growth, experimentation, and new developments in music in order for great things to happen.
You call modernity in music a progression, I call it a deterioration. There's no way that these modern composers composed their music in accordance to classical values, what they produced is not classical.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 08:58:51 PM
Then its not 'Classical music', call it something else.
What 20th Century composers do you enjoy to listen to?
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 09:00:54 PM
Who actually agrees with you on this thread?
Well, you're not the one that's clear.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:03:15 PM
Well, you're not the one that's clear.
You've made your musical tastes quite clear. You tread a very narrow line in classical music history whereas I am open to exploration in all eras.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:01:41 PM
You call modernity in music a progression, I call it a deterioration. There's no way that these modern composers composed their music in accordance to classical values, what they produced is not classical.
Modernity
is progression (well....
sometimes) You forgot that Beethoven was once modern, and pushed music forward, even creating one of the first atonal pieces (Grosse Fuge). Beethoven was among the firsts to use the Scherzo instead of the Minuet and Trio, as well as including new instruments in the orchestra (such as trombone). The 4th piano concerto also was on of the first concerto's not to have a long orchestral introduction.
But maybe Beethoven started the deterioration. I don't know! But I can say that I love the music by Shostakovich, and a lot of other 20th century composers.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 09:02:38 PM
What 20th Century composers do you enjoy to listen to?
I might enjoy listening to them, but I wont call them 'Classical composers' or their music 'classical music' nor attribute any greatness to them.
As I said, enjoyment and greatness are two different things. You make the same error as Teresa where she believes that her own enjoyment is a perfect medium of deciding what is great and what is not.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:10:01 PM
I might enjoy listening to them, but I wont call them 'Classical composers' or their music 'classical music' nor attribute any greatness to them.
As I said, enjoyment and greatness are two different things. You make the same error as Teresa where she believes that her own enjoyment is a perfect medium of deciding what is great and what is not.
To deny Stravinsky's, Shostakovich's, or Schoenberg's greatness is to live in a blind world. Trust me you're as closed-minded as they come. As I said, you won't change my opinion and I know I won't change yours, so why don't we discuss some composers that both of us enjoy?
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 09:11:25 PM
Amen to that.
Depends in what. Not all aspects of modernity are beneficial and progressive.
Look at the visual arts of years passed, and look at the rubbish in today's galleries. The differences are astronomical. Same is with music. Connect the dots.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 09:13:00 PM
To deny Stravinsky's, Shostakovich's, or Schoenberg's greatness is to live in a blind world. Trust me you're as closed-minded as they come.
Thank you, I would love to close my mind to all the rubbish of the world, the task is daunting, but it would be a noble achievement.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:15:11 PM
Depends in what. Not all aspects of modernity are beneficial and progressive.
Look at the visual arts of years passed, and look at the rubbish in today's galleries. The differences are astronomical. Same is with music. Connect the dots.
I don't need to connect the dots. I know a piece of rubbish when I see one. I don't consider splashing colors onto a piece of paper art, but then again my opinion of visual art is completely different than my opinion of music. Music is it's own language. There are a lot of different ways to express this language. I think a composer like Berg and Bartok did a beautiful job of expressing this language. I think they're GREAT composers that helped define an era in classical music history. They kept the music alive as did many other GREAT 20th Century composers.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:17:12 PM
Thank you, I would love to close my mind to all the rubbish of the world, the task is daunting, but it would be a noble achievement.
News for you, it's not rubbish because you do not like the works. It's fine for you to not like, even hate, the works by said composers, but to put a blanket statement saying it's "rubbish" is not a noble achievement. You can hate something, and that thing still be good, or even great.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 09:19:14 PM
I don't need to connect the dots. I know a piece of rubbish when I see one. I don't consider splashing colors onto a piece of paper art, but then again my opinion of visual art is completely different than my opinion of music. Music is it's own language. There are a lot of different ways to express this language. I think a composer like Berg and Bartok did a beautiful job of expressing this language.
What's the word 'classical' mean?
CLASSICAL IS NOT THE SAME AS MODERN.
Call these modernist's music modern music, but its not classical.
You want to call them great modern composers? I guess that would be ok. But they are not Great CLASSICAL composers, that's my point.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 07:25:13 PM
Let me explain to you why Stravinsky is not a Great composer.
His and the other composers' mistake and miscalculation was based on the wrong assumption that their unique creativity and originality can't be produced if they wrote their music within the traditional Baroque and Classical forms and styles. They began to venture to completely adventurous harmonies and forms thinking that this will boost their originality. Well there was no boost, what happen was that they created banal music which some people decided to call it 'art' and attach to it all their intellectual weight to support this almost delusional fantasy like 'consensus' much like the modernists of visual arts when they began throwing and spilling buckets of paint on empty canvases believing in their petty minds that this is 'art'.
To me Greatness in composition , is when you produce amazingly beautiful music that touches the soul without breaking the rules, sticking to the rules and finding your own distinctive style within the classical rules of music, is what makes a great composer.
Now, if you go the extreme, you will have pop music lovers laugh at classical music, expressing complete love for junkies such as Britney Spears and Pink, in fact you would have millions of people who hate classical music and consider it inferior to any other genre of music.
I say, down with their 'opinions' numbers don't matter here. Even of the whole world will believe that Mozart was not a Great composer, I would be the only one still believing that he indeed was.
Therefore this is where 'popular opinion', influence to other modern composers, and Greatness meet up head to head.
Popular opinion by those who don't know enough about classical music is pointless and doesn't effect the reality . Influence on other modern composers to continue to compose in 'error' is plainly a shame and a misdirection of real authentic classical music. And Greatness is not a matter of just personal opinion and personal enjoyment, it must be evaluated on the quality of the compositions, their technical aspects, their innovation, their adherence to the rules of music, the forms, the styles and the harmonies, and last but not least, the orderly intelligent and logical construction of the music from beginning to end.
Music is like Poetry, just like in Poetry you can't expect to throw in words in a banality and then decide that its great. No it must have intelligence behind it, and if this intelligence was constructed with order and logic, then and only then it can be called great. Music is a serious thing, otherwise you can just open up the window and listen to the birds sing and the wind whisper and the trees move, this is also 'music' but its not human made art.
Ok, this has gone on long enough. This post of yours is just flat-out utter bullshit. Leaving aside the fact it's so poorly written that it's virtually impossible to follow any logical thread, it's also just purely and simply fraught with generalities, misconceptions, innuendo, stereotypes, prejudice, haughtiness, and just plain stupidity (yes, stupidity).
You're attempting to map your own prejudices onto the entire history of classical music and it simply won't fly.
To answer every single erroneous concoction in this post would take up days worth of time so I won't even try. However, this entire strawman of a post can be brought tumbling down with a loud SPLAT with one simple counter-argument:
Somehow to Saul only the baroque and classical forms hold court as the "true mainstays of musical genius". Somehow every musical evolution AFTER these two forms distorts and devalues "true genius" and should be looked upon as a sort of classical music cancer.
Bunk.
Bunk for one simple reason: who's to say that BAROQUE ITSELF isn't the ONE true path to classical music genius? Who's to say that classical forms isn't the very BEGINNING of the cancer that would ultimately kill musical genius?
I mean, what's so bad about baroque forms that there had to be any musical evolution at all??!?? WHY KILL PERFECTION??
The very fact that classical forms evolved and sprouted everywhere means IPSO FACTO that musical (artistic) genius ENJOYS spreading its wings and NOT conforming
ad infinitum to antiquated forms. The classical era ITSELF is guilty of ushering in a completely new musical aesthetic and DISPENSING WITH THE OLD!!!!! Case closed!!! Baroque forms got left in the dust with new and exciting musical forms providing the proverbial blank canvas upon which composers could have a field day and explore.
Exploration is a GOOD thing!! 'Else baroque forms would still hold court to this day and we'd be stuck in a never ending loop of Vivaldi clones. YIKES!!!!!!!!!
So the question is simple: if evolution is the great bugaboo in classical music, WHY WOULD MUSIC HAVE EVOLVED AT ALL FROM BAROQUE TO CLASSICAL FORMS??!??!??!??
The answer to this is just as simple: true genius isn't about to be straight-jacketed into antiquated and constricting forms when there's so much to be created in NEW forms. The proof is in the pudding: classical forms EVOLVED out of the old baroque forms and the rest is musical history. Thank
heavens true genius isn't held to the fallacies of the Sauls of the world. ??? ??? ??? ???
Quote from: Ring of Fire on June 23, 2010, 09:20:02 PM
News for you, it's not rubbish because you do not like the works. It's fine for you to not like, even hate, the works by said composers, but to put a blanket statement saying it's "rubbish" is not a noble achievement. You can hate something, and that thing still be good, or even great.
I was talking in general terms and not only the rubbish that is found in music... :)
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:24:02 PM
I was talking in general terms and not only the rubbish that is found in music... :)
You've called the music of Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Mahler (and several others) completely worthless. My point still stands.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on June 23, 2010, 09:23:29 PM
Ok, this has gone on long enough. This post of yours is just flat-out utter bullshit. Leaving aside the fact it's so poorly written that it's virtually impossible to follow any logical thread, it's also just purely and simply fraught with generalities, misconceptions, innuendo, stereotypes, prejudice, haughtiness, and just plain stupidity (yes, stupidity).
You're attempting to map your own prejudices onto the entire history of classical music and it simply won't fly.
To answer every single erroneous concoction in this post would take up days worth of time so I won't even try. However, this entire strawman of a post can be brought tumbling down with a loud SPLAT with one simple counter-argument:
Somehow to Saul only the baroque and classical forms hold court as the "true mainstays of musical genius". Somehow every musical evolution AFTER these two forms distorts and devalues "true genius" and should be looked upon as a sort of classical music cancer.
Bunk.
Bunk for one simple reason: who's to say that BAROQUE ITSELF isn't the ONE true path to classical music genius? Who's to say that classical forms isn't the very BEGINNING of the cancer that would ultimately kill musical genius?
I mean, what's so bad about baroque forms that there had to be any musical evolution at all??!?? WHY KILL PERFECTION??
The very fact that classical forms evolved and sprouted everywhere means IPSO FACTO that musical (artistic) genius ENJOYS spreading its wings and NOT conforming ad infinitum to antiquated forms. The classical era ITSELF is guilty of ushering in a completely new musical aesthetic and DISPENSING WITH THE OLD!!!!! Case closed!!! Baroque forms got left in the dust with new and exciting musical forms providing the proverbial blank canvas upon which composers could have a field day and explore.
Exploration is a GOOD thing!! 'Else baroque forms would still hold court to this day and we'd be stuck in a never ending loop of Vivaldi clones. YIKES!!!!!!!!!
So the question is simple: if evolution is the great bugaboo in classical music, WHY WOULD MUSIC HAVE EVOLVED AT ALL FROM BAROQUE TO CLASSICAL FORMS??!??!??!??
The answer to this is just as simple: true genius isn't about to be straight-jacketed into antiquated and constricting forms when there's so much to be created in NEW forms. The proof is in the pudding: classical forms EVOLVED out of the old baroque forms and the rest is musical history. Thank heavens true genius isn't held to the fallacies of the Sauls of the world. ??? ??? ??? ???
You were able to squeeze a good number of vituperations in one single article, and that takes talent, and I do acknowledge your talent in this, well done.
But to your other statements that deal with music, I couldn't even let myself read it completely because the gravity of its blunder was just too thick even for me to handle.
But even that is ok, you're still entitled to make erroneous statements that make no sense.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:22:34 PM
What's the word 'classical' mean?
Please read this and prepare to be enlightened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th-century_classical_music
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:22:34 PM
What's the word 'classical' mean?
CLASSICAL IS NOT THE SAME AS MODERN.
Call these modernist's music modern music, but its not classical.
You want to call them great modern composers? I guess that would be ok. But they are not Great CLASSICAL composers, that's my point.
Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Berg are all great
classical composers in the
Twentieth Century era. How can you justify not calling them classical composers? Because they didn't use the same "tools" and methods in creating music as Beethoven or Mozart?
Quote from: Ring of Fire on June 23, 2010, 09:29:49 PM
Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Berg are all great classical composers in the Twentieth Century era. How can you justify not calling them classical composers? Because they didn't use the same "tools" and methods in creating music as Beethoven or Mozart?
Why would you call a composer that 'breaks the rules' of classical music, a classical composer?
Maybe I'm missing somethin here...?
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on June 23, 2010, 09:23:29 PM
Ok, this has gone on long enough. ........
[lots of well made points]
....So the question is simple: if evolution is the great bugaboo in classical music, WHY WOULD MUSIC HAVE EVOLVED AT ALL FROM BAROQUE TO CLASSICAL FORMS??!??!??!??
The answer to this is just as simple: true genius isn't about to be straight-jacketed into antiquated and constricting forms when there's so much to be created in NEW forms. The proof is in the pudding: classical forms EVOLVED out of the old baroque forms and the rest is musical history. Thank heavens true genius isn't held to the fallacies of the Sauls of the world. ??? ??? ??? ???
Very good post. As you say, there are so many holes in Saul's line of thinking, such as it is discernible, that it's hard to know where to start, but you make a very good point. I love how Saul sees eveything from Bach to Brahms as some kind of monolithic mass of sameness, music that followed 'the rules' (whatever they are, haven't had a cogent response on that one yet) without deviation or exploration!
Quote from: Luke on June 23, 2010, 09:32:30 PM
Very good post. As you say, there are so many holes in Saul's line of thinking, such as it is discernible, that it's hard to know where to start, but you make a very good point. I love how Saul sees eveything from Bach to Brahms as some kind of monolithic mass of sameness, music that followed 'the rules' (whatever they are, haven't had a cogent response on that one yet) without deviation or exploration!
Oh.. not the Swiss Cheese Approach!
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:31:53 PM
Why would you call a composer that 'breaks the rules' of classical music, a classical composer?
Maybe I'm missing somethin here...?
I guess you didn't read that article I had suggested you read? Once you read that and understand it, all will be well. 8)
Quote from: Luke on June 23, 2010, 09:32:30 PM
Very good post. As you say, there are so many holes in Saul's line of thinking, such as it is discernible, that it's hard to know where to start, but you make a very good point. I love how Saul sees eveything from Bach to Brahms as some kind of monolithic mass of sameness, music that followed 'the rules' (whatever they are, haven't had a cogent response on that one yet) without deviation or exploration!
I honestly don't even see how he can get out of the bed in the morning with such a closed-mind.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 09:35:01 PM
I guess you didn't read that article I had suggested you read? Once you read that and understand it, all will be well. 8)
Who cares what they say, I'm sure that you're aware that I am aware that I'm going against popular opinion here... ;)
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:31:53 PM
Why would you call a composer that 'breaks the rules' of classical music, a classical composer?
Maybe I'm missing somethin here...?
Because rules are not as rigid as you would want to believe. The use of different harmonies expanded over time, and the sonata form has been altered as time went on. There isn't a real set of rules.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:28:47 PM
You were able to squeeze a good number of vituperations in one single article, and that takes talent, and I do acknowledge your talent in this, well done.
But to your other statements that deal with music, I couldn't even let myself read it completely because the gravity of its blunder was just too thick even for me to handle.
But even that is ok, you're still entitled to make erroneous statements that make no sense.
Saul, this is the most shameless post, really. What you mean, but what, ridiculously, you are trying to wrap up as 'you are so wrong that I didn't even read what you wrote', is 'I have no answer to the point you make'. But really, there is only one central point in that excellent post. Let's make it again: if evolution/revolution in music is such a terrible thing, how come you admire both Baroque and Classical musics, when the latter is such an evolution of the former?
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 23, 2010, 09:37:27 PM
I honestly don't even see how he can get out of the bed in the morning with such a closed-mind.
Why don't you please relax and don't turn it personal...I could also begin attacking you persoanlly, and it wouldnt be nice at all, so please keep it clean.
Quote from: Luke on June 23, 2010, 09:38:52 PM
Saul, this is the most shameless post, really. What you mean, but what, ridiculously, you are trying to wrap up as 'you are so wrong that I didn't even read what you wrote', is 'I have no answer to the point you make'. But really, there is only one central point in that excellent post. Let's make it again: if evolution/revolution in music is such a terrible thing, how come you admire both Baroque and Classical musics, when the latter is such an evolution of the former?
Because there was no evolution, there was a different approach that didn't reject the foundations of classical music, and looked with the utmost respect and dedication to the ways of the masters. The modernists departed from this, and created their own bible and therefore ceased to be holy (great).
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:28:47 PM
You were able to squeeze a good number of vituperations in one single article, and that takes talent, and I do acknowledge your talent in this, well done.
But to your other statements that deal with music, I couldn't even let myself read it completely because the gravity of its blunder was just too thick even for me to handle.
But even that is ok, you're still entitled to make erroneous statements that make no sense.
No, the talent is all yours, I assure you. I at least READ your post before responding. The fact you won't (more like can't) read mine means assuredly you're just another in a long line of internet trolls.
You further drive home your ignorance by slinging venom at me instead meeting me head-on. I guess confronting your own fallacies is simply too much for you.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on June 23, 2010, 09:44:02 PM
No, the talent is all yours, I assure you. I at least READ your post before responding. The fact you won't (more like can't) read mine means assuredly you're just another in a long line of internet trolls.
You further drive home your ignorance by slinging venom at me instead meeting me head-on. I guess confronting your own fallacies is simply too much for you.
Yes, turn a perfectly beautiful discussion on music that is composed of drastically different opinions into a personal blame game attack.
You know what?
What's the point in beginning anything here that will result in this kind of behavior?
I don't know why I have to agree with you on anything.
Quote from: Luke on June 23, 2010, 09:32:30 PM
Very good post. As you say, there are so many holes in Saul's line of thinking, such as it is discernible, that it's hard to know where to start, but you make a very good point.
Thanks. :)
QuoteI love how Saul sees eveything from Bach to Brahms as some kind of monolithic mass of sameness, music that followed 'the rules' (whatever they are, haven't had a cogent response on that one yet) without deviation or exploration!
Yes, not sure myself what to make of these "rules". Where to start? If only Saul would give us some guidance...
Going against popular opinion is always difficult and an uphill struggle that can be turned into personal attacks. Sad case, it was always like that from time immemorial. In a sense Teresa has got the same whips more or less, but the only difference is that in this case I'm right and she's wrong!
:) ;) :D ;D :)
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:42:25 PM
Because there was no evolution, there was a different approach that didn't reject the foundations of classical music, and looked with the utmost respect and dedication to the ways of the masters. The modernists departed from this, and created their own bible and therefore ceased to be holy (great).
This actually makes no sense, semantically speaking, and therefore I have no idea what you are on about. I think you are saying that there was no evolution from Baroque to Classical? No, perhaps it was more a revolution, actually - the two are utterly different in so many ways. But you also appear to be saying that baroque music is the real classical music but that classical music didn't reject classical music......no, you lost me there.
But aside from the musicological bunk, your posts on this thread, with their rejection of evolution, their reverence for 'the rules', the 'High Mountain' imagery, and lines like 'the modernists departed from this, and created their own bible and therefore ceased to be holy (great)' are starting to take on a familiarly religious fervour which I find a little amusing...but which I'm not sure I want to get embroiled with, even if it is 'only' music we are talking about! :D
Quote from: Luke on June 23, 2010, 09:59:46 PM
This actually makes no sense, semantically speaking, and therefore I have no idea what you are on about. I think you are saying that there was no evolution from Baroque to Classical? No, perhaps it was more a revolution, actually - the two are utterly different in so many ways. But you also appear to be saying that baroque music is the real classical music but that classical music didn't reject classical music......no, you lost me there.
But aside from the musicological bunk, your posts on this thread, with their rejection of evolution, their reverence for 'the rules', the 'High Mountain' imagery, and lines like 'the modernists departed from this, and created their own bible and therefore ceased to be holy (great)' are starting to take on a familiarly religious fervour which I find a little amusing...but which I'm not sure I want to get embroiled with, even if it is 'only' music we are talking about! :D
Its so easy not to understand things you don't want to believe in...
I wonder where it comes from!
:D
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 10:02:42 PM
Its so easy not to understand things you don't want to believe in...
I wonder where it comes from!
:D
OK, so I was right. [backs away.......]
Quote from: Luke on June 23, 2010, 10:06:17 PM
OK, so I was right. [backs away.......]
I really really really didnt understand what you meant there...I'm not trying to be sarcastic...or contradict myself in anyway ! :D
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 10:08:18 PM
I really really really didnt understand what you meant there...
The confusing part of my post was the bit where I was trying to paraphrase and make sense of your own arguments. So perhaps now you know how the rest of us feel!
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 09:48:26 PM
Yes, turn a perfectly beautiful discussion on music that is composed of drastically different opinions into a personal blame game attack.
You know what?
What's the point in beginning anything here that will result in this kind of behavior?
I don't know why I have to agree with you on anything.
Well, what do you expect when you don't even bother to read my post??!?? :o
::) ::) ::)
Ok, I'll give you one more chance. READ my post in its entirety and actually RESPOND to its points and let's see where that leads us (and do the same for Luke's earlier post).
You see, THAT is the definition of a "beautiful discussion". Not what you're trying to do, here.
I called your ideas in that post of yours I quoted "stupid" because what your evincing with your ideology is actually utter DEATH to artistic genius. It's horrifying to think of art in such terms as you put it. You might as well bury all art right now with that attitude. Yikes!!! :o
You see, Prokofiev is one of my favorite composers (along with Bach, Brahms, etc...). Debussy is a master (as is Beethoven and Handel). It simply isn't necessary to HATE something just because you don't understand it. That kind of attitude hearkens back to prejudice and all the nasty sorts of things that go along with it. Which ultimately leads to censuring and burning and all that kind of stuff. Yuck.
Quote from: Luke on June 23, 2010, 10:11:53 PM
The confusing part of my post was the bit where I was trying to paraphrase and make sense of your own arguments. So perhaps now you know how the rest of us feel!
I'm sorry that I have confused you Luke, really.
I didn't know that I was speaking in such 'Rocket Science' manner, though I personally think that I what I said was very simple and clear.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on June 23, 2010, 10:13:58 PM
Well, what do you expect when you don't even bother to read my post??!?? :o
::) ::) ::)
Ok, I'll give you one more chance. READ my post in its entirety and actually RESPOND to its points and let's see where that leads us (and do the same for Luke's earlier post).
You see, THAT is the definition of a "beautiful discussion". Not what you're trying to do, here.
I called your ideas in that post of yours I quoted "stupid" because what your evincing with your ideology is actually utter DEATH to artistic genius. It's horrifying to think of art in such terms as you put it. You might as well bury all art right now with that attitude. Yikes!!! :o
You see, Prokofiev is one of my favorite composers (along with Bach, Brahms, etc...). Debussy is a master (as is Beethoven and Handel). It simply isn't necessary to HATE something just because you don't understand it. That kind of attitude hearkens back to prejudice and all the nasty sorts of things that go along with it. Which ultimately leads to censuring and burning and all that kind of stuff. Yuck.
I would argue that every reasonable fair minded person would say that you have personally attacked me even before you said anything about my comments on music...but anyways lets go on...
I will try to respond to you tomorrow and make things a little clearer for you...
But now I'm busy with this thread for over three hours...enough is enough as they say...
Layta...
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 10:16:44 PM
I'm sorry that I have confused you Luke, really.
I didn't know that I was speaking in such 'Rocket Science' manner, though I personally think that I what I said was very simple and clear.
Sorry, but it's not clear at all.
And we're not "confused" in the sense that you're talking over our heads in a "rocket science" manner. We're "confused" because you're unable to articulate your ideas in any sort of RATIONAL manner.
And your language lately is getting pretty scary. Time to re-evaluate.
Quote from: Saul on June 23, 2010, 10:20:22 PM
I would argue that every reasonable fair minded person would say that you have personally attacked me even before you said anything about my comments on music...
SAY WHAT??!??QuoteI will try to respond to you tomorrow and make things a little clearer for you...
Oh, I read you loud and clear already, sir....
Quote from: Luke on June 23, 2010, 10:11:53 PM
The confusing part of my post was the bit where I was trying to paraphrase and make sense of your own arguments. So perhaps now you know how the rest of us feel!
Luke, the only way to emerge from this discussion is to use the wisdom of the Bible. Proverbs, Chapter 14, verse 7.
QuoteGo from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
;D
From Zen Flesh, Zen Bones (ed. by Paul Reps)
When Banzan was walking through a market he overheard a conversation between a butcher and his customer.
"Give me the best piece of meat you have," said the customer.
"Everything in my shop is the best," replied the butcher. "You cannot find here any piece of meat that is not the best."
At these words Banzan became enlightened.
************************************************************************************
I'm bailing on this thread-- something about the Law of Diminishing Returns, and the Black knight from Monty Python who kept saying "it's just a flesh wound".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4)
Since the Baroque Era music has devolved and not evolved, because evolution connotes progress in craft, and clearly that was never the case. As time passed by the urge of finding a new voice and style had caused composers to break from traditional sounding classical music and its rules and began composing modern sounding music which is by every standard and by every means completely inferior to the beauty and grandeur of Classical music. This deterioration of the art of composing is most evident with the composers of the 20th century, most notably, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Mahler and Shostakovich who wrote music that may sound appealing to some people, but don't be fooled, their music is completely banal and poorly written, and should never be included within classical music.
Breaking the rules of a given art should never be considered as progress. Those who push for this, are ignoring the fact, that just like every given art and wisdom, Classical music has rules and standards, and when you decide to depart from them, you depart from Classical music.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 04:29:38 AM
Since the Baroque Era music has devolved and not evolved, because evolution connotes progress in craft, and clearly that was never the case. As time passed by the urge of finding a new voice and style had caused composers to break from traditional sounding classical music and its rules and began composing modern sounding music which is by every standard and by every means completely inferior to the beauty and grandeur of Classical music. This deterioration of the art of composing is most evident with the composers of the 20th century, most notably, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Mahler and Shostakovich who wrote music that may sound appealing to some people, but don't be fooled, their music is completely banal and poorly written, and should never be included within classical music.
Breaking the rules of a given art should never be considered as progress. Those who push for this, are ignoring the fact, that just like every given art and wisdom, Classical music has rules and standards, and when you decide to depart from them, you depart from Classical music.
Please point to examples of poorly-written Schoenberg, being specific and giving detailed musical reasons. (Given that Schoenberg was one of the supreme music theorists and most technically accomplished composers of all, like the results or loath them, I'll be interested to read this). Coming from totally the opposite direction, this is as loopy as Teresa claiming that Mozart was incompetent. Again, Saul, you don't have to like it, but the quality is actually not in dispute. Even most rabid anti-moderns don't doubt the skill of a Schoenberg (or a Berg, or a Mahler, or whatever) even if they dislike the end result.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 04:29:38 AM
Since the Baroque Era music has devolved and not evolved, because evolution connotes progress in craft, and clearly that was never the case. As time passed by the urge of finding a new voice and style had caused composers to break from traditional sounding classical music and its rules and began composing modern sounding music which is by every standard and by every means completely inferior to the beauty and grandeur of Classical music. This deterioration of the art of composing is most evident with the composers of the 20th century, most notably, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Mahler and Shostakovich who wrote music that may sound appealing to some people, but don't be fooled, their music is completely banal and poorly written, and should never be included within classical music.
Breaking the rules of a given art should never be considered as progress. Those who push for this, are ignoring the fact, that just like every given art and wisdom, Classical music has rules and standards, and when you decide to depart from them, you depart from Classical music.
I have two questions.
1. Do you hold this opinion of breaking the rules in art to be true of literature and painting? If so, do you pinpoint a time at which literature and painting began to crumble from a historical high?
2. The transition from a dependence upon ecclesiastical modes to the system of major and minor keys used in the Baroque could be interpreted as "breaking the rules" by your criteria. Would you propose that a disintegration of the modal system represents progress yet a disintegration of the tonal system represents a regression? If so, how do you draw the distinction?
Cheers
The assertion that since the Baroque Era music has devolved is at odds with the assertion that Mendelssohn is a greater composer than Bach. Though one would still be at perfect liberty to like Mendelssohn's music better than Bach's, notwithstanting that it represents an artistic deterioration ; )
Quote from: Luke on June 24, 2010, 04:34:55 AM
Please point to examples of poorly-written Schoenberg, being specific and giving detailed musical reasons. (Given that Schoenberg was one of the supreme music theorists and most technically accomplished composers of all, like the results or loath them, I'll be interested to read this). Coming from totally the opposite direction, this is as loopy as Teresa claiming that Mozart was incompetent. Again, Saul, you don't have to like it, but the quality is actually not in dispute. Even most rabid anti-moderns don't doubt the skill of a Schoenberg (or a Berg, or a Mahler, or whatever) even if they dislike the end result.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia about Mendelssohn and his contemporaries:
Throughout his life Mendelssohn was wary of the more radical musical developments undertaken by some of his contemporaries. He was generally on friendly, if somewhat cool, terms with the likes of Hector Berlioz, Franz Liszt, and Giacomo Meyerbeer, but in his letters expresses his frank disapproval of their works. In particular, he seems to have regarded Paris and its music with the greatest of suspicion and an almost Puritanical distaste. Attempts made during his visit there to interest him in Saint-Simonianism ended in embarrassing scenes. [36]He thought the Paris style of opera vulgar, and the works of Meyerbeer insincere. It is significant that the only musician with whom he was a close personal friend, Moscheles, was of an older generation and equally conservative in outlook. Moscheles preserved this outlook at the Leipzig Conservatory.
I totally agree with Mendelssohn's approach and opinion here. Is he also a fool and an idiot according to you and your friends here?
Yes, some people including myself are against the 'radical musical developments' initiated by later composers.
Saul, you have entirely failed to supply any response to Luke's invitation. Spam to the effect of Mendelssohn is the tits! is not a response here.
So, thank you for conceding that you have no musical criticism of Schoenberg.
(BTW, Schoenberg is a better composer than Mendelssohn. Just saying.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 04:58:07 AM
Saul, you have entirely failed to supply any response to Luke's invitation. Spam to the effect of Mendelssohn is the tits! is not a response here.
So, thank you for conceding that you have no musical criticism of Schoenberg.
(BTW, Schoenberg is a better composer than Mendelssohn. Just saying.)
How about giving me some time to respond?
Luke here's an example of Showenberg's Banality:
http://www.youtube.com/v/fy6t8yXPcSQ&feature=related
Where's the melody?
Where's the order?
Where's the harmony?
Where's the classical feeling?
It almost sounds that he is hitting the keys without any previous thought.
And Karl to suggest that the above music is in anyway supirior to this is just been blind to reality, Mendelssohn wrote this Sonata when he was only a little boy, perhaps 13 or 14, and his youthful genius overpowers anything that Showenberg had written in any time:
http://www.youtube.com/v/t2V9E6ftc5U&feature=related
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 04:59:22 AM
How about giving me some time to respond?
Doesn't alter the fact that flogging the dead Mendelssohn fandom horse is absolutely irrelevant to the question of Schoenberg.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 04:29:38 AM
Since the Baroque Era music has devolved and not evolved, because evolution connotes progress in craft, and clearly that was never the case. As time passed by the urge of finding a new voice and style had caused composers to break from traditional sounding classical music and its rules and began composing modern sounding music which is by every standard and by every means completely inferior to the beauty and grandeur of Classical music. This deterioration of the art of composing is most evident with the composers of the 20th century, most notably, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Mahler and Shostakovich who wrote music that may sound appealing to some people, but don't be fooled, their music is completely banal and poorly written, and should never be included within classical music.
Breaking the rules of a given art should never be considered as progress. Those who push for this, are ignoring the fact, that just like every given art and wisdom, Classical music has rules and standards, and when you decide to depart from them, you depart from Classical music.
Thank you for condemning 99% of the Classical Music I
DEARLY LOVE! >:(
You really are intolerant, calling the Classical Music I love not even deserving enough to be Classical Music.
I believe in freedom and inclusion, you believe just the opposite exclusion and intolerance of other peoples Classical Music choices. As much as I hate Mozart, I would NEVER condemn anyone for loving Mozart, as that is personal choice and everyone everywhere should be free to love who they want.
PERIOD! YOUR INTOLERANCE IS EXTREMELY RUDE!!!! It is OK, if you hate every single composer I love, and I believe that you do since you don't like Romantic and Modern composers. Why can you not extend this same courtesy to everyone else? It is fine you hate composers but it is WRONG to FORCE you choices of composers on every one else and condemn the composers we love as not only crap but even worse not classical music. Tolerance of other peoples feelings would help you a lot!
Personally I believe that Great Classical Music was born with Rimsky-Korsakov who showed us how to use the "color tones" of musical instruments for emotionally effective orchestration. For me Classical Music didn't really get great until after 1800.
I would love for you to point me to a single work written before 1800 that is as well composed as
Stravinsky's Firebird Ballet or as well orchestrated.
NO, CLASSICAL MUSIC HAS EVOLVED NOT DE-EVOLVED. Classical Music has not only gotten better, but considerable better by many degrees of magnitude.
Listen to Jennifer Higdon's City Scape and Concerto for Orchestra both written in 2002 and tell me it's not Classical Music. It is some of the most beautiful Classical Music I have ever heard in my entire long life!
Jennifer Higdon sound samples at Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/City-Scape-Concerto-Orchestra-Higdon/dp/B0001KL4IG/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1277384722&sr=8-10)
I love ancient and early Renaissance Dance and Troubadour music, and FIRMLY believe music got WORSE with the Baroque era and didn't recover until the Romantic era. But that is only my personal opinion which applies to me. And believe it or not your personal opinions
ONLY APPLY TO YOU. YOU CANNOT FORCE YOUR OPINIONS ON OTHERS NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 04:53:26 AM
Here's a quote from Wikipedia about Mendelssohn and his contemporaries:
Throughout his life Mendelssohn was wary of the more radical musical developments undertaken by some of his contemporaries. He was generally on friendly, if somewhat cool, terms with the likes of Hector Berlioz, Franz Liszt, and Giacomo Meyerbeer, but in his letters expresses his frank disapproval of their works. In particular, he seems to have regarded Paris and its music with the greatest of suspicion and an almost Puritanical distaste. Attempts made during his visit there to interest him in Saint-Simonianism ended in embarrassing scenes. [36]He thought the Paris style of opera vulgar, and the works of Meyerbeer insincere. It is significant that the only musician with whom he was a close personal friend, Moscheles, was of an older generation and equally conservative in outlook. Moscheles preserved this outlook at the Leipzig Conservatory.
I totally agree with Mendelssohn's approach and opinion here. Is he also a fool and an idiot according to you and your friends here?
Yes, some people including myself are against the 'radical musical developments' initiated by later composers.
This only proves why Hector Berlioz and Franz Liszt are IMHO considerably better composers than Felix Mendelssohn. His approach was reactionary and stifling of musical growth. And it shows plainly in how more advanced and enjoyable Berlioz's and Liszt's compositions are over Mendelssohn.
Teresa,
I never force my opinion on others.
And been adventurous doesn't mean that its better.
As to providing you a work that is better composed then the Firebird there it goes:
Composed in 1788
http://www.youtube.com/v/l45DAuXYSIs&feature=related
Saul, you really just don't get it.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 05:30:29 AM
Teresa,
I never force my opinion on others.
And been adventurous doesn't mean that its better.
As to providing you a work that is better composed then the Firebird there it goes:
http://www.youtube.com/v/l45DAuXYSIs&feature=related
No way dude that is a horrible piece of music, STRAVINSKY'S FIREBIRD is easily 1,000,000,000,000 times better! By calling the music we love banal and not even deserving the designation of "Classical Music" you are indeed trying to force your opinion on others, big time! I am saying your tricks will not work, we will continue to love the Classical music we love no matter how loud you claim it is not Classical music. You do not have the power you think you do.
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 05:38:47 AM
No way dude that is a horrible piece of music, STRAVINSKY'S FIREBIRD is easily 1,000,000,000,000 times better!
By calling the music we love banal and not even deserving the designation of "Classical Music" you are indeed trying to force your opinion on others, big time! I am saying your tricks will not work, we will continue to love the Classical music we love no matter how loud you claim it is not Classical music. You do not have the power you think you do.
How is it a billion times better, care to explain?
QuoteLet me explain to you why Stravinsky is not a Great composer.
[snipped]
I wish you wouldn't - but I know you can't help yourself.
Quote from: Franco on June 24, 2010, 05:46:08 AM
I wish you wouldn't - but I know you can't help yourself.
Haha! :D
Quote from: Luke on June 23, 2010, 09:32:30 PM
Very good post. As you say, there are so many holes in Saul's line of thinking, such as it is discernible, that it's hard to know where to start, but you make a very good point. I love how Saul sees eveything from Bach to Brahms as some kind of monolithic mass of sameness, music that followed 'the rules' (whatever they are, haven't had a cogent response on that one yet) without deviation or exploration!
You know, Luke, without (needless to say) realizing it, Saul is simply proposing a diluted version of Schenker theory, where all music basically follows the same I-V-I "deep structure" exemplified in the period from Bach through Brahms, and any music that does not suit his theory is ipso facto denied the status of music.
Please, everyone, continue your most entertaining discussion.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 05:44:56 AM
How is it a billion times better, care to explain?
All you have to do is actually listen to a good performance though a good stereo to hear for yourself.
The Firebird's Orchestration alone is light years ahead, not to mention the actual notes themselves and the interplay with the instrument's voices and tone colors. Melody and harmony have seldom been matched by any composition before or after. The Firebird IMHO is one of those rare perfect works.
Golly gee, I'm so pleased that I stopped in for instant edification... ::)
Even in the remote possibility that either of you is right (and I reserve the right to not concede that point), you are presenting your arguments like schoolchildren at a show and tell. Kindly make some attempt to rein in your emotions a bit. :)
8)
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 05:49:43 AM
All you have to do is actually listen to a good performance though a good stereo to hear for yourself.
The Firebird's Orchestration alone is light years ahead, not to mention the actual notes themselves and the interplay with the instrument's voices and tone colors. Melody and harmony have seldom been matched by any composition before or after. The Firebird IMHO is one of those rare perfect works.
Its a roast chicken compared to real music.
Anyways, this is for Sforzando: not that I agree that German traditional music form is better then the French or the Dutch or any other Europan country.
Wikipedia:
Schenker's goals
Schenker's primary theoretic aims were to prove the superiority of German music of the common practice period (especially the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Schubert, and Johannes Brahms) over more modern music such as that of Richard Wagner, Igor Stravinsky, and Arnold Schoenberg, and to show that most of the established music theory teaching of the time, with an emphasis on the theories of his contemporary Hugo Riemann, was misleading and useless for an understanding of the "masterworks."[citation needed] These premises led Schenker to seek the key to an understanding of music in the traditional discipline of counterpoint, since this is the type of theory the "German Masters" themselves had studied. While Schenker's theory has been tremendously influential, particularly in North America thanks in part to his emigre students Oswald Jonas and Felix Salzer, most "Schenkerians" do not share his exceedingly narrow and nationalistic view of musical excellence, and his ideas and methods have been applied to a wide range of composers.[citation needed]
Schenker's project, thus, was to show that free composition (freier Satz) was an elaboration of strict composition (strenger Satz), by which Schenker meant species counterpoint. He did this by developing a theory of hierarchically organized reductional levels, called prolongational levels, voice-leading levels (Stimmführungsschichten), or transformations (Verwandlungen), the idea being that at higher levels in the structure the musical materials conform more closely to those of strict composition. A primary goal in constructing these levels therefore is to show linear connections between notes that may be separated by many measures on the musical surface (since linearity or step-wise motion is the most important characteristic of good voice leading).
The basic components of Schenkerian theory and analysis therefore are the nature of the background—that is, the highest voice leading level—and the ways in which the background may be prolonged (elaborated, transformed) to arrive at the foreground—i. e. the musical composition.
Quote from: Luke on June 23, 2010, 09:32:30 PM
Very good post. As you say, there are so many holes in Saul's line of thinking, such as it is discernible, that it's hard to know where to start, but you make a very good point. I love how Saul sees eveything from Bach to Brahms as some kind of monolithic mass of sameness, music that followed 'the rules' (whatever they are, haven't had a cogent response on that one yet) without deviation or exploration!
And, as if "following the rules" were The Greatest Thing ; )
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 05:54:18 AM
Its a roast chicken compared to real music.
On the lines of you just don't get it, Saul . . . scornful assertion is not an argument.
Thank you for conceding that you have no musical criticism of L'oiseau de feu.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 05:56:20 AM
On the lines of you just don't get it, Saul . . . scornful assertion is not an argument.
Thank you for conceding that you have no musical criticism of L'oiseau de feu.
Yes like Teresa saying that the Firebird (roast chicken) is 1 million times better then Mozart's music?
Do you see what you want to see Karl?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 05:54:56 AM
And, as if "following the rules" were The Greatest Thing ; )
Following the rules is the greatest thing when it comes to writing Great Classical music, yes.
Oh and by the way, next time I will be having some roast chicken, I would know what music to listen to on the background.
;)
Oh good, I mean - Great! - now that I know that following the rules is necessary for writing good Classical music, where can I find them?
Saul, do you know?
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 05:59:46 AM
Following the rules is the greatest thing when it comes to writing Great Classical music, yes.
That is only one of your profound misunderstandings.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 06:01:41 AM
Oh and by the way, next time I will be having some roast chicken, I would know what music to listen to on the background.
;)
OTOH, you're right: Mendelssohn is no good even as sonic wallpaper ; )
I refuse to have a battle of wits with a roasted chicken.
Quote from: Franco on June 24, 2010, 06:03:58 AM
Oh good, I mean - Great! - now that I know that following the rules is necessary for writing good Classical music, where can I find them?
Saul, do you know?
Don't bother, I asked him that hours ago, and there was no cogent reply, at least no 'rules' which you can't find being followed by dozens of degenerate modern composers also. It boiled down to 'music which I like', of course...
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 05:54:18 AM
Its a roast chicken compared to real music.
I always thought it was a filet of fish.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 05:54:18 AM
Anyways, this is for Sforzando: not that I agree that German traditional music form is better then the French or the Dutch or any other Europan country.
While I'm delighted to see you favor the Dutch, a key word from my post was "diluted."
Roasted chicken is GREAT!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 06:05:07 AM
OTOH, you're right: Mendelssohn is no good even as sonic wallpaper ; )
Karl, if you ever write anything that comes close to Mendy's Song without words, contact me I would be delighted to hear it.
But until then calling one of the greatest musical geniuses with names, wont get you my respect.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 05:54:56 AM
And, as if "following the rules" were The Greatest Thing ; )
Karl even atonal music has rules, have you ever composed a 12 tone row?
In composition class we did a 12 tone row, and here were the ground rules. 12 tone rows are like equal rights for music notes. In the melody line you cannot reuse a note until all 12 have been used, although you can repeat a note as often as you want. In the harmony lines you can have no tonal intervals, no thirds, no fourths, no fifths, no octaves. You can have ugly intervals such as minor seconds, diminished ninths, augmented elevenths and even use tone clusters. It was the hardest thing I ever wrote, writing in the Mozart style was easy by comparison.
What some do not know is that the "rules" are always evolving. Take for example Haydn's Surprise Symphony, what shocked people was not the loud chord, the use of "Twinkle, twinkle little star" no it was the ending of II, V, I instead of IV, V, I. Haydn changed the rules and created an alternate ending.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 24, 2010, 06:06:39 AM
I refuse to have a battle of wits with a roasted chicken.
Haha!
I eat them not have 'battle of wits' with them!!! ;D
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 06:11:01 AM
Karl even atonal music has rules, have you ever composed a 12 tone row?
In composition class we did a 12 tone row, and here were the ground rules. 12 tone rows are like equal rights for music notes. In the melody line you cannot reuse a note until all 12 have been used, although you can repeat a note as often as you want. In the harmony lines you can have no tonal intervals, no thirds, no fourths, no fifths, no octaves. You can have ugly intervals such as minor seconds, diminished ninths, augmented elevenths and even use tone clusters. It was the hardest thing I ever wrote, writing in the Mozart style was easy by comparison.
What some do not know is that the "rules" are always evolving. Take for example Haydn's Surprise Symphony, what shocked people was not the loud chord, the use of "Mary Had a little lamb" no it was the ending of II, V, I instead of IV, V, I. Haydn changed the rules and created an alternate ending.
Schoenberg was a false prophet just like the rest of the modernists.
The Baal had many followers too, that means nothing.
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 06:11:01 AM
Karl even atonal music has rules, have you ever composed a 12 tone row?
In composition class we did a 12 tone row, and here were the ground rules. 12 tone rows are like equal rights for music notes. In the melody line you cannot reuse a note until all 12 have been used, although you can repeat a note as often as you want. In the harmony lines you can have no tonal intervals, no thirds, no fourths, no fifths, no octaves. You can have ugly intervals such as minor seconds, diminished ninths, augmented elevenths and even use tone clusters. It was the hardest thing I ever wrote, writing in the Mozart style was easy by comparison.
What some do not know is that the "rules" are always evolving. Take for example Haydn's Surprise Symphony, what shocked people was not the loud chord, the use of "Mary Had a little lamb" no it was the ending of II, V, I instead of IV, V, I. Haydn changed the rules and created an alternate ending.
GREAT! The Evolving Rules of Worthy Composition - now, I must go sharpen a bunch of pencils.
Quote from: Franco on June 24, 2010, 06:12:52 AM
GREAT! The Evolving Rules of Worthy Composition - now, I must go sharpen a bunch of pencils.
Whatever you do, don't stick them into the Chicken!!! :P :P :P :D
Even crack addicts listen to classical.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 24, 2010, 06:13:56 AM
Even crack addicts listen to classical.
Yes, it helps them adjust to their 12 different personalities...Bach has always been considered as a Balancer.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 06:09:06 AM
Karl, if you ever write anything that comes close to Mendy's Song without words, contact me I would be delighted to hear it.
Saul, if ever I think that my musical worth depends on comparison to that 19th-century musician of whom it has been aptly said, He started as a genius, and developed into a first-rate talent, I'll let you know! ; )Quote from: SaulBut until then calling one of the greatest musical geniuses with names, wont get you my respect.
Then you understand why no one here has any respect for you, as you so liberally call a number of musical geniuses scornful names.
Correction: the opportunity is there for you to achieve an understanding. I have my doubts that you have the intellectual strength to embrace the lesson ; )
Correction: Haydn's Surprise Symphony, has the melody "Twinkle, twinkle little star". I corrected the original post but some reply's have the wrong melody listed.
Speaking of Haydn, someone asked earlier if I liked any composers before 1800. I do like some works by Haydn, Handel and Biber. Also I like Leopold Mozart's (Wolfgang's father) Toy Symphony, I have the version with the Munich Chamber Orchestra on Tudor. I will admit a lot of the appeal is the beautiful melody, the wind machine and sound effects.
Um, Teresa, that melody is not "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star."
However, Mozart wrote a set of variations on that tune, which he knew as "Ah, vous dirais-je, maman."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 06:19:22 AM
Saul, if ever I think that my musical worth depends on comparison to that 19th-century musician of whom it has been aptly said, He started as a genius, and developed into a first-rate talent, I'll let you know! ; )
Then you understand why no one here has any respect for you, as you so liberally call a number of musical geniuses scornful names.
Correction: the opportunity is there for you to achieve an understanding. I have my doubts that you have the intellectual strength to embrace the lesson ; )
Ok, Mr., Intellectual, and this is coming from someone who said that Schoenberg is a better composer then Mendelssohn. LOL that's the same as Teresa's pitiful assertion that Stravinsky was a better composer then Mozart.
You always attack me that I don't provide any evidence to what I said, but then What evidence did you or Teresa provide in explaining why these two 12th rate composers better then the Musical Giants Mozart and Mendelssohn...
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 06:11:01 AM
Take for example Haydn's Surprise Symphony, what shocked people was not the loud chord, the use of "Twinkle, twinkle little star" no it was the ending of II, V, I instead of IV, V, I. Haydn changed the rules and created an alternate ending.
That is not a correct description of the harmony at that point, which is a perfectly standard half cadence on the dominant: VI, V-of-V, V. In any case II is commonly substituted for IV in cadences and thus II, V, I is just as commonly found as IV, V, I.
Quote from: Luke on June 24, 2010, 06:07:03 AM
Don't bother, I asked him that hours ago, and there was no cogent reply, at least no 'rules' which you can't find being followed by dozens of degenerate modern composers also. It boiled down to 'music which I like', of course...
QFT
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 06:25:12 AM
QFT
Yes this really made my day:
Teresa said :
'Stravinsky's firebird is 1.000.000.000 times better then Mozart's symphony'An intellectual discussion by every standard, dont you agree Karl?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 06:21:41 AM
Um, Teresa, that melody is not "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star."
My mind goes Twinkle, twinkle little star when I hear it. What Children's song is the melody from then?
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 06:28:47 AM
Yes this really made my day:
Teresa said :
'Stravinsky's firebird is 1.000.000.000 times better then Mozart's symphony'
An intellectual discussion by every standard, dont you agree Karl?
I think we should make it a rule that anyone giving answers like that has to be required to show their work. I want to know the formula used to derive that number.
Oh, and Saul, I give you just one name that puts your post-1900 argument in the wrong; Ernest Bloch. Say no more. 0:)
8)
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 06:32:10 AM
My mind goes Twinkle, twinkle little star when I hear it. What Children's song is the melody from then?
It isn't a children's song at all, or at least it wasn't in the 18th century. It is a French folk song. That twinkle crap came along in comparatively recent times. I suspect Stravinski had something to do with it... :D
8)
Quote from: Sforzando on June 24, 2010, 06:23:24 AM
That is not a correct description of the harmony at that point, which is a perfectly standard half cadence on the dominant: VI, V-of-V, V. In any case II is commonly substituted for IV in cadences and thus II, V, I is just as commonly found as IV, V, I.
The quote was from my composition teacher many decades ago, perhaps he was in error as he shown to us that Haydn's Surprise was the first use of II, V, I. And he said it was very shocking at the time.
Another Chinese lo mein...
http://www.youtube.com/v/I8nseOWRwvw&feature=related
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 24, 2010, 06:34:16 AM
I think we should make it a rule that anyone giving answers like that has to be required to show their work. I want to know the formula used to derive that number.
Oh, and Saul, I give you just one name that puts your post-1900 argument in the wrong; Ernest Bloch. Say no more. 0:)
8)
Sorry my clarification was on Page 11 as follows:
All you have to do is actually listen to a good performance though a good stereo to hear for yourself.
The Firebird's Orchestration alone is light years ahead, not to mention the actual notes themselves and the interplay with the instrument's voices and tone colors. Melody and harmony have seldom been matched by any composition before or after. The Firebird IMHO is one of those rare perfect works. I agree Ernest Bloch is a wonderful composer. Actually
Saul is calling everything from the Romantic period forward (1800's) crap and not Classical music at all :o And those of us who love Romantic and Modern composers do not want to be disenfranchised.
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 06:44:10 AM
Sorry my clarification was on Page 11 as follows:
All you have to do is actually listen to a good performance though a good stereo to hear for yourself.
The Firebird's Orchestration alone is light years ahead, not to mention the actual notes themselves and the interplay with the instrument's voices and tone colors. Melody and harmony have seldom been matched by any composition before or after. The Firebird IMHO is one of those rare perfect works.
So we had 'billion times better' and now you ventured to 'light years' what's next? Cosmic explosions?
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 06:37:53 AM
The quote was from my composition teacher many decades ago, perhaps he was in error as he shown to us that Haydn's Surprise was the first use of II, V, I. And he said it was very shocking at the time.
Then he was hugely, hugely wrong. It's among the most common chord progressions of all, as common if not more so than IV V I.
Look guys there's no use in continuing to argue with somebody who clearly has their head in the sand. Saul isn't listening to any of your arguments. It's the simple case of in one ear, out the other. I'm surprised people continue to argue with him. He's simply not going to listen with an open-mind to any 20th Century composer. No need in arguing with him about something that he has built walls up against.
Surgically done.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 06:40:19 AM
Another Chinese lo mein...
http://www.youtube.com/v/I8nseOWRwvw&feature=related
I'm not a big fan of Webern at all. In fact, my two favorite compositions by him are "Im Sommerwind" and "Passacaglia." It is in these works that we hear a man who was still writing tonal music. His 12-tone works almost seem directionless. Berg, on the other hand, is my favorite composer from "The Second Viennese School." He was essentially a Romantic, but composed music in the 12-tone method, but what makes his music so striking is that he actually uses tonal centers in his music. There is also a Romantic lyricism that runs deep through all of his works. He is one of my favorite composers and has really opened my ears up to 12-tone music. He just used this music in tonal way and that is very appealing style. His importance is also quite significant, especially when you had composers like Dallapiccola and some Alwyn's works that use the 12-tone method but in a melodic way. The influence of Berg in these two composers is apparent.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 08:00:29 AM
Look guys there's no use in continuing to argue with somebody who clearly has their head in the sand. Saul isn't listening to any of your arguments. It's the simple case of in one ear, out the other. I'm surprised people continue to argue with him. He's simply not going to listen with an open-mind to any 20th Century composer. No need in arguing with him about something that he has built walls up against.
This is evolving from Swiss Cheese to an Ostrich argument, really entertaining.
At any rate, (and as could be said for any composer, Mendelssohn included, I suppose) no matter what the ideas which may drive the compositional process, the soundworld of the Webern Opus 21 is simply exquisite. Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 08:23:07 AM
blah blah roasted chicken blah blah lo mein blah blah Ostrich blah blah
Thank you for continuing to illustrate that you have no musical criticisms to make on this thread. It is rare to find someone who so thoroughly gives himself to the activity of making himself both irrelevant to the discussion, and ridiculous in aspect.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 08:00:29 AM
Look guys there's no use in continuing to argue with somebody who clearly has their head in the sand. Saul isn't listening to any of your arguments. It's the simple case of in one ear, out the other. I'm surprised people continue to argue with him. He's simply not going to listen with an open-mind to any 20th Century composer. No need in arguing with him about something that he has built walls up against.
This kind of thread has happened many times before, we need warning posts to that the unaware can stand a chance of not being sucked in for dozens of pages at a time ;) It reminds me of being trapped in the orbit of a black hole: inescapable - as you get closer, time slows and the trap is set.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 08:27:27 AM
At any rate, (and as could be said for any composer, Mendelssohn included, I suppose) no matter what the ideas which may drive the compositional process, the soundworld of the Webern Opus 21 is simply exquisite.
Thank you for continuing to illustrate that you have no musical criticisms to make on this thread.
It is rare to find someone who so thoroughly gives himself to the activity of making himself both irrelevant to the discussion, and ridiculous in aspect.
Anyone who considers this to be 'progressive' is guilty of self deception.
http://www.youtube.com/v/9umvR9_3peQ&feature=related
Quote from: Lethe on June 24, 2010, 08:31:40 AM
This kind of thread has happened many times before, we need warning posts to that the unaware can stand a chance of not being sucked in for dozens of pages at a time ;) It reminds me of being trapped in the orbit of a black hole: inescapable - as you get closer, time slows and the trap is set.
I often wonder of the appeal of these threads, in which some of our members who require the most forbearance, simply repeat their fanatically held opinions over and over and over again, apparently believing that the mere statement of these opinions constitutes an "argument" or "proof" that they are correct. These same posters, requiring extreme forbearance, believe that they have refuted the carefully reasoned replies made to them with equally facile statements of dismissal. The mystery, of course, is why anyone else would participating (and yes, I realize this applies to me as well).
Here some real classical music.
http://www.youtube.com/v/1GXHjxvSi24&feature=related
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 08:32:47 AM
Anyone who considers this to be 'progressive' is guilty of self deception.
http://www.youtube.com/v/9umvR9_3peQ&feature=related
It's easy to pull clips from YouTube and say something really negative, but it's a completely different animal altogether when you actually explain what you don't like about this work or that work or any work from the 20th Century. There were all kinds of music composed in a lot of many different styles during this period and you singling out one composer and making it look as though he's the only composer from the 20th Century makes you look rather ridiculous and also uneducated.
Saul... I probably shouldn't say anything, and we should probably all just leave you and your opinions alone, since you don't listen to anyone.
You posted Schoenberg's Piano Suite and Webern's Symphony- both masterworks. Obviously, you don't understand the level of counterpoint that goes on there. It's actually not all too different from the same counterpoint that Bach used- the main differences being a different style of harmony and rhythm.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not great. These "rules" are simply the rules of your taste. And Schoenberg is classical music- there are subgenres, obviously. He would be 20th Century Classical (or "modern classical"), Bach would be Baroque, etc. Classical is just a broad term, kind of like "rock."
Saul,
If you spent more time listening rather criticizing everything that doesn't fit into your own narrow-minded point-of-view, then you might just learn something.
You're exactly everything that is wrong with classical music discussions. Not because you enjoy talking about the music, and I know you're capable of having a decent conversation about a composer you enjoy, but because you expect everybody to uphold the same standards as you do. Not everybody enjoys what you enjoy. Most Baroque and Classical era composers bore me to no end, but you don't see me trying to prove my point to anyone and force my opinion on them. No, I don't do that. I simply state I don't like something and I move on. If somebody asks me to explain why I don't like this composer or that composer, then I tell them.
I think you're in a very dangerous frame of mind right now. You don't listen with an open-mind and you constantly put down others for not sharing your opinion. That, to me, is the sign of somebody who doesn't have anything worth contributing to a discussion.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 24, 2010, 08:38:37 AM
The mystery, of course, is why anyone else would participating (and yes, I realize this applies to me as well).
It's like looking at a traffic accident, except it's in someone's mind.
Quote from: Greg on June 24, 2010, 08:55:50 AM
You posted Schoenberg's Piano Suite and Webern's Symphony- both masterworks.
They are worthless piece of modern music and the world would have been a better place without them.
It has been a long time now since the word 'intellectual' was used to hide away the banal of modern music.
There is no classical counterpoint as you say, its a total different system.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 09:00:28 AM
If you spent more time listening rather criticizing everything that doesn't fit into your own narrow-minded point-of-view, then you might just learn something.
Word.
--Bruce
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 09:04:57 AM
They are worthless piece of modern music and the world would have been a better place without them.
It has been a long time now since the word 'intellectual' was used to hide away the banal of modern music.
There is no classical counterpoint as you say, its a total different system.
Why does it bother you so much that some people sincerely enjoy something that you don't enjoy? I actually find some of those modern pieces uninteresting, but I don't see why I should try to convince people that do enjoy them that they shouldn't.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 08:21:32 AM
I'm not a big fan of Webern at all. In fact, my two favorite compositions by him are "Im Sommerwind" and "Passacaglia." It is in these works that we hear a man who was still writing tonal music. His 12-tone works almost seem directionless. Berg, on the other hand, is my favorite composer from "The Second Viennese School." He was essentially a Romantic, but composed music in the 12-tone method, but what makes his music so striking is that he actually uses tonal centers in his music. There is also a Romantic lyricism that runs deep through all of his works. He is one of my favorite composers and has really opened my ears up to 12-tone music. He just used this music in tonal way and that is very appealing style. His importance is also quite important, especially when you had composers like Dallapiccola and some Alwyn's works that use the 12-tone method but in a melodic way. The influence of Berg in these two composers is apparent.
Very interesting discussion, thank you! It is very curious matter that of the three, it was Webern whose music had such an impact on Stravinsky in the 50s (and yet, his music remained very much his own). I've reached a place where I genuinely like all three of the "Second Viennese Schoolers," each on his own terms. I must at this point have recordings of very close to all of the Schoenberg works with opus numbers (and a good many without, of course) . . . and, come to think of it, complete sets of both Berg & Webern. Dallapiccola I am still getting acquainted with! Very much enjoy some of what I've heard, and the rest I suspect will grow on me. I am struck by your comment "actually uses tonal centers in his music" . . . at this point, I really don't think there is any such thing as "atonality": but it is a question of where the center or centers of musical gravitation are, and how strong an attraction the material creates to that center (or to those centers).
Quote from: Greg on June 24, 2010, 08:55:50 AM
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not great.
That is it, in a nutshell, Greg. Saul's fundamental error is in confusing what he likes, with what is musically great; in confusing what he fails to like or to understand, with what is "worthless."
Even my own Fantasi In F sharp minor is way more superior then the nonsense of Webern, and Schoenberg.
http://www.youtube.com/v/EmC_VyNHZFM
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 09:04:57 AM
They are worthless piece of modern music and the world would have been a better place without them.
It has been a long time now since the word 'intellectual' was used to hide away the banal of modern music.
There is no classical counterpoint as you say, its a total different system.
Wrong. Maybe some people in the world, if they cared enough. I know I wouldn't have been better without them. And many others.
Banal? How?
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 09:00:28 AM
Saul,
If you spent more time listening rather criticizing everything that doesn't fit into your own narrow-minded point-of-view, then you might just learn something.
Who needs to learn anything, when you already know it all? ; ) Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 09:13:07 AM
Even my own Fantasi In F sharp minor is way more superior then the nonsense of Webern, and Schoenberg.
Apart from its immodesty (which of its own is unbecoming), that remark is arrant nonsense.
Quote from: Greg on June 24, 2010, 09:01:38 AM
It's like looking at a traffic accident, except it's in someone's mind.
Oh, there may well be a traffic accident in Saul's mind . . . could explain the impeded flow of reason ; )
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 09:14:18 AM
Who needs to learn anything, when you already know it all? ; )
Apart from its immodesty (which of its own is unbecoming), that remark is arrant nonsense.
Explain to me why I was not right that My Fantasi is way better then thse composers?
You're a composer please explain why not.
Saul, I really do believe it is in the 'ear of the beholder'. There is great beauty in all classical music. The failure to appreciate a certain piece or the music of a certain composer is not the failure of the composer, but of the listener.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 09:10:11 AM
Very interesting discussion, thank you! It is very curious matter that of the three, it was Webern whose music had such an impact on Stravinsky in the 50s (and yet, his music remained very much his own).
I've reached a place where I genuinely like all three of the "Second Viennese Schoolers," each on his own terms. I must at this point have recordings of very close to all of the Schoenberg works with opus numbers (and a good many without, of course) . . . and, come to think of it, complete sets of both Berg & Webern.
Dallapiccola I am still getting acquainted with! Very much enjoy some of what I've heard, and the rest I suspect will grow on me.
I am struck by your comment "actually uses tonal centers in his music" . . . at this point, I really don't think there is any such thing as "atonality": but it is a question of where the center or centers of musical gravitation are, and how strong an attraction the material creates to that center (or to those centers).
I guess what I meant to say is that Berg implies tonal centers in his music. I don't know anything about music theory and I'm not trained as a musician, so you have to excuse me for any kind of slip-ups I make when talking about the actual music.
Let's take Berg's "Violin Concerto," for example, which for me is the pinnacle of his orchestral writing, the work starts off with that very melodic tone row that forms the basis of the piece. He also uses a Carinthian folk melody he heard as a child and also he quotes a Bach chorale towards the end of the work. The way he interweaved these serial and tonal ideas together makes his music very compelling for me. There's also also so much emotion in his works. He was a very emotional composer, but he was also ingenius in the way he went about using the methods taught to him by Schoenberg. Listening to Anne-Sophie Mutter perform this incredible work with James Levine and the CSO is truly a magical experience.
Quote from: Brahmsian on June 24, 2010, 09:17:01 AM
Saul, I really do believe it is in the 'ear of the beholder'. There is great beauty in all classical music. The failure to appreciate a certain piece or the music of a certain composer is not the failure of the composer, but of the listener.
Excellent post.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 09:13:07 AM
Even my own Fantasi In F sharp minor is way more superior then the nonsense of Webern, and Schoenberg.
No, it isn't. It was okay, but nothing compared to, say, the Schoenberg Piano Suite which you just posted (and the later movements of that are even better). You just don't quite have the understanding of music theory that he did, for one.
Also, it's dumb to just call it all "nonsense." I might not like composers like Babbitt or Stockhausen much, but if I do listen to them, I'm receptive as possible- if I'm not, that only hurts me because I'd only be shutting my mind down to something I could potentially enjoy. If I just can't enjoy their music, oh well. It doesn't mean their music is nonsense- just means I can't enjoy it.
QuoteQuote from: Saul on Today at 12:13:07 PM
Even my own Fantasi In F sharp minor is way more superior then the nonsense of Webern, and Schoenberg
Really, quite a remarkable statement. I daresay I am quite impressed with the lack of tact it took to expose it in public.
Quote from: Greg on June 24, 2010, 09:27:54 AM
No, it isn't. It was okay, but nothing compared to, say, the Schoenberg Piano Suite which you just posted (and the later movements of that are even better). You just don't quite have the understanding of music theory that he did, for one.
Also, it's dumb to just call it all "nonsense." I might not like composers like Babbitt or Stockhausen much, but if I do listen to them, I'm receptive as possible- if I'm not, that only hurts me because I'd only be shutting my mind down to something I could potentially enjoy. If I just can't enjoy their music, oh well. It doesn't mean their music is nonsense- just means I can't enjoy it.
Its nothing compared to, say, the Schoenberg Piano Suite because I'm not him. If I was Schoenberg you would have called it a great work. But because its me Saul Dzorelashvili, a relatively unknown young composer you dismiss it as 'ok' even though I have written it in a combination of Baroque and Romantic styles with passion and the music sounds beautiful, I know you will admit to that, but you would never say it because it would be un intellectual on your part.
Then this again brings us back to attribute greatness to fame, the thing goes like this, if he was famous therefore he was great.
This is a flawed argument because Schoenberg and the Rest of his camp never composed anything of greatness not because they couldn't or didn't have great minds, but because they decided to create music based on completely new modern ideas, and that disturbed their great potential in my opinion.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 09:37:17 AM
Its nothing compared to, say, the Schoenberg Piano Suite because I'm not him. If I was Schoenberg you would have called it a great work. But because its me Saul Dzorelashvili, a relatively unknown young composer you dismiss it as 'ok' even though I have written it in a combination of Baroque and Romantic styles with passion and the music sounds beautiful, I know you will admit to that, but you would never say it because it would be un intellectual on your part.
Then this again brings us back to attribute greatness to fame, the thing goes like this, if he was famous therefore he was great.
This is a flawed argument because Schoenberg and the Rest of his camp never composed anything of greatness not because they couldn't or didn't have great minds, but because they decided to create music based on completely new modern ideas, and them disturbed their great potential in my opinion.
Well, maybe it is wrong to compare those different styles (then again, you were the one who started it).
However, I know I enjoy Schoenberg's music much more than yours. It's not because I want to sound more "intellectual." I don't really care about that, whatever it means.
I don't "dismiss" it as "ok" for the reasons you say. Doesn't matter who writes it- just saying what I think about the music itself.
There have been some
excellent music written on this board- for example, Karl's
Out in the Sun, Luke's piano pieces/song cycles, Ralph ("rappy")'s Piano Sonata, and this one Violin Sonata that I thought was comparable to any Violin Sonata of a Romantic-era composer from a member who never really posted much at all (it was Romantic-style).
The 2nd Vienneses' "new modern ideas" are something you don't like. Fine. It doesn't mean that they aren't great. Sadly, you'll never understand this if you haven't by now.
Quote from: Greg on June 24, 2010, 09:50:01 AM
Well, maybe it is wrong to compare those different styles (then again, you were the one who started it).
However, I know I enjoy Schoenberg's music much more than yours. It's not because I want to sound more "intellectual." I don't really care about that, whatever it means.
I don't "dismiss" it as "ok" for the reasons you say. Doesn't matter who writes it- just saying what I think about the music itself.
There have been some excellent music written on this board- for example, Karl's Out in the Sun, Luke's piano pieces/song cycles, Ralph ("rappy")'s Piano Sonata, and this one Violin Sonata that I thought was comparable to any Violin Sonata of a Romantic-era composer from a member who never really posted much at all (it was Romantic-style).
The 2nd Vienneses' "new modern ideas" are something you don't like. Fine. It doesn't mean that they aren't great. Sadly, you'll never understand this if you haven't by now.
I have provided the links to their music and its sounds very poor and almost childish in a sense.
I believe you like it because its popular opinion. Objective listening to this pieces without knowing who composed them would make you think that its very poor music.
Perhaps one day you will realize this.
Even Mahler listened almost exclusively to Bach's music towards the end of his life.
I wonder why.. Perhaps he too realized that he finally had to come home to real classical music.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 09:37:17 AM
Its nothing compared to, say, the Schoenberg Piano Suite because I'm not him. If I was Schoenberg you would have called it a great work. But because its me Saul Dzorelashvili, a relatively unknown young composer you dismiss it as 'ok' even though I have written it in a combination of Baroque and Romantic styles with passion and the music sounds beautiful, I know you will admit to that, but you would never say it because it would be un intellectual on your part.
Then this again brings us back to attribute greatness to fame, the thing goes like this, if he was famous therefore he was great.
This is a flawed argument because Schoenberg and the Rest of his camp never composed anything of greatness not because they couldn't or didn't have great minds, but because they decided to create music based on completely new modern ideas, and that disturbed their great potential in my opinion.
So are modern ideas only bad when it's something you don't like, or enough time has passed? Why are you giving
Mendelssohn a pass because he had "modern ideas" (for the time) of creating "songs without words" at the beginning of the Romantic period? Why are you giving
Beethoven a pass because of the evolution of the symphony, to the point of adding new instruments to the orchestra, using the Scherzo instead of the Minuet and Trio? Obviously these innovations occurred long before Shoenberg, or Webern, but they were once modern. So it leads me to believe that it's only "worthless" to you because it has only been around for about 100 years, and you haven't studied it enough (or at all for that matter) in order to see it's value. So please, go read a modern music theory book, learn about the 12-tone system (And other modern composition techniques), and if you still don't like it, come back with musical reasons why you don't like it, rather than just showing youtube clips and calling every you don't like "banal", "worthless".
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 09:13:07 AM
Even my own Fantasi In F sharp minor is way more superior then the nonsense of Webern, and Schoenberg.
http://www.youtube.com/v/EmC_VyNHZFM
I'll give you one thing - your music is not worthless nonsense; it's one step above.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 09:37:17 AM
Its nothing compared to, say, the Schoenberg Piano Suite because I'm not him. If I was Schoenberg you would have called it a great work. But because its me Saul Dzorelashvili, a relatively unknown young composer you dismiss it as 'ok' even though I have written it in a combination of Baroque and Romantic styles with passion and the music sounds beautiful, I know you will admit to that, but you would never say it because it would be un intellectual on your part.
In addition to being narrow-minded, you enjoy "tooting your own horn" as well. You may have composed your piece with emotion, but it is the listener that ultimately decides whether it has emotion or not. If it means something to the listener, then you did your job as composer, but to state that you composed your piece "passionately" and it sounds "beautiful" is not giving the listener the right to voice his/her opinion. Again, you expect everybody to share your opinion and when somebody goes against that opinion they're somehow "wrong" for feeling the way they do.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 09:13:07 AM
Even my own Fantasi In F sharp minor is way more superior then the nonsense of Webern, and Schoenberg.
http://www.youtube.com/v/EmC_VyNHZFM
I'm very impressed by the independence of the voices in measures 5-6, and by how the masterpiece in F# minor manages to conclude in C minor.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 09:16:35 AM
Explain to me why I was not right that My Fantasi is way better then thse composers?
You're a composer please explain why not.
I'm not Karl, but I am a composer. And I'm shocked by the hubris of your statement about the superiority of this scarcely literate little piece of yours with a mature and major work by one of the greatest and most skilful of composers. I could go the ironic route, as Sforzando just did, but this ridiculousness goes beyond that, and besides, I'm not sure you'd understand the irony. Normally, I would assume this irony had been understood, but in your case I'm not so sure any more, so just in case - I do hope you realise that when Sfz talks admiringly about how your F sharp minor piece ends in C major he is being cuttingly sarcastic. F sharp minor - C major is a tonal scheme that goes against all your beloved laws, if we are taking Baroque/Classical practise as the laws you mean. Nielsen might have done some such thing, perhaps, if he'd been in a really iconoclastic mood and if he'd been working on a sufficiently large scale to justify it (not in a tiny piano piece); Mahler might have done it too, maybe, but then they are those degenerates you despise so much. So why are you doing it? Did you think about it? Did you have a reason? It's breaking all the 'rules' that Mozart and Bach would have followed, you know...
But let's not talk about tonal stucture, Saul, let's start more simply. In a measurable way, this piece is not as good as Schoenberg's (what a ridiculous thing to even have to write) because it doesn't abide by the basic laws its tonal language suggests it should. IOW, Saul, it fails because even by your very own standards it falls woefully short. You talk about rules, about how music which doesn't follow them is worthless - in fact there are very few 'rules' in composition, but it's true that during each period of music history there have been strong guidelines which one ought to think twice and then twice again about before transgressing. And the most famous of all, one Bach, Mozart and the gang followed carefully and only stepped over very gingerly, is the rule against using parallel fifths and octaves. Parallels are in evidence right all over the place in your piece, baldly and embarrassingly paraded. Personally, I don't give a fig, but you ought to, given all that you've been saying.
Schoenberg, OTOH, is writing in a different tonal language completely. It ought to be OK for him to use parallel 5ths, one would have thought, because they would be working in a totally different context, tonally. But you know what - he doesn't (I'm sure there might be one or two, but they will be there for a reason, they don't permeate the texture obtrusively and nonsensically as they do in your piece). Because, you see, Schoenberg was
totally immersed in these rules, the ones you talk about so much but fail to understand or observe. Schoenberg knew them, felt them, lived them, understood them, all their implications, and to write a parallel 5th went against all his principles of good voice-leading and smooth harmony, even in an atonal context.
So you see, even twisting things violently, judging your music by your standards and Schoenberg's by your standards too, his piece is vastly superior. We're talking here about parallels because they are an unarguable. But the same sort of thing could be said about all aspects of your piece compared to his.
For instance there is the notation....Mozart and Bach would use E sharps and B sharps in F sharp and C sharp minor contexts, you know, not F and C. Enharmonic notation. It oughtn't to be important, I guess....though it reads horribly, I have to say, and makes the music look even less logical.....but it
is important if you are going to talk about respect for traditions and music theory and then ride roughshod over it all....
No, I won[t do it any more. I feel bad, I don't want to be harsh, it goes against the grain for me entirely. But the things you have been saying on this thread go beyond ridiculous, they are the silliest stuff I've ever read on this board. And that is saying something.
I had my nephew here this afternoon, he is 13 years old. He is musical but has no real solid sophistication when it comes to classical music. I asked him plainly what does he think of the Webern and the Schoenberg, he was rolling in laughter, he said , what's this nonsense.
Here is an independent opinion based on pure listening.
He then listened to my Fantasi, and without me telling him anything, he said that he likes it. It spoke to him and he was able to make something out of it.
But does anyone here care for an unbiased opinion?
Not really.
So your taste hasn't evolved beyond that of a 13 year old? I don't see the point being made.
Quote from: Lethe on June 24, 2010, 11:21:36 AM
So your taste hasn't evolved beyond that of a 13 year old? I don't see the point being made.
Look Luke,
If you didn't understand the point, you have some issues.
Look Saul,
If you didn't read who wrote that last post, it's not me that has the issues.
I do agree with Sara, however. My kids prefer jelly and ice cream to most other food. Doesn't make it haute cuisine.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:23:53 AM
Look Luke,
If you didn't understand the point, you have some issues.
This may come as a shock to you, but Luke and Lethe are not the same.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:19:17 AM
I had my nephew here this afternoon, he is 13 years old. He is musical but has no real solid sophistication when it comes to classical music. I asked him plainly what does he think of the Webern and the Schoenberg, he was rolling in laughter, he said , what's this nonsense.
Here is an independent opinion based on pure listening.
He then listened to my Fantasi, and without me telling him anything, he said that he likes it. It spoke to him and he was able to make something out of it.
But does anyone here care for an unbiased opinion?
Not really.
I think I know why he liked it, it sounds like the music that plays in the background of a pac-man game. 8)
Quote from: Luke on June 24, 2010, 11:26:15 AM
Look Saul,
If you didn't read who wrote that last post, it's not me that has the issues.
I do agree with Sara, however. My kids prefer jelly and ice cream to most other food. Doesn't make it haute cuisine.
Do the words unbiased opinion MEANS ANYTHING TO YOU??
Saul, I'm very pleased that your 13 year old nephew liked the tonal chords more than the atonal ones. I doesn't surprise me, I'd expect that in most 13 year olds.And that's a taste thing again. You keep coming back to taste, even though you claim to be talking about quality. And his liking for the tonal chords proves nothing about quality or skill you claim to have been talking about.
Luke I never demanded a complete and total adherence to the rules, but a general dedication to them.
Bach also broke a few rules. Why did he finish a number of his fugues in a major chord when he began with a minor?
Sometimes the music demands it and takes you logically to end a piece a certain way, but that's a far call from saying that 'hey you, you broke the rules of music'...
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:34:12 AM
Luke I never demanded a complete and total adherence to the rules, but a general dedication to them.
Bach also broke a few rules. Why did he finish a number of his fugues in a major chord when he began with a minor?
Sometimes the music demands it and takes you logically to end a piece a certain way, but that's a far call from saying that 'hey you, you broke the rules of music'...
Have you actually studied music? I ask because you exhibit an overall ignorance of the subject.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:28:14 AM
Do the words unbiased opinion MEANS ANYTHING TO YOU??
Imagine your horror when you discover your nephew likes the Barney song better than your "Fantasi."
http://www.youtube.com/v/dsKO_r76kfQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1
Quote from: Scarpia on June 24, 2010, 11:37:01 AM
Imagine your horror when you discover your nephew likes the Barney song better than your "Fantasi."
http://www.youtube.com/v/dsKO_r76kfQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1
Its entirely possible, one can never be certain, but even this music is way better then Webern and Schoenberg.
It has at least an understandable melody.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:34:12 AM
Luke I never demanded a complete and total adherence to the rules, but a general dedication to them.
But you don't do that, Saul, not even close. You're not aware of it, but you don't. Sfz and I pointed out some of the more obvious ways; the fact is, though, that Schoenberg adheres to 'the rules' much more strictly than you do, which is bizarre given that he's the arch-modern evil one and you are the upholder of tradition.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:34:12 AM
Bach also broke a few rules. Why did he finish a number of his fugues in a major chord when he began with a minor?
That is breaking a rule. It's a change of mode, not a change of tonal centre. In fact, it could eassily be regarded as resolving a structural dissonance - minor to major - and thus very much in the spirit of the rules
as well as their letter. Double win.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:34:12 AM
Sometimes the music demands it and takes you logically to end a piece a certain way, but that's a far call from saying that 'hey you, you broke the rules of music'...
I don't see how you piece demanded those parallels, the illiterate notation or the uncalled for tonal scheme. It could easily be rewritten without all of those things, it would adhere much more closely to the rules and be a more satisfying (and legible) piece. It wasn't necessary for you to break the rules that way, Saul, the musical material
didn't 'demand' it. I just think you didn't know what you are doing - the same sort of thing happens in all the pieces of yours I've looked at.
I have to go out. Enjoy the thread, everyone! :D
All this talk of rules reminds me of a funny experience. I used to play in a folk group and after studying some music theory I had the idea that I finally knew how to properly arrange vocal harmony in my little folk songs. So I wrote it out and gave it to my partners to sing. So we come to rehearsal and when the part with the vocal harmony comes up, right there in the middle of my folk song, there is this Bach chorale. Sometimes you can take the "rules" too seriously.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:34:12 AM
Bach also broke a few rules. Why did he finish a number of his fugues in a major chord when he began with a minor?
Not the same thing at all. Your piece loses tonal balance by ending in a key a tritone away from its inception. And what's more, though you start with what appears to be a fugal subject, you fail to develop it contrapuntally. What you're talking about in Bach is a
Picardy third that remains in the same key, but provides a stronger resolution at the ending by turning from the minor to major mode.
Quote from: Luke on June 24, 2010, 11:40:34 AM
But you don't do that, Saul, not even close. You're not aware of it, but you don't. Sfz and I pointed out some of the more obvious ways; the fact is, though, that Schoenberg adheres to 'the rules' much more strictly than you do, which is bizarre given that he's the arch-modern evil one and you are the upholder of tradition.
That is breaking a rule. It's a change of mode, not a change of tonal centre. In fact, it could eassily be regarded as resolving a structural dissonance - minor to major - and thus very much in the spirit of the rules as well as their letter. Double win.
I don't see how you piece demanded those parallels, the illiterate notation or the uncalled for tonal scheme. It could easily be rewritten without all of those things, it would adhere much more closely to the rules and be a more satisfying (and legible) piece. It wasn't necessary for you to break the rules that way, Saul, the musical material didn't 'demand' it. I just think you didn't know what you are doing - the same sort of thing happens in all the pieces of yours I've looked at.
I have to go out. Enjoy the thread, everyone! :D
And the horse comes marching back saying:
If you don't agree with me then you're an ignorant that lacks musical intellectuality.
Karl and Luke and some others here know how to ride this horse perfectly.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 24, 2010, 11:44:31 AM
Not the same thing at all. Your piece loses tonal balance by ending in a key a tritone away from its inception. And what's more, though you start with what appears to be a fugal subject, you fail to develop it contrapuntally. What you're talking about in Bach is a Picardy third that remains in the same key, but provides a stronger resolution at the ending by turning from the minor to major mode.
In this case I wanted an even stronger resolution, I could have ended it in F sharp minor if I wanted to.. those people here who think that I didnt know that are dreaming. I wanted to create something stronger in the end , unexpected, so I broke a very small rule towards the end, but the piece itself is built classically and sounds classical and not like Webern's rubbish.
No Saul - like I said, I hate having to get all musical and technical, in that sort of way anyway. But you brought it on yourself: if you are going to on about how vital it is to follow the rules, and then post as an example of 'superior to Schoenberg' music a piece of your own which happens to flout the rules you mention countless times, you have to be prepared for comment.
And now I really do have to go out! :)
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:48:39 AM
In this case I wanted an even stronger resolution, I could have ended it in F sharp minor if I wanted to.. those people here who think that I didnt know that are dreaming. I wanted to create something stronger in the end , unexpected, so I broke a very small rule towards the end, but the piece itself is built classically and sounds classical and not like Webern's rubbish.
It's a HUGE rule, not an optional extra, not 'very small' - if there is one rule in classical tonal music, it is this one, it is absolutely central, and never broken except in the most outrageous piece. It's the conerstone of the ultra-classical sonata principle (which doesn't only apply in sonatas, btw). It's also the cornerstone to Schenker, who Sfz mentioned earlier. He said that your posts suggested that you wished all music followed Schenker's preferred underlying, large-scale I-V-I, and that is what you seem to admire so much. But your own piece doens't do it. That's a big no-no.
Stop stopping me going out :D :D
Quote from: Luke on June 24, 2010, 11:49:24 AM
No Saul - like I said, I hate having to get all musical and technical, in that sort of way anyway. But you brought it on yourself: if you are going to on about how vital it is to follow the rules, and then post as an example of 'superior to Schoenberg' music a piece of your own which happens to flout the rules you mention countless times, you have to be prepared for comment.
And now I really do have to go out! :)
My piece is superior to Schoenberg's in every possible way. You just don't think so because I'm not Schoenberg.
Charm, innovation, originality, passion, melody, development, logic and sense.
Listening to Schoenberg is like listening to confused musical notes floating in the air while the only thing that makes you to make any sense of the tornado, is this imaginary 'intellectuality' that forces you to believe that you're too stupid to hate it, and therefore you must like it.
:)
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:53:58 AM
My piece is superior to Schoenberg's in every possible way. You just don't think so because I'm not Schoenberg.
Charm, innovation, originality, passion, melody, development, logic and sense.
Listening to Schoenberg is like listening to confused musical notes floating in the air while the only thing that makes you to make any sense of the tornado, is this imaginary 'intellectuality' that forces you to believe that you're too stupid to hate it, and therefore you must like it.
I understand this is your opinion of your own work. No bias there.
Now go get a job teaching at a major univeristy (like Schoenberg did) and make a name for yourself (like Schoenberg did) and have your music performed all over the world by major ensembles and musicians (like Schoenberg has) and then your boast will have some basis in fact.
Quote from: Franco on June 24, 2010, 11:58:09 AM
I understand this is your opinion of your own work. No bias there.
Now go get a job teaching at a major univeristy (like Schoenberg did) and make a name for yourself (like Schoenberg did) and have your music performed all over the world by major ensembles and musicians (like Schoenberg has) and then your boast will have some basis in fact.
Oh and Mozart didnt do all that? yet Taresa had said that:
Stravinsky's Music is 1.000.000.000 times better then Mozart...
Shooting your own foot is not what I call winning an argument.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 12:00:43 PMShooting your own foot is not what I call winning an argument.
The reality is you have no argument, Saul. You simply have your opinion and somebody else has theirs. Music is not about winning an argument and it certainly isn't a competition.
You continue to amuse me with your ridiculous statements. Have you ever considered stand-up comedy as a profession? You would be a real hoot.
Here's another major headache:
http://www.youtube.com/v/BjhxYFb72q0&feature=related
(http://www.heckman.us/smilies/troll_feed1.gif)
Quote from: MN Dave on June 24, 2010, 12:10:02 PM
(http://www.heckman.us/smilies/troll_feed1.gif)
Some liberal you are....
Quote from: Luke on June 24, 2010, 11:53:03 AM
It's a HUGE rule, not an optional extra, not 'very small' - if there is one rule in classical tonal music, it is this one, it is absolutely central, and never broken except in the most outrageous piece. It's the conerstone of the ultra-classical sonata principle (which doesn't only apply in sonatas, btw). It's also the cornerstone to Schenker, who Sfz mentioned earlier. He said that your posts suggested that you wished all music followed Schenker's preferred underlying, large-scale I-V-I, and that is what you seem to admire so much. But your own piece doens't do it. That's a big no-no.
Stop stopping me going out :D :D
I'm going to be sneaky and bring up the Chopin 2nd Ballade . . . .
Quote from: Sforzando on June 24, 2010, 12:12:06 PM
I'm going to be sneaky and bring up the Chopin 2nd Ballade . . . .
I wish you
polished
your sneakiness...
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 11:34:12 AM
Luke I never demanded a complete and total adherence to the rules, but a general dedication to them.
Bach also broke a few rules. Why did he finish a number of his fugues in a major chord when he began with a minor?
Sometimes the music demands it and takes you logically to end a piece a certain way, but that's a far call from saying that 'hey you, you broke the rules of music'...
You're always back-tracking when caught in a ridiculous premise.
Concerning the biased opinion of your 13 year old nephew, it's very amusing that you would consider the opinion of your nephew to buttress your position.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 24, 2010, 12:10:02 PM
(http://www.heckman.us/smilies/troll_feed1.gif)
This probably what Saul looks like in real life. I will be more cautious when I cross a bridge from now on.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 12:27:55 PM
This probably what Saul looks like in real life. I will be more cautious when I cross a bridge from now on.
This Troll is a supermodel compared to what you look like.
How many times do you change the mirror?
Quote from: Bulldog on June 24, 2010, 12:26:19 PM
You're always back-tracking when caught in a ridiculous premise.
Concerning the biased opinion of your 13 year old nephew, it's very amusing that you would consider the opinion of your nephew to buttress your position.
Usually, when someone, like Saul, is wrong, they can't think of a logical defense, so they just continue to rehash their opinions ad nauseum.
I don't think of Saul as a troll, but a very traditional and rigid type of man whose favorite rules are those devised thousands of years ago. "Change" is not something he would find comfortable.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 12:31:59 PM
Usually, when someone, like Saul, is wrong, they can't think of a logical defense, so they just continue to rehash their opinions ad nauseum.
Only you could think of those 'logical defences'...cause you're a special troll.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 12:31:30 PM
This Troll is a supermodel compared to what you look like.
How many times do you change the mirror?
What does this have to do with your blatant superiority complex?
Quote from: Bulldog on June 24, 2010, 12:33:41 PM
I don't think of Saul as a troll, but a very traditional and rigid type of man whose favorite rules are those devised thousands of years ago. "Change" is not something he would find comfortable.
Thank you, you see broken mirrors, its possible to agree to disagree with respect.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 12:35:04 PM
Thank you, you see broken mirrors, its possible to agree to disagree with respect.
In what ways, have you actually respected me and my opinion, Saul? You continue to trash the music I love with carelessness and expect people not to be offended by your assertions that what they enjoy is crap. The only respect you give are to those that agree with your high opinion. Those who do not you mock, belittle, and poke fun at.
You continue to deny Stravinsky's and Schoenberg's greatness, which shows just how blind you are to the world around you. These two composers may not be your cup of tea and that's certainly your right to feel the way you do, but there isn't one classical music aficionado or musical scholar that doesn't recognize these two composers influence and
GREATNESS.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 12:44:54 PM
In what ways, have you actually respected me and my opinion, Saul? You continue to trash the music I love with carelessness and expect people not to be offended by your assertions that what they enjoy is crap. The only respect you give are to those that agree with your high opinion. Those who do not you mock and poke fun at.
You continue to deny Stravinsky's and Schoenberg's greatness, which shows just how blind you are to the world around you. These two composers may not be your cup of tea and that's certainly your right to feel the way you do, but there isn't one classical music aficionado or musical scholar that doesn't recognize these two composers influence and GREATNESS.
Mirror Image, use the IGNORE option in your profile.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 12:31:30 PM
This Troll is a supermodel compared to what you look like.
How many times do you change the mirror?
Okay, I promised I'd stay out, but I can't stop from giggling here!!! Although it's descended to a level beneath where my kids are arguing in the back seat of the car, my kids were never this unintentionally hilarious, even on the time when they argued to the point of tears over who was the best spitter!
Which begs the question-- who is the best spitter on this board? Can we get a thirteen year old to judge? Can someone who is adept at serialism take a crack at the Barney theme, so we can compare it to Webern?
Thanks for brightening my day.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 12:44:54 PM
In what ways, have you actually respected me and my opinion, Saul? You continue to trash the music I love with carelessness and expect people not to be offended by your assertions that what they enjoy is crap. The only respect you give are to those that agree with your high opinion. Those who do not you mock, belittle, and poke fun at.
You continue to deny Stravinsky's and Schoenberg's greatness, which shows just how blind you are to the world around you. These two composers may not be your cup of tea and that's certainly your right to feel the way you do, but there isn't one classical music aficionado or musical scholar that doesn't recognize these two composers influence and GREATNESS.
The only way I would respect your opinion is when I agree with it, that's your logic isn't it?
Quote from: MN Dave on June 24, 2010, 12:46:15 PM
Mirror Image, use the IGNORE option in your profile.
I think ignoring him is exactly what he wants. The funny thing is he never responds to anyone when they question his opinions. What he continues to do is alienate himself from making a real connection with somebody else.
He thinks I don't respect his opinion, but I have made it quite clear that I respect him, but what I don't respect is his contining onslaught of insults directed at the music that I care about.
Notice how I haven't said anything negative about the composers he likes other than I don't particularly care for their music. I don't like Mozart, but this doesn't mean that I don't respect what he accomplished and that I don't acknowledge his greatness. Saul simply sees music in a very straight line and nothing can deviate from that straight line, but I see music as endless possibilities. His opinion isn't the only one on this forum and he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge this.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 12:49:56 PM
The only way I would respect your opinion is when I agree with it, that's your logic isn't it?
So you don't respect anybody else's opinion unless it is the same as your own? This statement is one of the most childish I've ever read.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 12:53:58 PM
Saul simply sees music in a very straight line and nothing can deviate from that straight line, but I see music as endless possibilities. His opinion isn't the only one on this forum and he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge this.
Saul sees everything in a straight line, and he's sticking to it until his last breath.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 24, 2010, 12:58:48 PM
Saul sees everything in a straight line, and he's sticking to it until his last breath.
I believe it. :D
Quote from: Luke on June 24, 2010, 06:58:39 AM
Then he was hugely, hugely wrong. It's among the most common chord progressions of all, as common if not more so than IV V I.
Thanks for the reply Luke, I just realized I might have it backwards, since you say II, V, I is the most common chord progression for finales.
Could it be IV, V, I was the new shocking progression introduced by Haydn in the finale of the Surprise Symphony?
I know it was many decades ago, I clearly remember my teacher saying that this was the real Surprise.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 12:56:27 PM
So you don't respect anybody else's opinion unless it is the same as your own? This statement is one of the most childish I've ever read.
The Irony ... :-X
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 01:01:36 PM
The Irony ... :-X
There is no irony. There is simply you trashing the composers I love and me respecting the ones you love. There is no argument if you can't respect the person's opinion. Nobody will respect you, if you can't respect them. It's as simple as that.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 01:10:01 PM
There is no irony. There is simply you trashing the composers I love and me respecting the ones you love. There is no argument if you can't respect the person's opinion. Nobody will respect you, if you can't respect them. It's as simple as that.
Care to explain why I can't trash the composers you like?
Its not an attack on you personally, don't you agree?
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 01:12:42 PM
Care to explain why I can't trash the composers you like?
But why would you want to trash certain composers? Wouldn't you rather devote your time to the composers you most appreciate?
This thread has careened around so quickly it's hard to keep up.
The question of greatness should not be an issue of semantics here. I had a great night's sleep last and the sugar frosted flakes I had for breakfast were great, but this is a classical music discussion forum and the use of the word great in the context of this thread demands a superior degree of achievement, influence, and ability. No matter how much you love Dr. Seuss, he wasn't a greater writer than Hawthorne and no matter how many Thomas Kinkade pictures you own, he's not a greater painter than Picasso. To say Mozart and Schoenberg were not great is equally as ridiculous. "It's great because I think it is" won't fly.
Despite the fact I have a degree in music and make my living teaching music, I am usually humbled when I come to this forum by the incredible knowledge and insight posters have here. There is much music I don't get, but I know enough about music to understand it's a failing I have and not of the music. Perhaps when some individuals learn more about music, they will realize how much more they have to learn.
A reality of internet forums is that individuals who would be avoided, ignored, or dismissed in polite society (or perhaps punched in the nose in unpolite society) have a soapbox to proselytize while avoiding actual interaction and the requisite interpersonal skills for an authentic social encounter. When Wikipedia and Youtube are offered as definitive sources to defend an argument, it's probably time for all of us to move on.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 01:12:42 PM
Care to explain why I can't trash the composers you like?
Its not an attack on you personally, don't you agree?
There's nothing wrong with stating your opinion, but notice how I just said I didn't like Mozart. Did I go into detail about why I don't like him? No, because I think you really don't care to know my opinion or anyone else's for that matter. You are only concerned with that straight line, which you continue to walk.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 24, 2010, 01:17:29 PM
But why would you want to trash certain composers? Wouldn't you rather devote your time to the composers you most appreciate?
Because one can learn much from exchanging ideas.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 01:21:40 PM
Because one can learn alote from exchaning ideas.
I can't get better with language if you keep writing sentences like the above.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 24, 2010, 01:24:41 PM
I can't get better with language if you keep writing sentences like the above.
You're right, sorry, I was just typing too fast.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 01:12:42 PMCare to explain why I can't trash the composers you like?
I never said you can't trash any of the composers I like, but at the same time, it shows your disrespect for me when you continue to belittle those composers I think are great.
There can never a mutually satisfying conversation when the other person constantly degrades the music I love. I don't expect you to understand any of this, but cutting down other people's opinions, doesn't make you look better.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 01:27:14 PM
I never said you can't trash any of the composers I like, but at the same time, it shows your disrespect for me when you continue to belittle those composers I think are great.
There can never a mutually satisfying conversation when the other person constantly degrades the music I love. I don't expect you to understand any of this, but cutting down other people's opinions, doesn't make you look better.
Many people here hate other people's choice of composers they love. This is natural.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 01:29:02 PM
Many people here hate other people's choice of composers they love. This is natural.
You can hate what I like all you want to. That's not the point I'm trying to make to you, Saul. The point is that you show no respect for other people's opinions. Your responses to me and others in this thread is further evidence that you don't respect anyone but yourself and your own high opinion.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 01:29:02 PM
Many people here hate other people's choice of composers they love. This is natural.
I prefer to hate certain humans; hate is too strong a word for a piece of music.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 24, 2010, 01:31:44 PM
I prefer to hate certain humans; hate is too strong a word for a piece of music.
You know what I mean, not hate but disdain, scorn, dislike...and so on
Saul I am confused, you basically said any composers after Brahms were worthless. Yet we discover you are actually a classical composer yourself :o , and unless we are in some weird time warp you were born way after Brahms died. He lived from 1833-1897.
So if you like your music, can you not concede that there must be other modern composers you would like? Did you listen to the clips I provided of Jennifer Hidgon? She is very tonal and accessible.
I also dislike atonal music such as the Schoenberg you harp on. However there is a huge variety of modern classical music still being written (yes it is classical music), including neo-modern, neo-classical and neo-romantic. As a composer I cannot understand how you can close you mind to other living composers and claim they are all worthless just because they were born after Brahms.
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 01:38:32 PM
Saul I am confused, you basically said any composers after Brahms were worthless. Yet we discover you are actually a classical composer yourself :o , and unless we are in some weird time warp you were born way after Brahms died. He lived from 1833-1897.
So if you like your music, can you not concede that there must be other modern composers you would like? Did you listen to the clips I provided of Jennifer Hidgon? She is very tonal and accessible.
I also dislike atonal music such as the Schoenberg you harp on. However there is a huge variety of modern classical music still being written (yes it is classical music), including neo-modern, neo-classical and neo-romantic. As a composer I cannot understand how you can close you mind to other living composers and claim they are all worthless just because they were born after Brahms.
I meant to say that any composer even contemporary that composes music in the classical baroque style and creates quality music , is way better then the modernists who departed from the old school of classical music.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 24, 2010, 01:31:44 PM
I prefer to hate certain humans; hate is too strong a word for a piece of music.
I do not hate any humans and I try very hard to love and understand them even when they are difficult. I guess you might say I hate Hitler for his mass torture and execution of the Jews. But this is an impersonal hate as I never met the monster. I have never meet anyone I even strongly dislike, it helps to use empathy to understand other people's feelings.
However music has much stronger
emotions, there is tons of music I hate, just as there is tons of music I love.
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 01:47:09 PM
I do not hate any humans and I try very hard to love and understand them even when they are difficult. I guess you might say I hate Hitler for his mass torture and execution of the Jews. But this is an impersonal hate as I never met the monster. I have never meet anyone I even strongly dislike, it helps to use empathy to understand other people's feelings.
However music has much stronger emotions, there is tons of music I hate, just as there is tons of music I love.
I also didn't mean to say that I hate the actual modernist composers, but you could say that I strongly dislike their music, but I would never hate it. There is no need to hate modernist music, it might be terrible to my ears, but I would never hate it. There is no evil in modern music, I keep the word hate for evil , cause I hate evil.
Regards,
Saul
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 12:53:58 PM
I think ignoring him is exactly what he wants.
No, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the assclown
doesn't want.
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 01:00:08 PM
Thanks for the reply Luke, I just realized I might have it backwards, since you say II, V, I is the most common chord progression for finales.
Could it be IV, V, I was the new shocking progression introduced by Haydn in the finale [no, the second movement] of the Surprise Symphony?
I know it was many decades ago, I clearly remember my teacher saying that this was the real Surprise.
I already answered this point this morning. The surprise is the loud chord. The harmonic progression is commonplace.
Banality at its best
http://www.youtube.com/v/PxRpLA4sBFg&feature=related
And pure beauty
http://www.youtube.com/v/VK4vWzQCQxU&feature=PlayList&p=57BADBA1EAA18E36&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=27
You see, Saul can't hold an intelligent conversation, so he continues to recycle the same opinions over and over again until we're all sick.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 03:49:53 PM
You see, Saul can't hold an intelligent conversation, so he continues to recycle the same opinions over and over again until we're all sick.
Congratulations. You've discovered the central fact of this web site. :(
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 03:49:53 PM
You see, Saul can't hold an intelligent conversation, so he continues to recycle the same opinions over and over again until we're all sick.
You know Whining is not a virtue.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 03:46:07 PM
And pure beauty
http://www.youtube.com/v/VK4vWzQCQxU&feature=PlayList&p=57BADBA1EAA18E36&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=27
I just want to tell everyone here in all seriousness, that I am totally amazed and astonished at the beauty of this amazingly wondrous work by Mozart.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 03:56:43 PM
I just want to tell everyone here in all seriousness, that I am totally amazed and astonished at the beauty of this amazingly wondrous work by Mozart.
After this discussion, I think I can speak for most of us when I say that I am amazed and astonished that you can figure out whether you should put your socks on before your shoes, or the other way around.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 24, 2010, 04:32:30 PM
After this discussion, I think I can speak for most of us when I say that I am amazed and astonished that you can figure out whether you should put your socks on before your shoes, or the other way around.
Why does it bother you that I love Mozart's music?
Look who is been offensive and disrespectful.. what have I ever done to you?
Saul's on a roll now. In just this one thread, he gets to praise what he likes, reject what he doesn't and give us examples of his compositional skills and performance characteristics. I'm outta here....
This is undoubtedly one of the most shameful and depressing "discussions" about art I've ever read. No-one emerges from this sad fiasco with any credit.
It's summer. Go outside and take a walk instead? Look at the landscape, or the cityscape or whatever, and think what a remarkable world we live in. No generation ever had such easy access to works of art. If our parents wanted to hear an opera or a symphony, it came on 10-20 x 78rpm disks and cost a month's wages. Now we can download a choice of recordings in 2-3 minutes, in superb reproduction, and it's either free... or costs the price of a sandwich.
Please stop being such ungrateful children.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on June 24, 2010, 05:28:09 PM
This is undoubtedly one of the most shameful and depressing "discussions" about art I've ever read. No-one emerges from this sad fiasco with any credit.
It's summer. Go outside and take a walk instead? Look at the landscape, or the cityscape or whatever, and think what a remarkable world we live in. No generation ever had such easy access to works of art. If our parents wanted to hear an opera or a symphony, it came on 10-20 x 78rpm disks and cost a month's wages. Now we can download a choice of recordings in 2-3 minutes, in superb reproduction, and it's either free... or costs the price of a sandwich.
Please stop being such ungrateful children.
And who raised you on a pedestal above everyone else?
QuoteAnd who raised you on a pedestal above everyone else?
I stand on no pedastal. I just refuse to jump in the pigswill.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on June 24, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
I stand on no pedastal. I just refuse to jump in the pigswill.
And yet you have joined the discussion. If you find the membership here to be nothing more than a group of pigs, then perhaps you would be happier with another forum that doesn't so offend your nostrils. I wish you luck trying to find one.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 12:08:28 PM
Here's another major headache:
http://www.youtube.com/v/BjhxYFb72q0&feature=related
It's a headache to
you.
To me, it's the possibly most badass movement of a piano sonata ever written (Richter's version, of course, superior).
I started enjoying this when I just picked up a random CD from the library- had no knowledge at all about 20th century classical, and had never even heard of Prokofiev. At first, expecting something traditional, I was a bit shocked. However, after listening a few times, I realized that, despite what I expected, I LOVED it.
And you want to tell me that I pretend to like this because I would appear smart in front of people on the internet? (And when I listen to this, alone in my room, it's to appear educated in front of people)? If you really believe that, you seriously lack any common sense.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 03:43:50 PM
Banality at its best
http://www.youtube.com/v/PxRpLA4sBFg&feature=related
This music has some soul, man! Thanks for the Prokofiev.
As for that "Ocean Song...." what's up with the flute line? Wtf? Almost every bar is just a whole note? Copy and paste much?
(and Szykniej is right- you do need slurs for the violin- would be too hard anyways to bow in an opposite direction every note for that long, not to mention not idiomatic for something like that)
At least Prokofiev didn't have a computer program where he could just write a bar and copy and paste it endlessly, while just changing the pitches. If he did and used it that way... we wouldn't know him.
The Prokofiev sonata got 55,000 views. And that's just one performance. Pop stars get many millions of view. Your point?...
Quote from: Greg on June 24, 2010, 06:22:00 PM
This music has some soul, man! Thanks for the Prokofiev.
As for that "Ocean Song...." what's up with the flute line? Wtf? Almost every bar is just a whole note? Copy and paste much?
(and Szykniej is right- you do need slurs for the violin- would be too hard anyways to bow in an opposite direction every note for that long, not to mention not idiomatic for something like that)
At least Prokofiev didn't have a computer program where he could just write a bar and copy and paste it endlessly, while just changing the pitches. If he did and used it that way... we wouldn't know him.
That's right. The greatest composers wrote music with their hands and on music paper. Look at Mozart, Bach, Brahms. All the composers Saul supposedly looks up to and admires. If he wants to be a great composer, then he'll learn to compose using his hands and not use music notation software, which any monkey who can learn how to use.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 06:31:27 PM
And somehow 30,000 views translates to a great composition? Music IS NOT a popularity contest. You don't compose meaningful music and it shows.
I would be very interested in knowing who you studied composition with, because whoever it was obviously didn't teach you anything, but then again, you can't teach somebody to come up with a great piece of music. It has to come from their imagination and heart. Both of which you severely lack.
Personal opinion, that's what youre all about. Many people disagree with you, and this is a fact.
But anyways, I will post an Orchestral work for you...
Quote from: Szykniej on June 24, 2010, 06:14:19 PM
This would sound like mud if played by the actual instruments, especially the flute in that range. And how do you intend the violinist to articulate those 32nd note arpeggios since no articulations are indicated? Sounds more like relaxing New Age music to me.
I don't think the articulations are so much the problem. I'm not a violinist, but generally when you see up-and-down arpeggios in scores, they're laid out in such a way as to fall in a natural position over the four strings. Here, however, the highest note of the arpeggio is several times lower than the open E string, meaning it would have to be played on the A string and making me wonder if some of the figurations could be easily fingered at all. I agree also that the flute is treated in a weak register throughout and the rhythmic plan is unvaried and monotonous.
But perhaps I should comment no further, as we have been informed from On High that instead of swimming in pigswill, we ungrateful children should all go out for a walk.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 06:43:20 PM
And we are going back at the very beginning...
'Who did you study composition with'?
Like if I studied with a famous composer would that make my music worthy of your praise?
Would you be afraid to 'like' my music for what it is without knowing with whom I studied with?
All I asked you is a simple question, Saul. Do you have any musical training? If yes, who did you study with and where did you study?
If you don't want to answer my question that is your right, but I'm just curious where you received your musical training. That's all I'm asking.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 06:44:54 PM
No, that wouldn't work. You actually have to have a willingness to learn in order to study anything with anybody. If you're not willing to learn, then you're not going to learn anything. Don't you remember that Saul knows it all? :D
Yeah, that's why I put that afterthought in parenthesis. I don't think any teacher could improve him.
Quote from: Greg on June 24, 2010, 06:52:28 PM
Yeah, that's why I put that afterthought in parenthesis. I don't think any teacher could improve him.
Not with his attitude that's for sure.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 24, 2010, 06:44:37 PM
I don't think the articulations are so much the problem. I'm not a violinist, but generally when you see up-and-down arpeggios in scores, they're laid out in such a way as to fall in a natural position over the four strings.
These arpeggios don't, especially in the key of E major. The whole piece had a better chance of working in the key of A major, which would eliminate the pesky D-sharp and get the whole thing up to a better range for both the violin and flute. But still, 32nd note arpeggios on a real violin at the tempo of this piece aren't going to work, not without some creative bowings if at all.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 06:53:19 PM
May I suggest you take some composition classes? This is really something that you might want to consider. Have you considered going to college and studying classical composition?
I don't think its really necessary, I'm always learning, and there are many possibilities to learn, composition, I have books that I study, and I have taken some good composition lessons from my piano teacher which is a wondrous music scholar and a first rate Bach performer.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 06:26:57 PM
That's right. The greatest composers wrote music with their hands and on music paper...
I still use pencil on sheet music paper, however I would like to learn how to do it on the computer.
Here is the first page of my
Dream Piece in F Minor, Op. 3(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NOEVqitG1Gg/TCQaP8KNEqI/AAAAAAAAATI/Sa5A9TzyE0g/S220/DCP_5882.JPG)
It is only the piano score, I have yet to orchestrate it.
Prokofiev is the best!
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 06:59:15 PM
I still use pencil on sheet music paper, however I would like to learn how to do it on the computer.
Here is the first page of my Dream Piece in F Minor, Op. 3
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NOEVqitG1Gg/TCQaP8KNEqI/AAAAAAAAATI/Sa5A9TzyE0g/S220/DCP_5882.JPG)
It is only the piano score, I have yet to orchestrate it.
Nice looking manuscript. I was always envious of people who had the ability to create good-looking scores by hand. My manuscript was never very neat.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 24, 2010, 09:15:28 AM
Oh, there may well be a traffic accident in Saul's mind . . . could explain the impeded flow of reason ; )
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
Quote from: Szykniej on June 24, 2010, 07:02:27 PM
Nice looking manuscript. I was always envious of people who had the ability to create good-looking scores by hand. My manuscript was never very neat.
Thanks very much for your kind comments. However I would gladly trade neatness for more talent and to be more prolific. I am not a very good composer.
Quote from: Teresa on June 24, 2010, 07:29:52 PM
Thanks very much for your kind comments. However I would gladly trade neatness for more talent and to be more prolific. I am not a very good composer.
Why don't you post something here and let the wolves attack? I'm sure they are sharpening their teeth as we speak...
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 07:31:41 PM
Why don't you post something here and let the wolves attack? I'm sure they are sharpening their teeth as we speak...
I use pencil and manuscript paper I have not learned how to put my music on the computer yet, any pointers? It would be a good way to experiment with new sounds I cannot duplicate on my keyboard or guitar.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on June 24, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
I stand on no pedastal. I just refuse to jump in the pigswill.
And what do you call this?
This thread reminds me of this (I cannot get it out of my head): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM&feature=related)
Quote from: ukrneal on June 24, 2010, 09:37:13 PM
This thread reminds me of this (I cannot get it out of my head): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM&feature=related)
As I stated before, any composer today that can write classical music that follows the rules and traditions of classical music and doesn't compose atonal BS 12 pain headache music such as Schoenberg and his gang, is way superior then any of them beginning with Prokofiev until the latest atonal gatherer of banal sounds.
That was the entire reason of this thread, not to showcase my work, though it somehow happened, that was not the original intention.
I have nothing else to add to this thread, because it was hijacked by those who can't stand a different position in things, and therefore resort to personal attacks. Lots of maturity is still needed in order to discuss things here in a normal manner.
Saul, to paraphrase Sibelius, "don't worry what the critics say, nobody has put up a statue for a critic." Just keep on doing what you're doing. It's easy for others to criticise, when we haven't seen any of their compositions here or elsewhere. You're a brave person to weather the flack & expose yourself like this. Good on you.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 24, 2010, 09:21:42 PM
...I find Prokofiev's orchestral output more appealing than his chamber and solo instrumental works.
I'm an orchestral man. I enjoy symphonies, ballets, concerti, symphonic poems, etc. This is what I get the most enjoyment out of. There aren't many chamber works that I enjoy. I spend my time listening to music I enjoy, not what somebody else deems acceptable.
What drives me to any composer's music is the music's emotional content and my own intellectual curiosity.
A man after my own heart :-* Prokofiev is one of my very favorite composers and yes the orchestral works from the Scythian Suite, Lieutenant Kijé, Romeo And Juliet to the Piano Concertos and Symphonies. I wonder if Saul knows Prokofiev's Symphony No. 1 "Classical" is in the style of Haydn? :o
Quote from: Sid on June 24, 2010, 10:09:37 PM
Saul, to paraphrase Sibelius, "don't worry what the critics say, nobody has put up a statue for a critic." Just keep on doing what you're doing. It's easy for others to criticise, when we haven't seen any of their compositions here or elsewhere. You're a brave person to weather the flack & expose yourself like this. Good on you.
Then 'we' haven't been looking very carefully. Plenty of my stuff here and elsewhere, plenty of Karl's stuff here and elsewhere too.
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 09:44:22 PM
As I stated before, any composer today that can write classical music that follows the rules and traditions of classical music and doesn't compose atonal BS 12 pain headache music such as Schoenberg and his gang, is way superior then any of them beginning with Prokofiev until the latest atonal gatherer of banal sounds.
That was the entire reason of this thread...
I thought the reason for this thread was to compare how one likes different composers? Your first post provided YouTubes of Bach's Double Violin Concerto and Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 2. You liked the Bach, I and others liked the Rachmaninov. Nothing wrong with that.
FYI Rachmaninov NEVER wrote atonal music and I have heard most of his compositions and have never heard any dissonance. The ONLY rule I know Rachmaninov broke was the use of parallel octaves in his Prelude in C# Minor.
Teresa, just FYi, there's plenty of dissonance in Rachmaninov. There's plenty in Bach and Mozart too, dissonance makes the world go round, musically speaking. Use of dissonance doens't make a composer atonal - you're right that Rachmaninov was never atonal, of course. Also FYI, parallel octaves (the rule) are to do with part-writing; parallel octaves (the keyboard technique, to double a melody at the octave as Rachmaninov does in the C sharp minor Prelude and in almost every other piece too) are nothing to do with that and are not a rule-infringement at all
Discussion on Saul's own compositions has been transported to Saul's music space (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,15351.0.html).
Q
Quote from: Saul on June 24, 2010, 07:31:41 PM
Why don't you post something here and let the wolves attack? I'm sure they are sharpening their teeth as we speak...
That's nonsense, Saul. If you're going to proclaim your own work superior to that of several recognized composers, and if on examination it proves amateurish, you can't act surprised if people aren't going to point out the weaknesses. You seem to take the attitude that the only valid reaction to your pieces is fawning praise. Greg here on the other hand, who seems to me considerably more talented, is always open to learning what others have to say and that strikes me as a good sign.
When Stockhausen first met Stravinsky and the two were discussing the younger man's work, Stockhausen's first request was, "Tell me what you
don't like."
Quote from: Que on June 25, 2010, 02:00:28 AM
Discussion on Saul's own compositions has been transported to Saul's music space (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,15351.0.html).
Q
Thank you!
Quote from: Sid on June 24, 2010, 10:09:37 PM
Saul, to paraphrase Sibelius, "don't worry what the critics say, nobody has put up a statue for a critic." Just keep on doing what you're doing. It's easy for others to criticise, when we haven't seen any of their compositions here or elsewhere. You're a brave person to weather the flack & expose yourself like this. Good on you.
It isn't often that one sees such warm public support for incompetence. BP want to bring you onto their PR team! (Of course, it's no great reflection on you that you mistake this, erm, 'performance' of Saul's for "bravery.")
Quote from: Sid on June 24, 2010, 10:09:37 PM
Saul, to paraphrase Sibelius, "don't worry what the critics say, nobody has put up a statue for a critic." Just keep on doing what you're doing. It's easy for others to criticise, when we haven't seen any of their compositions here or elsewhere. You're a brave person to weather the flack & expose yourself like this. Good on you.
Thank you Sid, your support is very appreciated.
You're right, even Schubert was called an Amateur and Bernstein famously said that Beethoven was a terrible orchestrator, and Schumann was criticized for having too little education in music theory.
Yes, the critics if they so choose to, can destroy the greats and exalt the banalists, its all a matter of choise.
God bless...
Quote from: Saul on June 25, 2010, 04:16:54 AM
You're right, even Schubert was called an Amateur and Bernstein famously said that Beethoven was a terrible orchestrator, and Schumann was criticized for having too little education in music theory.
Yes, the critics if they so choose to, can destroy the greats and exalt the banalists, its all a matter of choise.
In other words:
"The great composers have always been criticized.
Saul has been criticized.
Therefore Saul is a great composer."
How fondly one imagines that adverse criticism could not possibly be apt ; )
You don't get it gentlemen. As you try to put Saul in his place, so the speak, the only thing that registers with him is that you have left off discussing discussing Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Bartok, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, to discuss his music. Of course, given that he is such a towering genius, your petty criticisms are as absurd as Teresa's criticisms of Mozart. If you really want to put Saul in his place, discuss something else on this board!!!!
Another thought, does anyone remember the phrase "the drivel he calls his music."
I wonder what has become of Robert Antacki, the proto-Mozart of a precursor to this board. Are his works being performed by the Vienna Philharmonic, and if not why?
Quote from: Scarpia on June 25, 2010, 06:08:40 AM
If you really want to put Saul in his place, discuss something else on this board!!!!
Or don't reply. Or put him on "ignore" like me. ;D
No time for drivel!
Quote from: Scarpia on June 25, 2010, 06:10:57 AM
Another thought, does anyone remember the phrase "the drivel he calls his music."
How can I forget? I wrote that phrase! ;D
Quote from: Scarpia on June 25, 2010, 06:10:57 AM
I wonder what has become of Robert Antacki, the proto-Mozart of a precursor to this board. Are his works being performed by the Vienna Philharmonic, and if not why?
The Internet reveals all:
http://www.nextcat.com/robantecki
http://www.facebook.com/robantecki
http://www.sweetpaul.com/the-backstrokes-music-rob-antecki/
http://www.aquinas.edu/alumni/archives.html
Quote from: Scarpia on June 25, 2010, 06:08:40 AM
...are as absurd as Teresa's criticisms of Mozart...
I take issue with this statement and I am highly offended by your accusation that my personal opinions are absurd.
Just because someone dislikes music you like and considers someone a bad composer based on both hearing and studying their music is no reason to call that someone's opinions absurd.
Even though I have a very hard trying to understand how anyone can listen to Mozart's music and actually enjoy it, it is not my place to tell others what to like and what not to like. These are
personal choices, just as the opinion of what music is bad, poor, good and great are personal choices, which I honor.
I would never attack anyone for enjoying Mozart, or for their personal ranking of his skills. I feel it is
"out of bounds" to do so and it would
violate their personal freedom. I expect the same respect I extend to others. Everyone is free to love and hate whatever music the wish, free to rank composers however they wish.
This forcing of artificial and contrived value system of ranking composers for others is anti-freedom and I have been fighting the musical establishment of these dictatorial ideas for four decades. See Classical Music for music lovers who don't think they like Classical Music (http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/classical-music-for-music-lovers-who.html)
Perhaps you should have said "I disagree with Teresa's criticisms of Mozart and love his music." :)
Quote from: Teresa on June 25, 2010, 04:35:32 PM
I take issue with this statement and I am highly offended by your accusation that my personal opinions are absurd.
You claimed that you could determine that Mozart was a terrible composer based on your knowledge of music theory. Then it was revealed that you thought an extremely common II-V-I progression was shocking to audiences, and that Rachmaninoff composed music without using dissonance. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with music theory and history would recognize these statements as absurd. For you to claim your criticism of Mozart is based on expert opinion is like someone who doesn't understand high school physics to claim to have found a flaw in Einstein's theory of general relativity. (It happens, see this wonderful story on This American Life http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/A-Little-Bit-of-Knowledge (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/A-Little-Bit-of-Knowledge)).
Really, why can't you just say you don't like Mozart and leave it at that? When you try to go farther you just make a ridiculous spectacle of yourself.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 25, 2010, 06:23:38 AM
Or don't reply. Or put him on "ignore" like me. ;D
Which is precisely what I have done. 8)
Quote from: Teresa on June 25, 2010, 04:35:32 PM
I take issue with this statement and I am highly offended by your accusation that my personal opinions are absurd.
Not that you are any more apt to read this at all better . . . no one is calling your dislike of Mozart absurd.
Your "criticisms" of Mozart, though . . . crackers.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 25, 2010, 05:42:47 PM
You claimed that you could determine that Mozart was a terrible composer based on your knowledge of music theory. Then it was revealed that you thought an extremely common II-V-I progression was shocking to audiences, and that Rachmaninoff composed music without using dissonance. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with music theory and history would recognize these statements as absurd. For you to claim your criticism of Mozart is based on expert opinion is like someone who doesn't understand high school physics to claim to have found a flaw in Einstein's theory of general relativity. (It happens, see this wonderful story on This American Life http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/A-Little-Bit-of-Knowledge (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/A-Little-Bit-of-Knowledge)).
Really, why can't you just say you don't like Mozart and leave it at that? When you try to go farther you just make a ridiculous spectacle of yourself.
Your first claim has nothing to do with honoring other people's opinions. The ending chord progression was a quote from my
Music, Theory and Harmony teacher. However the course was decades ago and the alternate ending he said was used for the first time in Haydn's Surprise Symphony could have been IV-V-I not II-V-I, thus giving the world
TWO not
ONE ending chord progression choices. He used this as a demonstration on how compositional rules can change with usage. This of course has nothing to do with me, so that attack is uncalled for.
Second I OWN all of Rachmaninov's works for orchestra and piano and orchestra and I have NEVER heard hard dissonance in a single work. Rachmaninov is one of my favorite composers and I do not buy the arguement that he has ever used hard dissonance and would love to know of a single example.
There are many composer's I do not like, I do not believe all of them are bad composers, if fact some of them are good, I just do not care for their music. However I firmly believe Mozart is the worst composer I have ever heard on every single measurement level, but that is only my personal belief, every human being is
FREE to believe as their heart tells them.
As I said many, many, many times before
GREATNESS is in the ears, eyes and mind of the beholder. To believe otherwise is anti-freedom as it tries to push personal views on others.
Why can't you RESPECT other people's opinions? Why is that so hard for you? You are the one making a spectacle of yourself (Not I) by denying other people opinions of greatness and worthiness based on your own value system.
In short you believe in projecting your personal beliefs on others and I believe in personal freedom. I firmly believe that ANYONE can express their beliefs in whatever music or composers they feel are Great, Good, Poor of Bad without the need to belittle them. This is a lesson in life you may want to learn
"let people freely express their opinions without the need to attack them". It will make your life much easier. Love and Peace always! :)
I have to agree with you Teresa about Mozart. I'm not a big fan at all. Never have been really. There's nothing about his music that draws me in or even remotely keeps me interested. I do like his "Requiem" though. I think this work is so haunting, and, for me, it expressed genuine emotion in the music. There was sense of fear, darkness, agony, and finally it all resolves to acceptance of the inevitable: death. I find it hard not to be moved by this stirring masterpiece.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 25, 2010, 07:01:39 PM
I have to agree with you Teresa about Mozart. I'm not a big fan at all. Never have been really. There's nothing about his music that draws me in or even remotely keeps me interested. I do like his "Requiem" though. I think this work is so haunting, and, for me, it expressed genunine emotion in the music. There was sense of fear, darkness, agony, and finally it all resolves to acceptance of the inevitable: death. I find it hard not to be moved by this stirring masterpiece.
Then perhaps there is a chance you might find that vein of emotion in other of Mozart's works. I would suggest if nothing else the G minor string quintet, which, despite a final movement whose lively tone does not match the rest of the work, conveys very similar feelings to the Requiem - which, after all, is not entirely Mozart's work. The 3-4 minute introduction to the finale of that quintet should be enough in itself to set to rest any clichéd ideas about Mozart's inability to plumb deep emotions.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 25, 2010, 07:18:06 PM
Then perhaps there is a chance you might find that vein of emotion in other of Mozart's works. I would suggest if nothing else the G minor string quintet, which, despite a final movement whose lively tone does not match the rest of the work, conveys very similar feelings to the Requiem - which, after all, is not entirely Mozart's work. The 3-4 minute introduction to the finale of that quintet should be enough in itself to set to rest any clichéd ideas about Mozart's inability to plumb deep emotions.
I would rather spend my time listening to music I'm interested in hearing and also enjoy, then exploring a composer's music that I don't like and that I don't enjoy. Again, the only Mozart work I enjoy is "Requiem."
I've never seen comparing composers bring happiness to anybody.
Why can't people take the modern gift of having access to tons of whatever music they want almost whenever they want, and be happy enough? It's a good thing. 130 years ago, we couldn't have heard most of this stuff. Even hardcore concertgoers heard only a tiny fraction of what any one of us has gotten to experience. You couldn't print out scores and look over them while listening, rewinding, playing over one passage 20 times to deeply explore and uncover some delightful nuance. Not that I can do that myself; I lack the ability to do anything but read music at the most rudimentary level. But for many here, it's true; and from what I understand, deeply rewarding.
Nobody can change anyone's opinion or taste like this, simply because there's nothing factually wrong with opinion or taste. (Note: I'm not touching onto anything about someone making incorrect statements about technical musical issues.) I hate everything I've ever heard by Shostakovich, and as far as I can tell, Sibelius' only worthwhile music over his entire life was the closing seconds of his Symphony #7. Who cares? Even I don't. Why would anybody else? It doesn't hurt anybody for me to say that, but it doesn't help either; I don't think I've ever said anything negative about Shostakovich on this board before, simply because I don't see anything useful or enjoyable for anybody coming out of it.
I guess what I just said doesn't add anything either. I try not to post negative stuff about composers. I posted in a Jean Sibelius thread because I was interested in his life, and wanted more information about him and his music, but I didn't go into how I disliked his stuff. If I even mentioned my dislike at all, I wish I hadn't, and didn't mean to bring any negativity by it. It's not wrong to dislike something, but it's kind of a negative, and inserting negative vibes into a faceless text-only discussion (with emoticon pictures!) is hard to pull off in any way that will lead to anything positive. Just my rambling take, not trying to tell anybody what to do or anything.
I think W.A. Mozart was the greatest artist in any artistic field in all of history, but it doesn't take one iota of pleasure away from me to know that lots of people hate or are indifferent to his stuff. I guess I've always been bothered by folks telling others that they're wrong to dislike something a relative majority classifies as "great". Not sure why those folks would get much out of going around telling others about their hatred, but not sure why people would give them too much of a hard time about it, either.
Geez, I sound like such a hippy. Peace, love, and positive vibes, man.
Quote from: Teresa on June 25, 2010, 06:12:45 PMSecond I OWN all of Rachmaninov's works for orchestra and piano and orchestra and I have NEVER heard hard dissonance in a single work. Rachmaninov is one of my favorite composers and I do not buy the arguement that he has ever used hard dissonance and would love to know of a single example.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I found a site with Rachmaninoff scores and found an obvious dissonance in the second bar of the first piece I looked at.
Prelude Opus 23, No. 1. Second measure, left hand. You will see an A# and a B# sounding at the first beat of the measure. That is an interval of a major second, which is clearly a dissonance.
http://www.sheetmusicfox.com/Rachmaninoff/prelude231.pdf (http://www.sheetmusicfox.com/Rachmaninoff/prelude231.pdf)
I'm guessing the issue is that you do not know what a dissonance is.
Great post, JoshLily! Good to see you enjoy Raff. My Grandfather is a big Raff fan, but then again, he pretty much stays in the late Classical and Romantic periods and doesn't venture out much into the 20th Century, although, he's one of the biggest Rachmaninov nuts I know.
I catch alot of flack from him for liking 20th Century composers like Berg, Bartok, Martinu, Britten, etc., but quite honestly, I enjoy dissonance, but not for it's own sake of course. I think it can be such a creative tool for composers and is a great way to build tension in a composition.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 25, 2010, 07:27:12 PM
I would rather spend my time listening to music I'm interested in hearing and also enjoy, then exploring a composer's music that I don't like and that I don't enjoy. Again, the only Mozart work I enjoy is "Requiem."
You are of course entirely free to like and enjoy whatever you like. And to dislike whatever you dislike. (Teresa, please take note.) I only hope to plant a seed, in hopes that it might spark some interest, some willingness to get beyond entrenched attitudes. If not, I usually shrug my shoulders, and unless I'm in a particularly truculent mood, I'm not going to fight any one who resists my suggestions.
I would agree also that there is no objective way to prove the absolute or relative greatness of any work of music. That ability is only in the mind of God, that is if she exists, and if she does, she ain't telling anybody. To say greatness is objective is to say it can be mathematically proven, and since "greatness" by nature is an aesthetic judgment, it is not subject to proof in any objective way.
And yet I don't find it any more satisfactory to say "greatness" is purely a matter of individual opinion. For one thing, like it or not, we are all influenced by the culture we grow up in, a culture that prizes Shakespeare and Beethoven very highly, and Bulwer-Lytton and Joachim Raff considerably less so (
pace Joshua Lilly). There is a very human desire to preserve and share the works of art that people most esteem, and to transmit that appreciation down to others. That is less a desire to suppress individual freedom than an urge for people to share what they feel is valuable.
And for the most part this process of cultural transmission seems to succeed. You can sense it, say, in the collective response of an audience to the performance of a powerful work like the Verdi Requiem or King Lear. You can sense it when you stand in front of a Vermeer for 20 minutes and find a momentary connection with the person standing as long beside you.
Pace Teresa, most of us don't all go our separate ways, each valuing a wholly personal set of works while turning our backs on our own personal list. There's no bullying here, no attempt to impose opinions or tastes, but rather a desire to share what we have learned to accept as "greatness" and a willingness to be open to what others have to transmit.
Nice to see Joshua back.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 25, 2010, 07:38:28 PM
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I found a site with Rachmaninoff scores and found an obvious dissonance in the second bar of the first piece I looked at.
Prelude Opus 23, No. 1. Second measure, left hand. You will see an A# and a B# sounding at the first beat of the measure. That is an interval of a major second, which is clearly a dissonance.
http://www.sheetmusicfox.com/Rachmaninoff/prelude231.pdf (http://www.sheetmusicfox.com/Rachmaninoff/prelude231.pdf)
I'm guessing the issue is that you do not know what a dissonance is.
Thanks for providing the example that is clearly an A# and a B# sounding at the same time, however I have not heard this piece, so I guess I should avoid it.
I clearly said
"I OWN all of Rachmaninov's works for orchestra and piano and orchestra and I have NEVER heard hard dissonance in a single work." The only solo piano work I have heard by Rachmaninov is the Prelude in C sharp minor. I do not own it, I like orchestral music and that is mostly what I own. I do not like the
UGLY sound of hard dissonance, surely you know what I mean?
But once again you are AVOIDING the real issue of personal freedom and the RIGHT to choose what music one likes and which composers one thinks are Great, Good, Poor or Bad. This is a BASIC human right YOU can not take away from anyone no matter how hard you try. :o
Quote from: Sforzando on June 25, 2010, 08:11:58 PM
You are of course entirely free to like and enjoy whatever you like. And to dislike whatever you dislike. (Teresa, please take note.) I only hope to plant a seed, in hopes that it might spark some interest, some willingness to get beyond entrenched attitudes. If not, I usually shrug my shoulders, and unless I'm in a particularly truculent mood, I'm not going to fight any one who resists my suggestions.
I don't think it's such a terrible thing to dislike a composer. I'm sure there are composers who you particularly don't care for right? I'm sure there are. I just enjoy more adventurous music: harmonically, rhythmically, melodically, and structurally speaking, so, obviously, the Classical Era does little for me.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 25, 2010, 08:18:19 PM
I don't think it's such a terrible thing to dislike a composer. I'm sure there are composers who you particularly don't care for right? I'm sure there are. I just enjoy more adventurous music: harmonically, rhythmically, melodically, and structurally speaking, so, obviously, the Classical Era does little for me.
Your money, your life, your choice. I don't terribly care. I try to remain open to a wide range of periods and styles. But I think that within the context of his era, Mozart is every bit as "adventurous: harmonically, rhythmically, melodically, and structurally speaking," as some of the composers you esteem.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 25, 2010, 08:29:09 PM
... Mozart is every bit as "adventurous: harmonically, rhythmically, melodically, and structurally speaking," as some of the composers you esteem.
There is a Mozart I like who I think was adventurous way beyond his time, Wolfgang's father Leopold! Especially
Musical Sleigh Ride and the
Toy Symphony. Listen to sound samples (http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Symphony-Musical-Sleighride-Dinfonia/dp/B001QBXGL2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1277526949&sr=8-2) Both works use sound effects, in addition to actual toys and wind machine in the
Toy Symphony. However there is doubt that Leopold actually composed either work. IMHO both works are easily 100 years ahead of their time.
Quote from: Teresa on June 25, 2010, 08:46:31 PM
There is a Mozart I like who I think was adventurous way beyond his time, Wolfgang's father Leopold! Especially Musical Sleigh Ride and the Toy Symphony. Listen to sound samples (http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Symphony-Musical-Sleighride-Dinfonia/dp/B001QBXGL2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1277526949&sr=8-2) Both works use sound effects, in addition to actual toys and wind machine in the Toy Symphony. However there is doubt that Leopold actually composed either work. IMHO both works are easily 100 years ahead of their time.
I love me some Leopold Mozart (and his grandson FX Mozart, also!). I have to point out that the semi-famous "Toy Symphony" (
Berchtoldsgaden Musick) looks to have been composed by Edmund Angerer. That seems to be the most likely candidate based on all the information available as of now. However, Leopold left a fair number of pieces that have hit recording, some of which heavily strike my fancy. His
Die Bauernhochzeit Symphony sounds like exactly what you're talking about, if you haven't heard it already. He was probably more off the beaten track than his more famous son, and put out some really tremendous orchestral works. I love a few of his un-nicknamed symphonies, as well. And if you haven't heard his grandson F.X. Mozart's truly epic and tension-intense Piano Concerto #2's first movement orchestral opening, you're missing something really spectacular!
And Sforzando, I'm not really back. I read some stuff on this board fairly frequently. I just don't really have much to add that would be of interest to anyone else, I just read what those more knowledgeable say and benefit from it (even regarding composers that I normally dislike or hate). Actually, I haven't had anything of substance to add today for that matter, so I'm not sure what came over me!
All dissonance is relative...
Quote from: Teresa on June 25, 2010, 08:12:06 PM
Thanks for providing the example that is clearly an A# and a B# sounding at the same time, however I have not heard this piece, so I guess I should avoid it.
I clearly said "I OWN all of Rachmaninov's works for orchestra and piano and orchestra and I have NEVER heard hard dissonance in a single work." The only solo piano work I have heard by Rachmaninov is the Prelude in C sharp minor. I do not own it, I like orchestral music and that is mostly what I own. I do not like the UGLY sound of hard dissonance, surely you know what I mean?
Ok, Piano Concerto No. 1. First movement. Literally the first page of score I looked at. In this score the orchestra is reduced to a second piano.
http://www.sheetmusicfox.com/Rachmaninoff/pianoconcertono11.pdf (http://www.sheetmusicfox.com/Rachmaninoff/pianoconcertono11.pdf)
The
first note played by the solo piano is a dissonance. In both the left hand and the right hand, an A natural and a B natural sound simultaneously. A minor second, the harshest dissonance. You will be hard pressed to find a single bar of music by Rachmaninoff that does not contain obvious dissonances. The unrelenting dissonances are what give Rachmaninoff that uniformly poignant, gloomy sound.
And you will also find dissonances in almost every bar written by Mozart and Bach, the difference being that for Rachmaninoff they were often thrown in for flavor, while in Mozart and Bach there is normally a scheme for allowing them to resolve to a consonance (or resolve to another dissonance that resolves to a consonant, eventually).
Quote from: Scarpia on June 25, 2010, 09:08:29 PM
Ok, Piano Concerto No. 1. First movement. Literally the first page of score I looked at. In this score the orchestra is reduced to a second piano.
http://www.sheetmusicfox.com/Rachmaninoff/pianoconcertono11.pdf (http://www.sheetmusicfox.com/Rachmaninoff/pianoconcertono11.pdf)
The first note played by the solo piano is a dissonance. In both the left hand and the right hand, an A natural and a B natural sound simultaneously. A minor second, the harshest dissonance. You will be hard pressed to find a single bar of music by Rachmaninoff that does not contain obvious dissonances. The unrelenting dissonances are what give Rachmaninoff that uniformly poignant, gloomy sound.
And you will also find dissonances in almost every bar written by Mozart and Bach, the difference being that for Rachmaninoff they were often thrown in for flavor, while in Mozart and Bach there is normally a scheme for allowing them to resolve to a consonance (or resolve to another dissonance that resolves to a consonant, eventually).
Thanks again, the first chord is A-B-D-A in two octaves, since the key is F-sharp minor with F,G and C sharp all are natural. A to B is a major second as there is a tone in-between (A#) however that does quality as dissonance. I played it on my guitar and it does not sound too dissonant. A sharp and B natural played together does sound very dissonant. So I guess I am opposed to hard dissonance rather than soft dissonance. But even a major second isn't all that pretty, however I am sure it is effective if it is played quickly as the score shows.
To me Rachmaninov is a very tonal sounding composer in sharp contrast to Schoenberg, Stockhausen and other modern atonal composers that sometimes even use tone clusters such as C
,C#,D,D#,E,E#,F all played at the same time. To me their dissonances sound
ugly, OTOH Rachmaninov never sounds
ugly. By the same token Mozart nor Bach never sound ugly either. I will try to use the word
"ugly dissonance" in the future to better convey what I hear.
I like minor keys the best which mean I prefer a flatted third, however I did miss the major second in this piece. If I love the music I do get swept away, I can understand how. :)
Quote from: JoshLilly on June 25, 2010, 09:04:26 PM
I love me some Leopold Mozart (and his grandson FX Mozart, also!). I have to point out that the semi-famous "Toy Symphony" (Berchtoldsgaden Musick) looks to have been composed by Edmund Angerer. That seems to be the most likely candidate based on all the information available as of now. However, Leopold left a fair number of pieces that have hit recording, some of which heavily strike my fancy. His Die Bauernhochzeit Symphony sounds like exactly what you're talking about, if you haven't heard it already. He was probably more off the beaten track than his more famous son, and put out some really tremendous orchestral works. I love a few of his un-nicknamed symphonies, as well. And if you haven't heard his grandson F.X. Mozart's truly epic and tension-intense Piano Concerto #2's first movement orchestral opening, you're missing something really spectacular!
Thanks for the suggestions, I have put them on my Want List for future listening. :)
Quote from: Teresa on June 25, 2010, 11:10:21 PM
Thanks again, the first chord is A-B-D-A in two octaves, since the key is F-sharp minor with F,G and C sharp all are natural. A to B is a major second as there is a tone in-between (A#) however that does quality as dissonance. I played it on my guitar and it does not sound too dissonant. A sharp and B natural played together does sound very dissonant. So I guess I am opposed to hard dissonance rather than soft dissonance. But even a major second isn't all that pretty, however I am sure it is effective if it is played quickly as the score shows.
To me Rachmaninov is a very tonal sounding composer in sharp contrast to Schoenberg, Stockhausen and other modern atonal composers that sometimes even use tone clusters such as C,C#,D,D#,E,E#,F all played at the same time. To me their dissonances sound ugly, OTOH Rachmaninov never sounds ugly. By the same token Mozart nor Bach never sound ugly either. I will try to use the word "ugly dissonance" in the future to better convey what I hear.
I like minor keys the best which mean I prefer a flatted third, however I did miss the major second in this piece. If I love the music I do get swept away, I can understand how. :)
That was an oversight, the entry of the piano has a major second dissonance. There are minor second dissonances elsewhere in the piano part. My point is that you do not recognize the sound of a dissonance or understand how it used in almost all forms of music beyond Gregorian Chant. No one has a right to complain if you say you do not like Mozart. But your claim that you knowledge of music theory or music history qualifies you to make a judgment of the objective quality of Mozart's music is ludicrous.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 25, 2010, 11:48:57 PM
That was an oversight, the entry of the piano has a major second dissonance. There are minor second dissonances elsewhere in the piano part. My point is that you do not recognize the sound of a dissonance or understand how it used in almost all forms of music beyond Gregorian Chant. No one has a right to complain if you say you do not like Mozart. But your claim that you knowledge of music theory or music history qualifies you to make a judgment of the objective quality of Mozart's music is ludicrous.
It is simple I do not like
"hard" "ugly" dissonance that SOUNDS dissonant, it is the excellent skill of my favorite composers to use limited dissonance that does not SOUND dissonant. Great for them, I am sure they use it to increase excitement on a sub-conscience level.
But this has nothing whatsoever to do with my
firm conviction of the composition skills of mozart, nothing!
NO ONE needs to qualify to make a judgment of the objective quality of Mozart's music, all they need is their ears. To say anything else is ludicrous.
The fact that I have studied music, am a classical composer, play piano and guitar were never used as a qualifier, as I firmly believe ANYONE even if they know absolutely nothing about composition are ALLOWED to have a personal opinion on the skills or greatness on any composer, no matter who they are.
Lighten up, your close-minded attitude regarding personal freedom of opinions is highly offensive. :)
Remember their is NO qualifier on anyone to have an opinion on the relative worth or value of any music or any composer.
Perhaps I will try a limited use of dissonance in my next composition.
Quote from Teresa:
'As I said many, many, many times before GREATNESS is in the ears, eyes and mind of the beholder. To believe otherwise is anti-freedom as it tries to push personal views on others.'
Sorry Teresa, I have slid this sentiment past me about half a dozen times now; but I can't stomach reading it again without refuting it. It is patent rubbish. I have held off because I am not interested in encouraging anything that can be construed as Teresa-bashing.
I find your use of language and the meanings you attach to concepts to be highly eccentric. All along I have assumed you to be some kind of ingenue; but I read that your music theory teaching was decades ago, so it is all the more of a surprise that the ideas you put forward are from someone of mature years.
As far as I am concerned, this tying up of your declaration that empirical opinions of 'greatness' as being facts are tied to personal freedom of expression is a fallacy, also a kind of passive aggressive method of arguing.
If you happen to like a specific surgeon, his bedside manner gives you confidence to trust in him and he sounds like he knows what he is doing; if he nevertheless loses his patients on the operating table on a regular basis, then any claim that he is a great surgeon clearly does not hold water.
I know I am not comparing like for like at all, but the arguments you put forward are equivalent to you claiming that surgeons who never lose a patient no matter how tricky the operation are complete no hopers....because you don't like them!
You are not moving your arguments along at all, merely restating the same opinions as fact whenever you are pressed to explain your bizarre thinking processes. It would be best if you dropped these topics for now and move onto others. I feel you have argued yourself to a standstill....in a tight corner.
Succinctly: You have freedon of expression of opinion. To claim that opinion as fact is not freedom of expression, it is a deranged line of argument, and at best disingenuous.
By the way, if as you claim, you are 100% honest.....you are a danger to yourself and probably to others. But there again, perhaps your concept of honesty is as eccentric as your defintiion of freedom.
Mike
Quote from: knight on June 26, 2010, 02:04:44 AM
Quote from Teresa:
'As I said many, many, many times before GREATNESS is in the ears, eyes and mind of the beholder. To believe otherwise is anti-freedom as it tries to push personal views on others.'
Sorry Teresa, I have slid this sentiment past me about half a dozen times now; but I can't stomach reading it again without refuting it. It is patent rubbish. I have held off because I am not interested in encouraging anything that can be construed as Teresa-bashing.
I find your use of language and the meanings you attach to concepts to be highly eccentric. All along I have assumed you to be some kind of ingenue; but I read that your music theory teaching was decades ago, so it is all the more of a surprise that the ideas you put forward are from someone of mature years.
As far as I am concerned, this tying up of your declaration that empirical opinions of 'greatness' as being facts are tied to personal freedom of expression is a fallacy, also a kind of passive aggressive method of arguing.
If you happen to like a specific surgeon, his bedside manner gives you confidence to trust in him and he sounds like he knows what he is doing; if he nevertheless loses his patients on the operating table on a regular basis, then any claim that he is a great surgeon clearly does not hold water.
I know I am not comparing like for like at all, but the arguments you put forward are equivalent to you claiming that surgeons who never lose a patient no matter how tricky the operation are complete no hopers....because you don't like them!
You are not moving your arguments along at all, merely restating the same opinions as fact whenever you are pressed to explain your bizarre thinking processes. It would be best if you dropped these topics for now and move onto others. I feel you have argued yourself to a standstill....in a tight corner.
Succinctly: You have freedon of expression of opinion. To claim that opinion as fact is not freedom of expression, it is a deranged line of argument, and at best disingenuous.
By the way, if as you claim, you are 100% honest.....you are a danger to yourself and probably to others. But there again, perhaps your concept of honesty is as eccentric as your defintiion of freedom.
Mike
Mike denying the freedom of expression to the individual of their feeling of greatness or worthiness of anyone or anything is tyrannical overbearing censorship of the worst kind. Surely you can see the
imposition of greatness by any individual or group is wrong and anti-freedom. If not I cannot explain personal freedom in any simpler terms. I wish I could.
Your surgeon analogy confuses competence with greatness.
Opinions are not fact, opinions are opinions. Also opinions can never be right, wrong or bizarre as you claim, they are personal opinions nothing more, nothing less.
How am I a danger to myself or others by allowing everyone the God-given freedom to express their own opinions? And yes I am 100% honest. However, I can see no logic in your post at all.
In the end I do recognize your freedom and your right to not believe in the free expression of personal opinions of the greatness or worthiness of anything. It is your freedom to be as negative as you desire.
Quote from: JoshLilly on June 25, 2010, 07:28:43 PM
I've never seen comparing composers bring happiness to anybody.
Why can't people take the modern gift of having access to tons of whatever music they want almost whenever they want, and be happy enough? It's a good thing. 130 years ago, we couldn't have heard most of this stuff. Even hardcore concertgoers heard only a tiny fraction of what any one of us has gotten to experience. You couldn't print out scores and look over them while listening, rewinding, playing over one passage 20 times to deeply explore and uncover some delightful nuance. Not that I can do that myself; I lack the ability to do anything but read music at the most rudimentary level. But for many here, it's true; and from what I understand, deeply rewarding.
Nobody can change anyone's opinion or taste like this, simply because there's nothing factually wrong with opinion or taste. (Note: I'm not touching onto anything about someone making incorrect statements about technical musical issues.) I hate everything I've ever heard by Shostakovich, and as far as I can tell, Sibelius' only worthwhile music over his entire life was the closing seconds of his Symphony #7. Who cares? Even I don't. Why would anybody else? It doesn't hurt anybody for me to say that, but it doesn't help either; I don't think I've ever said anything negative about Shostakovich on this board before, simply because I don't see anything useful or enjoyable for anybody coming out of it.
I guess what I just said doesn't add anything either. I try not to post negative stuff about composers. I posted in a Jean Sibelius thread because I was interested in his life, and wanted more information about him and his music, but I didn't go into how I disliked his stuff. If I even mentioned my dislike at all, I wish I hadn't, and didn't mean to bring any negativity by it. It's not wrong to dislike something, but it's kind of a negative, and inserting negative vibes into a faceless text-only discussion (with emoticon pictures!) is hard to pull off in any way that will lead to anything positive. Just my rambling take, not trying to tell anybody what to do or anything.
I think W.A. Mozart was the greatest artist in any artistic field in all of history, but it doesn't take one iota of pleasure away from me to know that lots of people hate or are indifferent to his stuff. I guess I've always been bothered by folks telling others that they're wrong to dislike something a relative majority classifies as "great". Not sure why those folks would get much out of going around telling others about their hatred, but not sure why people would give them too much of a hard time about it, either.
Geez, I sound like such a hippy. Peace, love, and positive vibes, man.
Excellent post-- very well put!
How interesting Teresa. I detect a shift from one foot to the other in your stance on the subject. It is also fascinating to see that anyone disagreeing with you is apparently negative; which is another classic passive/aggressive technique of arguing, as can be a claim to 100% honesty.
I have made clear to most here that everyone is entitled to opinion
Hithertoo you have tied to your opinion a claim that if you like someone's music, it follows that it is great music, if you detest it, the composer is at fault.
Now the weight of argument has moved to your other foot...suddenly, opinion is just that...opinion. It is about a FEELING of greatness. You say opinions are not facts: a truth that seems just to have dawned on you. This is the nub of the issue most of the posters who have been responding to you have been hammering home. Perhaps their banging on the drum of logical thinking bore fruit after all.
BTW, I am not the one confused between greatness and competence; I believe that is exactly the confusion you evince in your discussions on Mozart.
JoshLilly, I do agree with a lot of what you say, though I have learned a great deal over the years from people here; specifically for example, to value Boulez. When I joined I was loud, though sparing, in my negative opinion of him and all he did. But people were patient and opened my ears.
I see nothing wrong with entering a thread to coment negatively on any composer. If everyone just went on about how lovely the music was, it would make for a very bland discussion. But the difference comes when we are told that someone is technically incompetent. People who do that can be expected to be pressed pretty hard to justify themselves, as they have shifted from an opinion onto making factual claims.
The other kind of post that gets hackles up is when people basicly come and spew, that is fine once or twice, but when the emetic process is repeated ad nausium, it becomes trolling and has to be curtailed.
Mike
Quote from: knight on June 26, 2010, 02:54:16 AM
...But the difference comes when we are told that someone is technically incompetent. People who do that can be expected to be pressed pretty hard to justify themselves, as they have shifted from an opinion onto making factual claims.
As you say, there is a difference between expressing a dislike and stating that the music is incompetent. Incompetence is a much more a measurable factor, by the usual generally accepted standards of assessing such things anyway - it's essentially as close as one can get to a musical fact, and completely distinct from individual opinion. So if one makes such a 'musicological' statement as 'Mozart is incompetent', which is of course contrary to the vastly overwhelming majority of musicological thought, one needs to be able to back it up, and that's something Teresa hasn't even begun to be able to do.*
One thing Teresa has my admiration for - she is not slow to recognise errors in her statements of musicological/historical fact. In the past 48 hours or so she has admited that, no, in fact Rachmaninov does use dissonance in his works, and that perhaps she was using the term wrongly; that maybe a II V I cadence was not the shatteringly new harmonic phenomenon which shocked listeners to the Surprise Symphony; and that Respighi was not, in fact, the founder of the neo-classical school and thus the pre-eminent composer in the anti-Schoenberg camp. I genuinely admire her ability to say 'sorry, I got that one wrong' - it's something Saul never, never is able to do, for a start. And usually, I wouldn't even comment on someone making errors of this sort - this isn't a school where member's posts are marked for acuracy, and I'm well aware that saying 'no, you're wrong' can easily seem patronising and mean-spirited. But if one is going to make facutal claims about compositional capability, and one wants one's views to be given credence, one needs the factual knowledge of musical theory to back them up convincingly. That's all. And of course this has no bearings at all on Teresa's right to dislike Mozart or anyone else - that's a totally unrelated matter.
* there's nothing wrong with a bit of incompetence anyway, provided it is incompetence of the right sort and handled in the right way. Berlioz, Mussorgsky, my own favourite Janacek, Satie, others besides, they all had areas in which they were less competent, but their inherent artistic genius (pace JDP) and their fully integrated styles meant that these areas (Berlioz's harmony, Janacek's orchestration etc) became, in the end, positive strengths in their writing.
Quote from: knight on June 26, 2010, 02:45:54 AM
How interesting Teresa. I detect a shift from one foot to the other in your stance on the subject.
In 30 years my stance has never changed, I never believed any "group" can impose their opinions as fact on any other group of people. You can read this in my earliest writings.
QuoteIt is also fascinating to see that anyone disagreeing with you is apparently negative; which is another classic passive/aggressive technique of arguing, as can be a claim to 100% honesty.
I was only saying you are free to be negative by believing that personal opinions of greatness are invalid. I believe they are valid and talk directly to personal freedom. Which is what you are arguing against. I do not believe anyone should curtail personal freedom of opinions.
QuoteI have made clear to most here that everyone is entitled to opinion Hithertoo you have tied to your opinion a claim that if you like someone's music, it follows that it is great music, if you detest it, the composer is at fault.
You misunderstand completely, not all music I like is great (to me) some is good and some is even not well written but I enjoy it anyway. I do not like music that is bad (to me). As I have explained the musical compositions and composers one feels is great or bad will vary from person to person. To deny this is to deny logic and personal freedom. There are composers I do not like that are good composers and composers I do not like that are bad composers. And my OPINION of their abilities is my OPINION alone, no one sees greatness the same as another single individual.
Quote
Now the weight of argument has moved to your other foot...suddenly, opinion is just that...opinion. It is about a FEELING of greatness. You say opinions are not facts: a truth that seems just to have dawned on you. This is the nub of the issue most of the posters who have been responding to you have been hammering home. Perhaps their banging on the drum of logical thinking bore fruit after all.
There is no other foot, my OPINION has always been my own OPINION and I have said this loudly and clearly since I began writing about Classical music over thirty years ago, it did not just dawn on me as you claim.
QuoteBTW, I am not the one confused between greatness and competence; I believe that is exactly the confusion you evince in your discussions on Mozart.
I have no confusions whatsoever between greatness and competence and I would never DARE to speak for you as you have attempted to speak for me because I FIRMLY believe in the freedom of personal expression in all walks of life. This is a belief that no one will change as it is one of my highest ideals.
Perhaps this might clear up this misunderstanding. :)
Let's say one of you feels Rachmaninov is the worst composer who ever lived, I would believe he is to you and DEFEND your God-given right to believe so. Why? Because it is your honest personal opinion of the writings of Rachmaninov. Personally I believe Rachmaninov is one of the ten greatest composers of all time.
So some of you may be wondering how can Rachmaninov be one of the 10 best composers and the worst composer at the same time. It is simple, because it is the perception of two different individual free music lovers who value different abilities of composers and the end result "the music" they produce. It is all individual opinions, nothing more. :)
Teresa, I am not remotely convinced.
If you think I am arguing against people being allowed musical opinions, or that I have tried to speak for you; you simply can't comprehend what you read.
However to quote you......'I FIRMLY believe in the freedom of personal expression in all walks of life.' Really? Another thing that makes you dangerous. Here we would censor anyone who, for instance, expressed hatred of a minority. So, on music we welcome opinions generally, but if it is untrammeled freedom you require, we don't supply it and we are not ashamed to state that.
Your ideals are like communism....great in theory, but a disaster in practice.
A discussion with you has all the quaint charm of attempting to nail a jelly to the wall. However the charm wears off, it just has, so, I will leave it for others to form their own opinions here about this brief duologue.
Over and out.
Quote from: knight on June 26, 2010, 03:52:49 AM
Teresa, I am not remotely convinced.
This is perfectly fine with me, and I will defend your right to disagree with me to my dying days. I truly believe in personal freedom, yours included. :)
The only thing I strongly disagree with is presenting personal opinions as facts, including the greatness or worthiness of a classical composer.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 03:51:24 AM
Perhaps this might clear up this misunderstanding. :)
Let's say one of you feels Rachmaninov is the worst composer who ever lived, I would believe he is to you and DEFEND your God-given right to believe so. Why? Because it is your honest personal opinion of the writings of Rachmaninov. Personally I believe Rachmaninov is one of the ten greatest composers of all time.
So some of you may be wondering how can Rachmaninov be one of the 10 best composers and the worst composer at the same time. It is simple, because it is the perception of two different individual free music lovers who value different abilities of composers and the end result "the music" they produce. It is all individual opinions, nothing more. :)
Gaaaah, Teresa, it's just the difference between 'unliked' and 'worst' that is the problem.
If someone says they don't like Rachmaninov, or any other composer,
no one here has a problem with it. It's an opinion, and no one here, despite what you think, is arguing against the right to hold any opinion in matters of musical taste.
But if someone says they think Rachmaninov (or any other composer) is the worst composer ever, then that ceases to be (only) a matter of opinion and starts to become a matter of fact. Because 'the worst composer', and especially 'the most incompetent composer' (which is approximately the phrase you used about Mozart) are not phrases which just mean the opposite of 'great', as I think you think they are. 'Incompetent' means something like 'unable to put notes together in a coherent way'; 'worst' means something similar - the composer least good at the mechanics of composing.
So, Rachmaninov could easily be my least favourite composer (he's not, but in theory he could be) but even if he was I would never dream of saying he was the worst, because he clearly has immense skill, evident in almost every page he wrote. And if some one did say that about him, I would argue against them passionately, even if Rachmaninov's music left me feeling as physically sick as some music does! No, the worst composer, the most incompetent composer, would be someone who actually has no musical skill, no ability to generate interesting or attractive musical ideas, no idea about harmony, counterpoint, technique, no sense of formal balance or scale or trajectory, no idea about context, gesture, topic, no understanding of how instruments actually function in the real world, etc. etc. Rachmaninov doesn't come close to this. Neither does Mozart. That much is as plain as anything. There are composers like that however, and not too far away either....
I think the answer to all this lies in your choice of words, Teresa. When you said Rachmaninov has no dissonance in him, in fact you seem to have meant something different. (Rachmaninov has plenty of dissonance in him; what you meant, I think, is that Rachmaninov is not atonal). In a similar way, you have called Mozart an incompetent composer but also, IIRC, at one point said that he was perfectly OK at actually getting the notes on paper, you just don't like the way they sound. Well, getting the notes on paper coherently is exactly what competence is, and so if you really mean that, it turns out that you don't think Mozart is an incompetent composer either, you are just using the words in a misleading way, as you did with the word 'dissonance'. :)
Quote from: Luke on June 26, 2010, 04:15:04 AM
Gaaaah, Teresa, it's just the difference between 'unliked' and 'worst' that is the problem.
If someone says they don't like Rachmaninov, or any other composer, no one here has a problem with it. It's an opinion, and no one here, despite what you think, is arguing against the right to hold any opinion in matters of musical taste.
But if someone says they think Rachmaninov (or any other composer) is the worst composer ever, then that ceases to be (only) a matter of opinion and starts to become a matter of fact. Because 'the worst composer', and especially 'the most incompetent composer' (which is approximately the phrase you used about Mozart) are not phrases which just mean the opposite of 'great', as I think you think they are. 'Incompetent' means something like 'unable to put notes together in a coherent way'; 'worst' means something similar - the composer least good at the mechanics of composing.
So, Rachmaninov could easily be my least favourite composer (he's not, but in theory he could be) but even if he was I would never dream of saying he was the worst, because he clearly has immense skill, evident in almost every page he wrote. And if some one did say that about him, I would argue against them passionately, even if Rachmaninov's music left me feeling as physically sick as some music does! No, the worst composer, the most incompetent composer, would be someone who actually has no musical skill, no ability to generate interesting or attractive musical ideas, no idea about harmony, counterpoint, technique, no sense of formal balance or scale or trajectory, no idea about context, gesture, topic, no understanding of how instruments actually function in the real world, etc. etc. Rachmaninov doesn't come close to this. Neither does Mozart. That much is as plain as anything. There are composers like that however, and not too far away either....
I think the answer to all this lies in your choice of words, Teresa. When you said Rachmaninov has no dissonance in him, in fact you seem to have meant something different. (Rachmaninov has plenty of dissonance in him; what you meant, I think, is that Rachmaninov is not atonal). In a similar way, you have called Mozart an incompetent composer but also, IIRC, at one point said that he was perfectly OK at actually getting the notes on paper, you just don't like the way they sound. Well, getting the notes on paper coherently is exactly what competence is, and so if you really mean that, it turns out that you don't think Mozart is an incompetent composer either, you are just using the words in a misleading way, as you did with the word 'dissonance'. :)
Luke it is NOT a problem for me if anyone not only hates Rachmaninov's music but ALSO considers him the worst composer of all time. Because that is their personal opinion of his compositional abilities. I HONOR THAT, TOTALLY! Without reserve, anyone no matter who they are can hold any opinions about any composers abilities. Unlike you I would not fight them but defend them for freely expressing their personal opinions on said composers talents. And since I know they are a different person than me, I know their assessment does not apply to me, it is uniquely their own.
I strongly and firmly believe that "like and dislike" and "great and bad" are different aspects of a composer's music. Both are valid, both are personal opinions. NEITHER ARE FACTS. Every famous composer has famous public people who say they are the best and who say they are the worst. PERSONAL OPINIONS ARE NEVER FACTS. Compositional abilities are HIGHLY personal opinions, they can NEVER EVER be more than that ---- PERSONAL OPINIONS! Those personal opinions can be held by a majority but they are still personal opinions and do not invalidate the personal opinions of the minority. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!
Teresa, do you think anything is a fact, or is everything just a matter of opinion? If I said, ooh, I don't know, 'it's my opinion that Usain Bolt is not actually the holder of the 100 metres world record', would you say, 'that's OK, Luke, it's your opinion and I know it is true for you'? I'd rather you didn't, I'd rather you said to me, 'look, Luke, here are the facts, you are wrong'. OTOH if I said, 'Bolt may be the fastest, but I prefer to watch Asafa Powell', well, you could say that your tastes were not the same, but no more. Facts are not the same as opinions, and there are facts in music, like it or not.
So, though we may agree or disagree about the artistic merits of a composer, some things are not open to dispute, because they are measurable and down on paper - provided, of course, that you accept that to a certain degree musical competence can be measured, as an aspect of pure Craft rather than as the more ellusive and indefinable Art. Most people do accept this. By those purely technical, craft-based criteria, could Rachmaninov write music better than Saul, technically speaking? Of course he could, it's provable, demonstrable fact. And a gazillion posts on youtube proclaiming Saul as the new Bach would never alter the fact that he can't compose as well as Rachmaninov, even if we can't say that the gazillion posters' artistic tastes are wrong*
(*we can't, but we should! :D )
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 04:32:36 AM
And since I know they are a different person than me, I know their assessment . . . is uniquely their own.
But it is not. Over the centuries an extraordinary amount of agreement has developed over what music has been most esteemed. No one is an island, and even your stance as an independent gadfly is nothing more than a time-honored pose as The Freethinker or The Rebel, a cliché we've seen ad infinitum on these boards in persons like Iago, 72dB, Paul Best, Josh Lilly, and many others - most of them (not all) proudly thumbing their noses at standard opinion in an effort to glorify their own right to freedom. You at least do not condemn others as brainwashed sheep, which is usually a component of the Rebel syndrome, but your stance that we are all independent thinkers does not convince when the reality is that many of us think with a considerable degree of agreement. And when that means coming to accept that Mozart and Beethoven are very great composers, I don't see that as a bad thing at all, nor in any way a restriction on my personal "freedom."
Quote from: Teresa on June 25, 2010, 08:12:06 PM
But once again you are AVOIDING the real issue of personal freedom and the RIGHT to choose what music one likes and which composers one thinks are Great, Good, Poor or Bad. This is a BASIC human right YOU can not take away from anyone no matter how hard you try. :o
The louder you proclaim from that soap-box, Teresa, the more ridiculous you sound, please.
Everyone here, whether they agree with your tastes or not, acknowledges your freedom to like what you please, for whatever reasons it may please you.
Your dislike of Mozart does not make Mozart a bad composer. Your statements that "Mozart is a bad composer" are pure piffle. Rail against the universe, if you like, but you have the freedom to dislike Mozart; you do not have the 'power' to pronounce a great composer "bad," merely by virtue of your not liking the music. Say! Should have known that Luke would put it much better: Quote from: Luke on June 26, 2010, 04:49:46 AM
Teresa, do you think anything is a fact, or is everything just a matter of opinion? If I said, ooh, I don't know, 'it's my opinion that Usain Bolt is not actually the holder of the 100 metres world record', would you say, 'that's OK, Luke, it's your opinion and I know it is true for you'? I'd rather you didn't, I'd rather you said to me, 'look, Luke, here are the facts, you are wrong'. OTOH if I said, 'Bolt may be the fastest, but I prefer to watch Asafa Powell', well, you could say that your tastes were not the same, but no more. Facts are not the same as opinions, and there are facts in music, like it or not.
So, though we may agree or disagree about the artistic merits of a composer, some things are not open to dispute, because they are measurable and down on paper - provided, of course, that you accept that to a certain degree musical competence can be measured, as an aspect of pure Craft rather than as the more ellusive and indefinable Art. Most people do accept this. By those purely technical, craft-based criteria, could Rachmaninov write music better than Saul, technically speaking? Of course he could, it's provable, demonstrable fact. And a gazillion posts on youtube proclaiming Saul as the new Bach would never alter the fact that he can't compose as well as Rachmaninov, even if we can't say that the gazillion posters' artistic tastes are wrong*
(*we can't, but we should! :D )
Quote from: knight on June 26, 2010, 02:54:16 AM
JoshLilly, I do agree with a lot of what you say, though I have learned a great deal over the years from people here; specifically for example, to value Boulez. When I joined I was loud, though sparing, in my negative opinion of him and all he did. But people were patient and opened my ears.
This is the one thing that Teresa's apparently tidy theory cannot allow for - the possibility that we can learn from each other and keep an open mind about music we may have been all too ready to dismiss.
But if people are intransigent, there's nothing much to be done with them. Our late friend Mel Merkel, aka Iago, went to his grave braying his contempt for Mozart, whose music he never listened to because it was far more important to him to puff his chest up with pride as a Rebel. And that's the tragedy, of course, because if you're going to adopt that kind of a stance, you may be the only one losing out in the end once you're six feet under.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 01:45:31 AM
It is simple I do not like "hard" "ugly" dissonance that SOUNDS dissonant, it is the excellent skill of my favorite composers to use limited dissonance that does not SOUND dissonant. Great for them, I am sure they use it to increase excitement on a sub-conscience level.
Mozart had a great talent (to borrow your phrase) for using dissonance that didn't SOUND dissonant. (Just saying.)Quote from: TeresaBut this has nothing whatsoever to do with my firm conviction of the composition skills of mozart, nothing!
My dear, you have no basis to judge his compositional skills. You just don't like his music. (A dislike to which, for the hundredth time, you are welcome.)
Likewise, the fact that you like a couple of works attributed to Leopold does not make Leopold a composer "100 years before his time." It isn't all about you, Teresa.
Quote from: Luke on June 26, 2010, 04:49:46 AM
Teresa, do you think anything is a fact, or is everything just a matter of opinion? If I said, ooh, I don't know, 'it's my opinion that Usain Bolt is not actually the holder of the 100 metres world record', would you say, 'that's OK, Luke, it's your opinion and I know it is true for you'? I'd rather you didn't, I'd rather you said to me, 'look, Luke, here are the facts, you are wrong'. OTOH if I said, 'Bolt may be the fastest, but I prefer to watch Asafa Powell', well, you could say that your tastes were not the same, but no more. Facts are not the same as opinions, and there are facts in music, like it or not.
So, though we may agree or disagree about the artistic merits of a composer, some things are not open to dispute, because they are measurable and down on paper - provided, of course, that you accept that to a certain degree musical competence can be measured, as an aspect of pure Craft rather than as the more ellusive and indefinable Art. Most people do accept this. By those purely technical, craft-based criteria, could Rachmaninov write music better than Saul, technically speaking? Of course he could, it's provable, demonstrable fact. And a gazillion posts on youtube proclaiming Saul as the new Bach would never alter the fact that he can't compose as well as Rachmaninov, even if we can't say that the gazillion posters' artistic tastes are wrong*
(*we can't, but we should! :D )
Great post!
Everything is relative but so are the obvious, which is that personal projection which is confirmed by the majority, and then again majority is highly relative, since it has nothing to do with democracy. This also means that one should accept a few verbal knocks once in a while and be tolerant.
Quote from: knight on June 26, 2010, 02:54:16 AM
JoshLilly, I do agree with a lot of what you say, though I have learned a great deal over the years from people here; specifically for example, to value Boulez. When I joined I was loud, though sparing, in my negative opinion of him and all he did. But people were patient and opened my ears.
Yes, I'm interested in that same thing also. The number of works that I've discovered and grown to like, or even passionately love, has grown tremendously because of websites like this one. Someone's typed description of something persuaded me to give something a chance. This even includes works that I'd heard and disliked at first. A good example would be to continue with Rachmaninov: I used to work with someone years ago that loved his Piano Concerto #2, and would play it at work in our cubicle area. I never complained, but I hated the bizarre (to my 18th-century attuned ears) sound of it. Several years later, I was reading someone's description on some other website, and I gave it another shot, and for some reason I found enough there that (just like Dvořák does for me) there were enough appealing melodic lines and various other elements that it overcame the late 19th century "harshness" and became worth it to me. Now, Rach's #2 is one of my favourites ever, and Dvořák is one of my favourite composers ever. Almost entirely because of reading opinions of others!
So I didn't mean to sound like I was implying it wasn't valuable. After all, I check at least one of these sorts of music sites almost every day, and I enjoy reading threads on composers unliked or unknown by myself. I know finding new works to like has not ended with me, and I hunt for the next one eagerly; I think it's a fantastic, enjoyable, sometimes nearly life-changing experience.
My bank account hates this expanding musical experience.
Quote from: Luke on June 26, 2010, 04:49:46 AM
Teresa, do you think anything is a fact, or is everything just a matter of opinion? If I said, ooh, I don't know, 'it's my opinion that Usain Bolt is not actually the holder of the 100 metres world record', would you say, 'that's OK, Luke, it's your opinion and I know it is true for you'? I'd rather you didn't, I'd rather you said to me, 'look, Luke, here are the facts, you are wrong'. OTOH if I said, 'Bolt may be the fastest, but I prefer to watch Asafa Powell', well, you could say that your tastes were not the same, but no more. Facts are not the same as opinions, and there are facts in music, like it or not.
That first line is the crux of it. Although admittedly in music the criteria for "greatness" are more problematic to define than in athletics.
In Mozart's case I would point to some passages which are considered to show consummate skill, such as the finale of the 41th symphony (particularly the coda). How many composers could managed that level of contrapuntal complexity and make it sound so open and appealing? Certainly the counterpoint is not beyond what Bach could and did write, but there is a certain quality to it that is Mozart's own. Another gem I always bring up is the Kyrie from the Requiem. In some sense it is an example of strict counterpoint, but Mozart colors it with a post-baroque sense of drama. A step along the way to the breathtaking fugato that follows the Turkish march in the finale of Beethoven's 9th. (I often like to wonder, what would Bach think if he heard that fugato? Would he consider it a terrifying tornado of sound from hell itself, or would be arch his eyebrow for a moment, then incorporate it in his style, as he did innovations he found in Vivaldi?)
But in the end, it is the undefinable things, the most seemingly insignificant details, that leave me most stunned in Mozart's music. I can be listening to a string quartet and be getting a bit bored with the main melody coming around again, then notice something of indescribable cleverness and felicity happening in the second violin or viola part. Or it can be a dissonance, or wisp of alien harmony, that brings a tint of sadness to what would ostensibly be a naive melody. (The slow movement of the 23rd piano concerto comes to mind.) That is not quantifiable, except in terms of the number of people through the centuries who have found something to fascinate them in Mozart's music.
This matter of opinion thing is awesome. I can be just as right as a qualified musicologist or orchestra member ::)
Let's try... okay, Ferde Grofé is the greatest composer.
Quote from: Lethe on June 26, 2010, 08:21:36 AM
Let's try... okay, Ferde Grofé is the greatest composer.
I thought we had all already agreed on that one.
Mike
Although I am of the hard core relativists, it still seems pretty much to me:
"I don't care for Mozart (or Henning...)"-- Valid Opinion.
"I don't think that Mozart (or Henning) is a good composer"-- Valid Opinion
"Mozart was (Henning is) a composer." - Fact.
"Mozart (or Henning) is a bad composer" -- valid opinion misrepresented as fact. (It is, in my book, unprovable. ).
The Fourth example is the one that causes the majority of the heated debates, stress, and hurt feelings in any forum like GMG.
"I think Jowcol is an idiot" - Valid opinion.
"Jowcol is an idiot"-- probably right, but if the statement is applied to other members of the GMC, this is an opinion misrepresented as fact.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 05:36:18 AM
My dear, you have no basis to judge his compositional skills. You just don't like his music. (A dislike to which, for the hundredth time, you are welcome.)
Everyone who has listened to his music has that RIGHT not just me, every single music lover! You cannot disenfranchise us. Everyone is free to rate skills of a composer, a musician, a statesman, a chief, etc. It is all personal. I agree in some cases there is a majority that thinks something is great, and a minority that thinks it is poor. But that DOES NOT give the right of the majority to impose it's opinion on the minority. This is tyrannical, I am sorry you cannot see that.
I will go further and give you an example of
someone who I believe is a good composer but I do not like their music: Robert Schumann. The liking and not liking of someones music IS ENTIRELY different that ones opinion of their compositional skills.
QuoteLikewise, the fact that you like a couple of works attributed to Leopold does not make Leopold a composer "100 years before his time."[/font]
Based on those works it does to me, and of course that is my humble opinion.
QuoteIt isn't all about you, Teresa.
CORRECT, perhaps you are starting to understand. It is NOT about me but about everyones personal freedom.
Quote from: Luke on June 26, 2010, 04:49:46 AM
Teresa, do you think anything is a fact, or is everything just a matter of opinion?
Fact:
1+1=2Theory: Most scientific knowledge
Opinions: How one feels about external stimuli and how one rates other peoples skills and abilities.
A historical event that has happened, especially one recorded for posterity is a fact such as the example you gave of someone holding a world record.
The only thing that can be measured is ones technical competence in ones craft. This can be done with composers who attempt to follow the rules. However since much modern classical music is free form, how does one do this with modern composers? The only way is the end result, the music itself, how effective they are using the arrangement of notes on paper, how effective they are at orchestration, how effective are they at timing and rhythm? Which is more telling than strict interpretation of the rules. Greatness
can be recognized even in composers one does not like. And of course this varies greatly from person to person. :)
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 02:28:08 PM
Fact: 1+1=2
Theory: Most scientific knowledge
Opinions: How one feels about external stimuli and how one rates other peoples skills and abilities.
A historical event that has happened, especially one recorded for posterity is a fact such as the example you gave of someone holding a world record.
So, to return to my example, if I gave you my opinion that Bolt is incapable as a runner, despite the Fact (as you say) that he holds world records galore, would you still argue that my opinon was as valid as anyone else's? Would not the generally-accepted principle that holding a world record in an activity suggest competence in that activity be enough to suggest as strongly as can be suggested that I am, simply, wrong?
Because the same applies in music, albeit in a less clear-cut way. This is what you seem to struggle to accept, but trust me, it's the way things are. There are generally-accepted principles of measuring sheer musical ability; they are broad and fluid, they admit a vairety of interpretations, but at a certain point they all agre, and by any of their measurement Mozart is a capable composer, regardeless of whether you like his music or not, just as Bolt is a capable runner even if I find his long stride unganly (which I don't, btw!).
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 02:21:18 PM
Everyone who has listened to his music has that RIGHT not just me, every single music lover! You cannot disenfranchise us. Everyone is free to rate skills of composer, a statesman, a chief, etc. It is all personal. I agree in some cases there is a majority that thinks something is great, and a minority that thinks it is poor. But that DOES NOT give the right of the majority to impose it's opinion on the minority. This is tyrannical, I am sorry you cannot see that.
Did anyone come to your house to confiscate your computer because you expressed your "expert" opinion that Mozart is an incompetent composer? No. So your freedom is not at issue. The question is whether your "expert" opinion merits respect.
Contrary to what you may think, not every opinion merits respect. General Petreus' opinion on Military strategy in Afghanistan merits respect. Lady Gaga's opinion on Military strategy in Afghanistan does not merit respect. I will leave it to you to evaluate how much respect your opinion on the technical quality of Mozart's music merits. Here's a hint. Your expert analysis of Rachmaninoff was that there was no dissonance in his music. However, a quick inspection of his scores indicates there is dissonance in almost every bar. Hmmmm.
Quote from: Lethe on June 26, 2010, 08:21:36 AM
This matter of opinion thing is awesome. I can be just as right as a qualified musicologist or orchestra member ::)
Let's try... okay, Ferde Grofé is the greatest composer.
1+
Poor underrated
Grofé not only wrote tons of wonderful suites but a killer
Piano Concerto as well. His use of color tones of all the instruments of the orchestra has never been surpassed by anyone IMHO. He is the greatest orchestrator I've ever heard and one of my 10 greatest composers of all time.
Most people only know his Grand Canyon Suite but he wrote so much more, much of it unrecorded and neglected. Sad. :(
You are correct qualifications are not required for personal opinions. Musicologist or orchestra members give expert opinions which may or may not match your own.
Quote from: jowcol on June 26, 2010, 10:49:27 AM
Although I am of the hard core relativists, it still seems pretty much to me:
"I don't care for Mozart (or Henning...)"-- Valid Opinion.
"I don't think that Mozart (or Henning) is a good composer"-- Valid Opinion
"Mozart was (Henning is) a composer." - Fact.
"Mozart (or Henning) is a bad composer" -- valid opinion misrepresented as fact. (It is, in my book, unprovable.)
Thank you for the fantastic post, I totally agree.
Quote from: ScarpiaDid anyone come to your house to confiscate your computer because you expressed your "expert" opinion that Mozart is an incompetent composer? No. So your freedom is not at issue. The question is whether your "expert" opinion merits respect.
Contrary to what you may think, not every opinion merits respect. General Petreus' opinion on Military strategy in Afghanistan merits respect. Lady Gaga's opinion on Military strategy in Afghanistan does not merit respect. I will leave it to you to evaluate how much respect your opinion on the technical quality of Mozart's music merits. Here's a hint. Your expert analysis of Rachmaninoff was that there was no dissonance in his music. However, a quick inspection of his scores indicates there is dissonance in almost every bar. Hmmmm.
And further to that, this doesn't mean that Lady Gaga is not entitled to have whatever views on Afghanistan she wishes. Just that they shouldn't be received with the same degree of attention as someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Saul was proudly showing off his number of youtube views here, and the nice things people have said about his music there. I would defend to the hilt these people's right to enjoy the sounds Saul's computer makes as much as they wish; but if they began to say that Saul is a greater composer than Mahler (for example), that's where I would have the problem, because, demonstrably, quantifiably, by all standard measures, he is not. People passing through youtube are a mixed set; to the Afghanistan that is Saul's music some will be Lady Gagas, some General Petreus; all their tastes carry the same weight, but their opinions on the competence of the technique displayed do not. That's all
Quote from: Luke on June 26, 2010, 02:55:43 PM
And further to that, this doesn't mean that Lady Gaga is not entitled to have whatever views on Afghanistan she wishes. Just that they shouldn't be received with the same degree of attention as someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Absolutely correct. And for all we know, if General McChrystal had followed Lady Gaga's advice and worn that stainless steel bustier, maybe the Taliban would have surrendered by now. ;D
Quote from: Luke on June 26, 2010, 02:55:43 PMSaul was proudly showing off his number of youtube views here, and the nice things people have said about his music there. I would defend to the hilt these people's right to enjoy the sounds Saul's computer makes as much as they wish; but if they began to say that Saul is a greater composer than Mahler (for example), that's where I would have the problem, because, demonstrably, quantifiably, by all standard measures, he is not. People passing through youtube are a mixed set; to the Afghanistan that is Saul's music some will be Lady Gagas, some General Petreus; all their tastes carry the same weight, but their opinions on the competence of the technique displayed do not. That's all
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/youtube.png)
http://xkcd.com/202/ (http://xkcd.com/202/)
Quote from: Luke on June 26, 2010, 02:37:43 PM
So, to return to my example, if I gave you my opinion that Bolt is incapable as a runner, despite the Fact (as you say) that he holds world records galore, would you still argue that my opinon was as valid as anyone else's?
Perhaps you believe he was undeserving to win, perhaps you believe he somehow cheated. At any rate it is not my place to tell you, your opinion is invalid, only YOU can decide that.
QuoteWould not the generally-accepted principle that holding a world record in an activity suggest competence in that activity be enough to suggest as strongly as can be suggested that I am, simply, wrong?
Competence and greatness are not the same thing.
QuoteBecause the same applies in music, albeit in a less clear-cut way. This is what you seem to struggle to accept, but trust me, it's the way things are. There are generally-accepted principles of measuring sheer musical ability; they are broad and fluid, they admit a vairety of interpretations, but at a certain point they all agre, and by any of their measurement Mozart is a capable composer, regardeless of whether you like his music or not, just as Bolt is a capable runner even if I find his long stride unganly (which I don't, btw!).
It is your personal opinion and I honor that, however I disagree strongly as the same does not apply to music and compositional skills in my life. Someone actually has to be a good composer based on the fruit of his labour before I put forth my opinion of him or her as a good composer. This is all highly personal opinions. Sometimes a large number of people can hold the same opinions, but this does not magically turn opinions into facts. Facts are indisputable, as long as their are contrasting opinions they are not facts.
"Mozart was a bad composer who died too late rather than too early."Glenn Gould (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/)
Quote from: Scarpia on June 26, 2010, 02:45:34 PM
The question is whether your "expert" opinion merits respect.
You are missing a very important concept, personal opinions
do not require respect, just exist of their own accord and will vary from person to person. The attack on freedom is when personal opinion is presented as fact, which it is NOT. Recognizing greatness in any form is personal opinion.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 03:08:47 PM
Perhaps you believe he was undeserving to win, perhaps you believe he somehow cheated. At any rate it is not my place to tell you, your opinion is invalid, only YOU can decide that.
So, if I believed something which was self-evidently stupid and which really would be crying out to be corrected, and which it would be unkind to leave uncorrected, you would allow me to go on merrily believing it?
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 03:08:47 PM
Competence and greatness are not the same thing.
No, exactly. But in order to be great, one must at the least be competent, yes? Greatness is an impossible thing to quantify (though they are having a good time trying to pin it down on another thread), but competence isn't. Competence is a bare minimum, and it can be measured, because it is artless, it is just craft. But you mixed the two things up yourself when you told us that Mozart wasn't a great composer and that he was incompetent. I can't argue with the first of those conclusions, even if I disagree, because it isn't measurable. But I will argue with the second, because it IS measurable. That has always been my point here.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 03:08:47 PM
It is your personal opinion and I honor that, however I disagree strongly as the same does not apply to music and compositional skills in my life. Someone actually has to be a good composer based on the fruit of his labour before I put forth my opinion of him or her as a good composer. This is all highly personal opinions. Sometimes a large number of people can hold the same opinions, but this does not magically turn opinions into facts. Facts are indisputable, as long as their are contrasting opinions they are not facts.
"Mozart was a bad composer who died too late rather than too early."
Glenn Gould (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/)
If opions are such individual things, if no one's opinion counts more than anyone else's, why on earth are you quoting that peculiar person Glenn Gould at me/us?
Quote from: Luke on June 26, 2010, 03:22:07 PM
So, if I believed something which was self-evidently stupid and which really would be crying out to be corrected, and which it would be unkind to leave uncorrected, you would allow me to go on merrily believing it?
Who am I to say your belief is stupid? It is not my place to criticize your belief, all I can do is state why I believe something different. It is up to you, and only you to decide to keep or change your belief.
QuoteNo, exactly. But in order to be great, one must at the least be competent, yes? Greatness is an impossible thing to quantify (though they are having a good time trying to pin it down on another thread), but competence isn't. Competence is a bare minimum, and it can be measured, because it is artless, it is just craft. But you mixed the two things up yourself when you told us that Mozart wasn't a great composer and that he was incompetent. I can't argue with the first of those conclusions, even if I disagree, because it isn't measurable. But I will argue with the second, because it IS measurable. That has always been my point here.
I only said he was a bad composer and I gave my reasons, such as too repetitious using too many repeats, sickening sweet melody lines with not enough differing melodic material, uninspired and drab harmony lines. As I clearly stated these are my personal opinions. Some people may love his repetition, some my love his limited melodic material and consider it sublime or hypnotic. I was just clearly and honestly stating I do not. I also stated that he was a competent composer as he generally followed the rules of composition. His incompetence is in the details.
QuoteIf opions are such individual things, if no one's opinion counts more than anyone else's, why on earth are you quoting that peculiar person Glenn Gould at me/us?
To
prove that Greatness can never be considered a fact as long as there are many, many people with dissenting opinions. There were lots of other opinions at the link I provided. Opinions are NOT facts.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 04:04:42 PM
His incompetence is in the details.
Could you give us just one or two of those details?
Quote from: Sforzando on June 26, 2010, 04:20:18 PM
Could you give us just one or two of those details?
I did, I gave four at the beginning of the same paragraph.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 04:45:52 PM
I did, I gave four at the beginning of the same paragraph.
I want specific instances from specific compositions.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 26, 2010, 05:45:23 PM
I want specific instances from specific compositions.
Sorry to disappoint but all 41 musical works I have owned by him over a 40 year period were sold many years ago. Here is the list (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-mozart-league.html).
Instead why not trust your own feelings about a composer's skills and abilities rather than relying on others? That is what I do and what I think most music lovers do. :)
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 06:00:00 PM
Sorry to disappoint but all 41 musical works I have owned by him over a 40 year period were sold many years ago. Here is the list (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-mozart-league.html).
Instead why not trust your own feelings about a composer's skills and abilities rather than relying on others? That is what I do and what I think most music lovers do. :)
Teresa, I don't understand why continue to give your opinion over and over and have to prove anything to anyone? I don't like Mozart, you don't like Mozart. It's our right not to like his music and we have our reasons for not liking his music. If somebody else can't accept that, then that is their own insecurity. I, for one, revel in the fact that I'm at the point in my life where I finally understand what it is that I'm looking for musically and Mozart doesn't even make that long list of composers that I listen to and consider great.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 06:00:00 PM
Sorry to disappoint but all 41 musical works I have owned by him over a 40 year period were sold many years ago. Here is the list (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-mozart-league.html).
Instead why not trust your own feelings about a composer's skills and abilities rather than relying on others? That is what I do and what I think most music lovers do. :)
In other words, you're unable to answer the question. What a surprise.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 26, 2010, 07:16:11 PM
In other words, you're unable to answer the question. What a surprise.
I wonder why my opinion is so important to you? If you are really curious go to the link (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-mozart-league.html) I provided, all of my complaints about Mozart's compasitional skills apply to all 41 compositions listed. I am shocked :o my opinion means so much to you! Can we please talk about some other composer than Mozart?
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 06:00:00 PM
Sorry to disappoint but all 41 musical works I have owned by him over a 40 year period were sold many years ago. Here is the list (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-mozart-league.html).
Ah, the unmistakable sound of a mind snapped tight shut!
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 07:32:18 PM
Can we please talk about some other composer than Mozart?
Well, he's certainly part of the thread's topic. His music is of such surpassing excellence, hardly any composer compares to him on his own terms.
Certainly not his dad, Leopold.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 06:23:12 PM
Teresa, I don't understand why continue to give your opinion over and over and have to prove anything to anyone? I don't like Mozart, you don't like Mozart. It's our right not to like his music and we have our reasons for not liking his music. If somebody else can't accept that, then that is their own insecurity. I, for one, revel in the fact that I'm at the point in my life where I finally understand what it is that I'm looking for musically and Mozart doesn't even make that long list of composers that I listen to and consider great.
Thanks so much for you understanding, support and clear thinking. :)
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 07:32:18 PM
Quote from: sfzIn other words, you're unable to answer the question. What a surprise.
I wonder why my opinion is so important to you?
I wonder why you cannot answer the question?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 07:33:16 PM
Ah, the unmistakable sound of a mind snapped tight shut!
So do you know of a composition by Mozart that is DRASTICALLY different than the 41 compositions I've owned? I am willing to listen to anything you provide.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 07:38:30 PM
So do you know of a composition by Mozart that is DRASTICALLY different than the 41 compositions I've owned? I am willing to listen to anything you provide.
You're quite welcome. It's nice meeting somebody who actually DOESN'T like Mozart's music.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 07:34:54 PM
Thanks so much for you understanding, support and clear thinking. :)
Yes, of the two of you, at least we can rely on
Mirror Image for clear thinking.
My dear, I
do wonder why you cannot take the point that so many have been at careful pains to make plain to you.
Mozart is one of the world's very greatest composers. Period. Not any question of opinion, or of "freedom of thought" (gawd, you can be the funny one). He doesn't become "a bad composer" just because
you've taken a dislike to him. Your dislike, you see, is such a very feeble thing in comparison to
Mozart's musical excellence.
Haydn swore that he was the greatest composer he knew; whose opinion are we going to value: yours, or
Haydn's?
One of the things I like about
Mirror Image is, he doesn't put on a dog-&-pony show about his dislike for
Mozart.
He understands that
his dislike for
Mozart is something on an entirely different plane to
Mozart's inarguable greatness.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 07:36:05 PM
I wonder why my opinion is so important to you?
I wonder why you cannot answer the question?
Only
YOU can answer the question of
WHY my opinions are so important to you. I should be honored I guess, but no ones opinion (not even mine) should be held in such high esteem.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 07:39:56 PM
You're quite welcome. It's nice meeting somebody who actually DOESN'T like Mozart's music.
I've met several. I just hadn't met anyone before Teresa who wished to make her dislike of Mozart "mean" that he is "a bad composer."
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 07:42:51 PM
Only YOU can answer the question of WHY my opinions are so important to you.
My dear, your opinion is balderdash. There are pieces of discarded wash-towels on the street which mean more to me than your opinion about Mozart, whose greatness is inarguable. I marvel that your mind cannot embrace the idea that your likes or dislikes do not determine any composer's greatness.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 07:32:18 PM
I wonder why my opinion is so important to you? If you are really curious go to the link (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-mozart-league.html) I provided, all of my complaints about Mozart's compasitional skills apply to all 41 compositions listed. I am shocked :o my opinion means so much to you! Can we please talk about some other composer than Mozart?
Your opinion doesn't mean sh-t to me. You have been asked for one specific example, chapter and verse, of any of the flaws you allege, and you are unable to do so. Hence the logical conclusion, confirmed by your evasiveness, is that you know nothing of the music you claim to so dislike other than a few vague recollections.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 26, 2010, 07:50:27 PM
Your opinion doesn't mean sh-t to me. You have been asked for one specific example, chapter and verse, of any of the flaws you allege, and you are unable to do so. Hence the logical conclusion, confirmed by your evasiveness, is that you know nothing of the music you claim to so dislike other than a few vague recollections.
Well, I mean to say: how well does she know the music of Rakhmaninov, when she says it has no dissonances (by which she means only that she likes all the sounds)?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 07:43:13 PM
I've met several. I just hadn't met anyone before Teresa who wished to make her dislike of Mozart "mean" that he is "a bad composer."
I think Mozart was a great composer. I believe history has acknowledged this for ages. I just don't like his musical style.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 07:53:33 PM
I think Mozart was a great composer. I just don't like his musical style.
Eminently sensible. I have only respect for you.
And I need to get to know more of Ginastera's work.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 07:53:33 PM
I think Mozart was a great composer. I believe history has acknowledged this for ages. I just don't like his musical style.
100% in agreement with this statement (and simply well-put).
As for Rachmaninoff, I wonder if Teresa has even heard some of the raging dissonances in the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini...
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 07:39:56 PM
You're quite welcome. It's nice meeting somebody who actually DOESN'T like Mozart's music.
I am truly sorry then, that you won't have a chance to meet the late Mel Merkel. What fun you, he, and Teresa could have had, reveling in your disdain for Mozart. But you can always search for any posts written by "Iago," if you're looking for material.
I cannot believe that Mirror Image enjoys the whole "you're quashing my freedom of expression!" red herring of Teresa's.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 26, 2010, 08:00:15 PM
I am truly sorry then, that you won't have a chance to meet the late Mel Merkel. What fun you, he, and Teresa could have had, reveling in your disdain for Mozart. But you can always search for any posts written by "Iago," if you're looking for material.
There won't be any further discussion concerning my dislike for Mozart. I simply went to far with my past statement and it was unfair. Mozart was great and I'm in agreement with everybody here that acknowledges this. I think anyone who ignores his greatness is simply mislead and uneducated.
Sorry, Teresa, but even I acknowledge Mozart's greatness.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 08:02:52 PM
I cannot believe that Mirror Image enjoys the whole "you're quashing my freedom of expression!" red herring of Teresa's.
No, I respect her right to her opinion. That is all.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 07:41:38 PM
Mozart is one of the world's very greatest composers. Period. Not any question of opinion, or of "freedom of thought" (gawd, you can be the funny one). He doesn't become "a bad composer" just because you've taken a dislike to him.
This is your attempt to PROP UP YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS as FACT. IT WILL NOT FLY! I clearly explained why I do not like him and why I firmly believe his is not only a bad composer, but the absolute worst. I gave all of this in intracate detail! And I am not alone, their are hundreds of others who also have a very low opinion of him. Your problem is who cannot live with other people's opinions.
Here is a small sample:
"Mozart was a bad composer who died too late rather than too early."Glenn Gould
"most of Mozart's music is dull."Maria Callas
"If a man tells me he likes Mozart, I know in advance that he is a bad musician."Frederick Delius
"Too Much Mozart Makes You Sick" Norman Lebrecht
QuoteYour dislike, you see, is such a very feeble thing in comparison to Mozart's musical excellence. Haydn swore that he was the greatest composer he knew; whose opinion are we going to value: yours, or Haydn's?
Easy I value my opinion above all others, as everyone should! You need to learn to trust your own opinions and not depend on outside confirmation of your beliefs.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 08:08:18 PM
This is your attempt to PROP UP YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS as FACT.
No; that is a complete and disingenuous falsehood on your part.
Any impartial party owns that Mozart is a great composer. You are in a minority of one, trying to claim that your dislike of Mozart (say it for the hundred-&-first time, to which we all admit you are entitled) means that he is a "bad composer." Which word don't you understand? (See, I can use large font sizes too, though size doesn't matter.)
I love the music of Mozart. Sometimes i feel like a radical.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 26, 2010, 08:13:09 PM
I love the music of Mozart. Sometimes I feel like a radical.
Live the dream.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 07:43:13 PM
I've met several. I just hadn't met anyone before Teresa who wished to make her dislike of Mozart "mean" that he is "a bad composer."
As I stated before I hate the music of
Robert Schumann but I can tell he is a very good composer. Compositional skills and enjoying the musical results are TWO very different things.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 08:11:12 PM
No; that is a complete and disingenuous falsehood on your part.
Any impartial party owns that Mozart is a great composer. You are in a minority of one, trying to claim that your dislike of Mozart (say it for the hundred-&-first time, to which we all admit you are entitled) means that he is a "bad composer."
Which word don't you understand? (See, I can use large font sizes too, though size doesn't matter.)
I like those big, bolded texts. Makes your point even
C L E A R E R. :)
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 08:14:25 PM
As I stated before I hate the music of Robert Schumann but I can tell he is a very good composer. Compositional skills and enjoying the musical results are TWO very different things.
Right. It's very strange of you that you cannot appreciate the musical skill of Mozart.
Practically all the musical world considers Mozart a greater composer than Schumann.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 08:15:47 PM
I like those big, bolded texts. Makes your point even C L E A R E R. :)
: )It's a bit of a glitch in the software, I think, that the font size is such a fragile parameter.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 08:16:23 PMPractically all the musical world considers Mozart a greater composer than Schumann.
I agree with this. Schumann was known to be a clumsy orchestrator and sometimes his musical ideas just don't seem to mesh well. Mozart, on the other hand, had exquisitely crafted music, which is not just an opinion, but a fact.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 07:45:13 PM
My dear, your opinion is balderdash. There are pieces of discarded wash-towels on the street which mean more to me than your opinion about Mozart, whose greatness is inarguable. I marvel that your mind cannot embrace the idea that your likes or dislikes do not determine any composer's greatness.
No one persons does, it is all personal opinion, applicable ONLY to the music lover themselves. It will differ from person to person. You cannot project YOUR personal opinions of anyone's greatness by falsely claiming it is a fact. THIS IS EXTREME RUDENESS ON YOUR PART. Personal opinions are personal opinions, yours included.
BTW I do not value your opinion at all, as I have never meet anyone as close minded as you, YOU ARE RIGHT AND THE REST OF THE WORLD IS WRONG!
It is not so with personal opinions of Greatness EVERYONE is right!
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 08:21:31 PM
No one persons does, it is all personal opinion . . . .
No, this is more wilful falsehood on your part. There are actual facts involved.
Luke was at pains to discuss this with you. It is grossly rude of you to have disregarded his generous explanation.
My dear, you don't know what a fact is. You hardly know what a dissonance is.
Clearly, you know what you dislike. La di da.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 08:08:18 PM
This is your attempt to PROP UP YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS as FACT. IT WILL NOT FLY! I clearly explained why I do not like him and why I firmly believe his is not only a bad composer, but the absolute worst. I gave all of this in intracate detail!
No, actually you didn't. You offered vague generalizations that you could not support by referencing a single specific passage.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 08:08:18 PM
And I am not alone, their are hundreds of others who also have a very low opinion of him. Your problem is who cannot live with other people's opinions.
Here is a small sample:
"Mozart was a bad composer who died too late rather than too early."
Glenn Gould
"most of Mozart's music is dull."
Maria Callas
"If a man tells me he likes Mozart, I know in advance that he is a bad musician."
Frederick Delius
"Too Much Mozart Makes You Sick"
Norman Lebrecht
Easy I value my opinion above all others, as everyone should! You need to learn to trust your own opinions and not depend on outside confirmation of your beliefs.
If you trust your own opinions so much, why are you quoting so many outside confirmations of your beliefs?
Quote from: Sforzando on June 26, 2010, 07:50:27 PM
Your opinion doesn't mean sh-t to me. You have been asked for one specific example, chapter and verse, of any of the flaws you allege, and you are unable to do so. Hence the logical conclusion, confirmed by your evasiveness, is that you know nothing of the music you claim to so dislike other than a few vague recollections.
WRONG I did give complete details a few pages back and they apply to all 41 compositions I have purchased over a 40 year period.
I have not been evasive about anything, I have given complete details, way more than I should have. If you trusted in your own feelings you would not need my approval to love Mozart.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 08:18:21 PM
I agree with this. Schumann was known to be a clumsy orchestrator and sometimes his musical ideas just don't seem to mesh well. Mozart, on the other hand, had exquisitely crafted music, which is not just an opinion, but a fact.
I can't say I agree with your assessment of Schumann. He had his strengths and weaknesses. One of the weaknesses is orchestration that does not come off well unless performed sensitively. Another is that in his more formal music (symphonies, for example) his phrasing tends to be excessively regular, leading to a certain sense of rhythmic monotony at times. However, he was one of those who invented to style we call romantic. I've come to appreciate his works more and more as I have become more familiar with it.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 08:30:07 PM
WRONG I did give complete details a few pages back and they apply to all 41 compositions I have purchased over a 40 year period.
Gawd, but you're funny! "Complete details," forsooth!
Karl,
Not to get this thread off topic, but I looked at your website and you've composed 100 works? Wow, that is amazing. It looks like you recently completed a ballet. Ballet music some of my favorite music. Anyway, I don't want to get this discussion any further off-topic, but kudos to you for being so prolific and keep up the good work sir!
Quote from: Scarpia on June 26, 2010, 08:31:14 PM
I can't say I agree with your assessment of Schumann. He had his strengths and weaknesses. One of the weaknesses is orchestration that does not come off well unless performed sensitively. Another is that in his more formal music (symphonies, for example) his phrasing tends to be excessively regular, leading to a certain sense of rhythmic monotony at times. However, he was one of those who invented to style we call romantic. I've come to appreciate his works more and more as I have become more familiar with it.
I'll agree that there's actually nothing wrong with Schumann's orchestration. Still, can't say that his symphonies have 'got in amongst me' at all the way that Brahms's have.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 26, 2010, 08:31:14 PM
I can't say I agree with your assessment of Schumann. He had his strengths and weaknesses. One of the weaknesses is orchestration that does not come off well unless performed sensitively. Another is that in his more formal music (symphonies, for example) his phrasing tends to be excessively regular, leading to a certain sense of rhythmic monotony at times. However, he was one of those who invented to style we call romantic. I've come to appreciate his works more and more as I have become more familiar with it.
Absolutely, Schumann's faults don't make his music any less enjoyable. I particularly enjoy his "Piano Concerto" and the seldom heard "Violin Concerto."
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 08:33:16 PM
Karl,
Not to get this thread off topic, but I looked at your website and you've composed 100 works? Wow, that is amazing. It looks like you recently completed a ballet. Ballet music some of my favorite music. Anyway, I don't want to get this discussion any further off-topic, but kudos to you for being so prolific and keep up the good work sir!
You are very kind, thank you! I've actually yet to complete the ballet, though I have got 90 minutes of its music composed.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 08:34:04 PM
I'll agree that there's actually nothing wrong with Schumann's orchestration. Still, can't say that his symphonies have 'got in amongst me' at all the way that Brahms's have.
I can't say I find Schumann's symphonies as rewarding as Brahms'. However, I can't say I've found any composer's symphonies as rewarding as Brahms. 8)
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 08:34:43 PM
Absolutely, Schumann's faults don't make his music any less enjoyable. I particularly enjoy his "Piano Concerto" and the seldom heard "Violin Concerto."
I need to go back to it, but I have a hard time with the last movement of the Violin Concerto.
The Cello Concerto, though, I think very highly of.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 08:11:12 PM
Any impartial party owns that Mozart is a great composer.
Dead wrong, here are just four contrasting opinions, and they are opinions NOT facts as you dictate. Do you live in a communist country, that could explain why you are so anti-freedom of expression.
"Mozart was a bad composer who died too late rather than too early."Glenn Gould
"most of Mozart's music is dull."Maria Callas
"If a man tells me he likes Mozart, I know in advance that he is a bad musician."Frederick Delius
"Too Much Mozart Makes You Sick" Norman Lebrecht
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 08:30:07 PM
If you trusted in your own feelings you would not need my approval to love Mozart.
I need
your approval? This is getting beyond the comical.
"Oh Teresa! please tell me I'm allowed to enjoy Mozart! I've been playing and listening to Mozart for 45 years before I ever even heard ot Teresa, and just waiting for her to come along to tell me I can love this music! Such a liberation. She truly is - Mother Teresa!"
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 08:35:02 PM
You are very kind, thank you! I've actually yet to complete the ballet, though I have got 90 minutes of its music composed.
You're welcome. I didn't go through all of your compositions, but have you written any symphonies or concerti? I would be very interested in hearing these and the ballet when you complete it.
Here's an imperfect comparison for you: I don't think I enjoy any of Schumann's symphonies as well as I do the Mendelssohn Italian Symphony; yet overall, I believe that Schumann was the finer symphonist.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 08:36:15 PM
I need to go back to it, but I have a hard time with the last movement of the Violin Concerto.
The Cello Concerto, though, I think very highly of.
I haven't heard his "Violin Concerto" in a long time, so perhaps another listen will be in order for myself as well. I have forgotten about his "Cello Concerto." I will go back and listen to this work as well.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 08:34:43 PM
Absolutely, Schumann's faults don't make his music any less enjoyable. I particularly enjoy his "Piano Concerto" and the seldom heard "Violin Concerto."
Personally, I find the Schumann piano concerto deadly dull, and the symphonies rather uneven. I much prefer the song cycles, and some of the piano music such as the C major Fantasy and the Carnaval.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 08:37:35 PM
You're welcome. I didn't go through all of your compositions, but have you written any symphonies or concerti? I would be very interested in hearing these and the ballet when you complete it.
Only sketches of symphonies and a concerto. Believe me, if it is granted to me that an orchestra be ready to program such a piece, I should be glad to bring one to completion! There's been a certain pragmatic undergirding to my work, and largely I have tended to write pieces for which there was an imminent prospect of performance.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 08:39:16 PM
I haven't heard his "Violin Concerto" in a long time, so perhaps another listen will be in order for myself as well. I have forgotten about his "Cello Concerto." I will go back and listen to this work as well.
Some may think it having my cake and eating it, too, but . . . I like the Cello Concerto both as Schumann scored it, and as Shostakovich arranged the accompaniment.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 26, 2010, 08:37:26 PM
I need your approval? This is getting beyond the comical.
"Oh Teresa! please tell me I'm allowed to enjoy Mozart! I've been playing and listening to Mozart for 45 years before I ever even heard ot Teresa, and just waiting for her to come along to tell me I can love this music! Such a liberation. She truly is - Mother Teresa!"
If you do not need my approval, then why is my opinion so important to you that you keep harping on it? Especially since you know I do not want to give you a play by play. Trust yourself and your feelings. All I have tried to say is anyones low opinion of a composers compositional skills should have no effect on anyone enjoying the music they love. Why people are having such a hard time with this simple concept I do not know.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 08:25:12 PM
No, this is more wilful falsehood on your part. There are actual facts involved.
Opinions can NEVER be facts, to present them as so is to discount other peoples opinion. We do not do this in a free and open society.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 08:45:56 PM
If you do not need my approval, then why is my opinion so important to you that you keep harping on it? Especially you know I do not want to give you a play by play.
Exactly. You have nothing to back your assertion that Mozart is "a bad composer," just the trivial factoid that, gosh, you don't like any of it. La di da. Not much of an opinion, is it?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 07:41:38 PM
Mozart is one of the world's very greatest composers. Period. Not any question of opinion, or of "freedom of thought" (gawd, you can be the funny one). He doesn't become "a bad composer" just because you've taken a dislike to him. Your dislike, you see, is such a very feeble thing in comparison to Mozart's musical excellence. Haydn swore that he was the greatest composer he knew; whose opinion are we going to value: yours, or Haydn's?
Which Haydn? F.J.? Mike? Doesn't matter. Personal tastes are all equally valuable in the eyes of Me. And really, who else's eyes matter? Unless I - that is to say, me - am in a taxi, or a bus. Or an airplane. But other than those obvious exceptions.
Quote from: JoshLilly on June 26, 2010, 08:48:33 PM
Which Haydn? F.J.? Mike?
(Not that you should have had to, but) you've not done much reading about Mozart and his contemporaries, then.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 08:45:56 PM
If you do not need my approval, then why is my opinion so important to you that you keep harping on it? Especially you know I do not want to give you a play by play. Trust yourself and your feelings. All I have tried to say is anyones low opinion of a composers compositional skills should have no effect on anyone enjoying the music they love. Why people are having such a hard time with this simple concept I do not know.
I told you I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. I simply enjoy seeing you paint yourself into a corner. As for "Especially you know I do not want to give you a play by play," may I remind you that ten minutes ago, it was "I have given complete details, way more than I should have."
Quote from: JoshLilly on June 26, 2010, 08:48:33 PM
Which Haydn? F.J.? Mike?
You know that answer perfectly well. If Haydn, it's Josef; if Bach, it's Johann Sebastian; if Wagner, it's Richard, not Siegfried. To insist on a more precise identification of the most likely case is to be pedantic. When Boris Tchaikovsky is meant, the full name is given; otherwise everyone assumes you're talking about the composer of Swan Lake.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 26, 2010, 08:51:08 PM
I told you I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. I simply enjoy seeing you paint yourself into a corner. As for "Especially you know I do not want to give you a play by play," may I remind you that ten minutes ago, it was "I have given complete details, way more than I should have."
Yes, the real question is why Teresa has her knickers so torqued over the insistence that Mozart is (yuk-nyuk-nyuk) a bad composer!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 08:40:41 PM
Only sketches of symphonies and a concerto. Believe me, if it is granted to me that an orchestra be ready to program such a piece, I should be glad to bring one to completion! There's been a certain pragmatic undergirding to my work, and largely I have tended to write pieces for which there was an imminent prospect of performance.
I've read your biography and for it's worth I'm impressed. You've been a very busy composer. Hopefully, a commission to write a symphony or concerto will come your way soon.
Quote from: JoshLilly on June 26, 2010, 08:48:33 PM
Personal tastes are all equally valuable in the eyes of Me.
That's no great virtue, BTW.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 26, 2010, 08:55:58 PM
I've read your biography and for it's worth I'm impressed. You've been a very busy composer. Hopefully, a commission to write a symphony or concerto will come your way soon.
Thanks! I find it important to keep at work. This week I'll have some audio uploaded, if you like.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 08:57:11 PM
Thanks! I find it important to keep at work. This week I'll have some audio uploaded, if you like.
That would be great. I really enjoy hearing people's creations. I'm sure it's not too late for me, but I would really like to back to college and major in composition. I don't have any musical training, but, hey, neither did Delius!!! Roussel didn't even start composing until his 30s, so it's never too late.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 08:48:17 PM
Exactly. You have nothing to back your assertion that Mozart is "a bad composer," just the trivial factoid that, gosh, you don't like any of it. La di da. Not much of an opinion, is it?
Since you REFUSE to go back and read it for yourself, here is the excerpt from Reply #464
"I only said he was a bad composer and I gave my reasons, such as too repetitious using too many repeats, sickening sweet melody lines with not enough differing melodic material, uninspired and drab harmony lines. As I clearly stated these are my personal opinions. Some people may love his repetition, some my love his limited melodic material and consider it sublime or hypnotic."I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY MORE LOW OPINION OF MOZART DISTRESSES YOU SO. It seems unnatural on your part.
Yes it is my clear and totally honest opinion!
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 09:00:25 PM. . . too repetitious using too many repeats . . .
Where, for one example, exactly?Quote from: Teresa. . . sickening sweet melody lines with not enough differing melodic material . . .
Where, for one example, exactly?Quote from: Teresa. . . uninspired and drab harmony lines.
Where, for one example, exactly?
None of this is "intricate detail," Teresa. Full stop. Let's agree that, even though you believe you have spelled it out, none of these bland generalized remarks of disdain is an "intricate detail."Quote from: Teresa. . . As I clearly stated these are my personal opinions.
Well, then he could be a great composer, but your personal opinon is . . . that you prefer other music.
Right?
Quote from: Sforzando on June 26, 2010, 08:51:08 PM
I told you I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. I simply enjoy seeing you paint yourself into a corner. As for "Especially you know I do not want to give you a play by play," may I remind you that ten minutes ago, it was "I have given complete details, way more than I should have."
Then don't get so bent out of shape because my opinion is different than yours OK? Your actions make it sound like you value other peoples opinions more than your own. If I am able to accomplish anything in this thread I hope that everyone is more secure in their own opinions, so they do not rely on outside confirmation.
I am not able to do a play by play as all 41 compositions by Mozart have been sold and I am not about to buy them again to do a play by play. No interest and it would be my idea of hell! And it would make no difference to anyone but me, as it should be.
I gave the complete details in Reply #464
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 09:09:03 PM
I gave the complete details in Reply #464
Nonsense. Now it is clear that, not only do you not know what a fact is, you have no grasp of what complete detail is, either.
You've just got your opinion. La di da.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 09:06:04 PM
Where, for one example, exactly?
Where, for one example, exactly?
Where, for one example, exactly?
None of this is "intricate detail," Teresa. Full stop. Let's agree that, even though you believe you have spelled it out, none of these bland generalized remarks of disdain is an "intricate detail."
Well, then he could be a great composer, but your personal opinon is . . . that you prefer other music.
Right?
My comments apply pretty equally to all of his compositions. However the Symphonies, especially the
complete No. 41 with all the repeats which runs 40 minutes. Most conductors play the edited 25 minute version but even that is too long IMHO.
"sickening sweet melody lines with not enough differing melodic material" and "uninspired and drab harmony lines." applies to all 41 of his compositions I heard.
Greatness in anything is nothing more than personal opinions. Wishful thinking will never change this.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 09:17:53 PM
My comments apply pretty equally to all of his compositions.
Thank you for acknowledging that your claim to having spelled out "intricate detail" is bosh; and that you're just blah-blah-ing.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 09:17:53 PM
Greatness in anything is nothing more than personal opinions.
Gawd, but you're the funny one! You still haven't read Luke's post, have you? Go on: tell the truth, and shame the devil!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 09:19:09 PM
Thank you for acknowledging that your claim to having spelled out "intricate detail" is bosh; and that you're just blah-blah-ing.
No it just means that there are NO exceptions in my ears to his lack of compositional skills, I found all 41 of his compositions unacceptable on every single level that they can be perceived. There is nothing more to say, when I find a composer that is worse I will gladly let you know.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 09:20:18 PM
Gawd, but you're the funny one! You still haven't read Luke's post, have you? Go on: tell the truth, and shame the devil!
I did read it and I disagree with it. But since it is his personal opinion I honor it. However we part company when he tried to present personal opinion as fact.
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 09:23:40 PM
No it just means that there are NO exceptions in my ears
Ah, the renewed sound of a mind snapping shut! The funniest thing is, you imagine that this is a virtue! High-larious!
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 09:25:51 PM
However we part company when he tried to present personal opinion as fact.
He never does. Teresa, Luke never, in all the time that I have read his participation in the forum, never presented his personal opinion as fact.
That sort of buffoonery, one leaves to you!
Quote from: Teresa on June 26, 2010, 09:25:51 PM
I did read it and I disagree with it. But since it is his personal opinion I honor it. However we part company when he tried to present personal opinion as fact.
Thank you, BTW, for confirming this -- for we cannot be talking about the same Luke: Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 09:20:18 PM
Gawd, but you're the funny one! You still haven't read Luke's post, have you? Go on: tell the truth, and shame the devil!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 26, 2010, 09:33:26 PM
Thank you, BTW, for confirming this -- for we cannot be talking about the same Luke:
I am talking about this
Luke - Full Member - Tuplet Nester (Fourth Degree), the only Luke in this thread and I answered all of his arguments about presenting personal opinions of greatness as FACTS when enough people have the same personal opinions. I countered every single argument he presented as personal opinions of Greatness cannot magically turn into facts. It will not happen in the real world, NEVER!
Quote from: Teresa on June 25, 2010, 06:12:45 PM
Your first claim has nothing to do with honoring other people's opinions. The ending chord progression was a quote from my Music, Theory and Harmony teacher. However the course was decades ago and the alternate ending he said was used for the first time in Haydn's Surprise Symphony could have been IV-V-I not II-V-I, thus giving the world TWO not ONE ending chord progression choices. He used this as a demonstration on how compositional rules can change with usage. This of course has nothing to do with me, so that attack is uncalled for.
Second I OWN all of Rachmaninov's works for orchestra and piano and orchestra and I have NEVER heard hard dissonance in a single work. Rachmaninov is one of my favorite composers and I do not buy the arguement that he has ever used hard dissonance and would love to know of a single example.
There are many composer's I do not like, I do not believe all of them are bad composers, if fact some of them are good, I just do not care for their music. However I firmly believe Mozart is the worst composer I have ever heard on every single measurement level, but that is only my personal belief, every human being is FREE to believe as their heart tells them.
As I said many, many, many times before GREATNESS is in the ears, eyes and mind of the beholder. To believe otherwise is anti-freedom as it tries to push personal views on others.
Why can't you RESPECT other people's opinions? Why is that so hard for you? You are the one making a spectacle of yourself (Not I) by denying other people opinions of greatness and worthiness based on your own value system.
In short you believe in projecting your personal beliefs on others and I believe in personal freedom. I firmly believe that ANYONE can express their beliefs in whatever music or composers they feel are Great, Good, Poor of Bad without the need to belittle them. This is a lesson in life you may want to learn "let people freely express their opinions without the need to attack them". It will make your life much easier. Love and Peace always! :)
Teresa,
I don't know how long you're in this forum, but take it from personal experience.
When these fellas here decide to gain up on you, there is no letting go.
These wolves made the art of sharpening their teeth as a form of art, a rather gibberish form of art, but that's what they do.
But Let's cut them some slack, at least they have something to do in their spare time.
No opinion, and No thought, and no argument, and no comment that goes contrary to theirs is accepted here. They might tell you that it is, but that's some lefty lip service, they will make fun of it just like Karl, the official composer of this site, and the whole universe, of course, that your opinion of Mozart is 'Crackers'.
Remember Luke's 'critic' of my opinions saying that ' it has many holes'?
Yes, if you'll add Karl's Crackers and Luke's Swiss Cheese, there is no wonder that the site sometimes feels constipated.
Cheers,
Saul
OK, I am locking this topic; as I think there is no further progress to be obtained in the specific lines of argument between the recently active parties.
I will unlock it again in a day or so and hope that there will be interest in comparing composers, with accepted facts that Teresa does not like Mozart and considers him to be a poor composer. Those facts having been very fully discussed, I would like them to be ignored for now please.
Knight