OK, here's what alarms me.
That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).
Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.
2010, remember?
Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.
Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard. I first started to listen to 20th century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is from 1943. Going both forwards and backwards from that date, it still only took me till 1982 to be listening to music written in 1982. And not neo-romantic stuff, either, but Ligeti and Lutoslawski and Diamanda Galas and John Cage, among others. And though I played trumpet for a number of years in high school and college, my musical training is very small and insignificant. I'm just some guy who listens to and enjoys music.
I don't care whose axe-grinding leads them to conclude that "not much of value has been written since 19XX." Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written. Leave off all the various neo- musics. New music, new sounds, new ideas. Plenty of worthwhile stuff. Come on!! Join the freakin' party, why not? The only thing you have to lose is your damned prejudices. And who wouldn't be better for doing that, eh?
*No, it was TalkClassical, so I'm safe.
**Especially not whomever. No excuse, whomy!!
Thank you. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Salomon Quartet - Hob 03 48 Quartet in F for Strings 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato
As I may or may not have stated in another thread, I don't have anything against Schoenberg, but he's not my favorite 12-tone composer. That honor goes to Berg whose music I adore. I like the way Berg used the 12-tone method. As I have said many times, there's a deep Romantic lyricism that runs through his music. I'm also starting to get into Dallapiccola, Messiaen, and I've been really enjoying Dutilleux lately.
Those who have known me on forums (esp. TalkClassical) knew that I had a strong opinion against serialism. Now, I look back and just laugh, because I was so narrow-minded and ignorant. I can only hope that more people try and at least give this music a chance.
Anyway, you've made some excellent points Some Guy. It's 2010 and people are still recycling the same old arguments. I can only speak for myself when I say that it took a lot of listening, a lot of research, and clearer mind to understand a lot of this music, but once I've accepted it for what it is, then there was no holding me back.
Quote from: some guy on July 06, 2010, 05:29:35 PM
OK, here's what alarms me.
That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).
Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.
2010, remember?
Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.
Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard. I first started to listen to 20th century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is from 1943. Going both forwards and backwards from that date, it still only took me till 1982 to be listening to music written in 1982. And not neo-romantic stuff, either, but Ligeti and Lutoslawski and Diamanda Galas and John Cage, among others. And though I played trumpet for a number of years in high school and college, my musical training is very small and insignificant. I'm just some guy who listens to and enjoys music.
I don't care whose axe-grinding leads them to conclude that "not much of value has been written since 19XX." Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written. Leave off all the various neo- musics. New music, new sounds, new ideas. Plenty of worthwhile stuff. Come on!! Join the freakin' party, why not? The only thing you have to lose is your damned prejudices. And who wouldn't be better for doing that, eh?
*No, it was TalkClassical, so I'm safe.
**Especially not whomever. No excuse, whomy!!
Not all of us can be as perceptive, up-to-the-minute, gifted-at-listening, correct, right, and hugely qualified as you. We have feet of clay, alas. We are lucky that friendly energetic exhortations from higher mortals like you will most likely inspire us to...
Quote from: some guy on July 06, 2010, 05:29:35 PM
. . . Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.
Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd.
And if absurd is the adjective (oh, and it is a good one) for someone who "has trouble with Schoenberg," what's the adjective for a musical illiterate who smugly decrees himself a composer "superior to" Schoenberg?
Quote from: Chaszz on July 06, 2010, 05:49:46 PM
Not all of us can be as perceptive, up-to-the-minute, gifted-at-listening, correct, right, and hugely qualified as you. We have feet of clay, alas. We are lucky that friendly energetic exhortations from higher mortals like you will most likely inspire us to...
There is no need to be mean-spirited. Some Guy was simply making a point, which from where I sit is valid. There is plenty of music written from 1910 to now that is beautiful and has a ton of merit. It's up to you to do the research and listening that is necessary in understanding modern music. If you don't want to understand it, then that is your prerogative, but I would be very interested in hearing what you have actually heard, so perhaps one of us can guide you into modern music that is more along the lines of your personal tastes.
I know this is totally random, but the name Frank Martin (whom I've researched a good bit) keeps bouncing around my head, anybody got any solid recommendations or suggestions on what I should hear?
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 06, 2010, 05:48:55 PM
Those who have known me on forums (esp. TalkClassical) knew that I had a strong opinion against serialism. . . . I can only hope that more people try and at least give this music a chance.
Just substitute "Mozart" for "serialism."
Quote from: Sforzando on July 06, 2010, 06:29:37 PM
Just substitute "Mozart" for "serialism."
Mozart was a great composer and I have acknowledged this many times. I just don't care much about his music, which I have also mentioned many times. This was all mentioned on the "Comparing Composers" thread, which should bring back some memories to those who participated and had to read Teresa's uneducated opinion being hurled about at a 150 mph rate of speed.
Quote from: some guy on July 06, 2010, 05:29:35 PM* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.
2010, remember?
Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.
False analogy and bad idea. Plenty of people today still have "trouble" with Beethoven's late quartets, or Sibelius, or late Scriabin. It's a matter of where they are as listeners, and where they are as performers, and what they've learned about the composers' styles. I can't prove this, but I'd bet that the number of
performers who could claim to "fully understand," or "not have trouble with,"
Grosse Fuge is less than 5%.
Now, we're freely allowed to like and dislike whatever we want. I dislike Berg myself. Teresa dislikes Mozart. You probably dislike somebody. If we call them dislikes, there's no law against that. If we pronounce them the only rational point of view, or if we argue that our dislikes are truths, then we get in hot water. I agree with you there. Personal taste shouldn't be confused with a real judgment of artistic merit. But I'd argue back at you that everybody has the right to "have trouble with" art. If nobody ever had any trouble with it, it wouldn't be great art.
Ironically, this is usually an argument made in front of contemporary music against calls for "populism" and appealing to the masses.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 06, 2010, 06:49:14 PM
Mozart was a great composer and I have acknowledged this many times. I just don't care much about his music, which I have also mentioned many times. This was all mentioned on the "Comparing Composers" thread, which should bring back some memories to those who participated and had to read Teresa's uneducated opinion being hurled about at a 150 mph rate of speed.
Oh c'mon, take a joke.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 06, 2010, 07:18:14 PM
Oh c'mon, take a joke.
Oh you were joking? ??? In that case....
(http://thisfragiletent.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/israel-125year-old-man-laughing.jpg)
Quote from: some guy on July 06, 2010, 05:29:35 PM
OK, here's what alarms me.
That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).
Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.
2010, remember?
Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.
Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard. I first started to listen to 20th century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is from 1943. Going both forwards and backwards from that date, it still only took me till 1982 to be listening to music written in 1982. And not neo-romantic stuff, either, but Ligeti and Lutoslawski and Diamanda Galas and John Cage, among others. And though I played trumpet for a number of years in high school and college, my musical training is very small and insignificant. I'm just some guy who listens to and enjoys music.
I don't care whose axe-grinding leads them to conclude that "not much of value has been written since 19XX." Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written. Leave off all the various neo- musics. New music, new sounds, new ideas. Plenty of worthwhile stuff. Come on!! Join the freakin' party, why not? The only thing you have to lose is your damned prejudices. And who wouldn't be better for doing that, eh?
*No, it was TalkClassical, so I'm safe.
**Especially not whomever. No excuse, whomy!!
It is really quite simple the problem with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen is their music is
UNLISTENABLE, crude, ugly, degenerate and altogether offensive! And I don't care what year it is, heck in the year 3010 Schoenberg's noise making will still be a scam, atonal and anti-music. Rejecting ugly NON-MUSIC is normal, accepting such trash as music is not normal. That is why the Second Viennese School and their followers were scam artists. As B. T. Barnum said "
a sucker is born every minute." And Schoenberg proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
OK let's catch up! I agree as you say
"Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written" But not the degenerate atonal music you are referring to but real honest-to-god modern beautiful and exciting tonal classical compositions! :)
The world is moving past the destructive ideas of the Second Viennese School. Here is a small sampling of the very modern tonal compositions, some written only a few years ago:
MICHAEL DAUGHERTY: Niagara Falls for Organ, Winds and Percussion (1997)
http://www.youtube.com/v/cBkkhaUVD3U
JOHAN DE MEIJ: Symphony No. 1 "The Lord Of The Rings" (1987)
http://www.youtube.com/v/IorOng9qUOo
GIAN CARLO MENOTTI: Violin Concerto (1952)
http://www.youtube.com/v/XniiEZ6lNHY
VACLAV NELHYBEL: Trittico (1965)
http://www.youtube.com/v/LG_7_WkW4kg
CHRISTOPHER THEOFANIDIS: Rainbow Body (2000)
http://www.youtube.com/v/cRZe0jyUrDw&feature=related
Quote from: some guy on July 06, 2010, 05:29:35 PM
OK, here's what alarms me.
That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).
Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg.
People are allowed to have problems with whomever they choose. What's real troubling is that they don't understand that the problem is theirs, not the composers, and that they misrepresent the composer as some kind of evil genius deliberately out to ruin western music.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 06, 2010, 05:48:55 PM
As I may or may not have stated in another thread, I don't have anything against Schoenberg, but he's not my favorite 12-tone composer. That honor goes to Berg whose music I adore. I like the way Berg used the 12-tone method.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with that, and IMHO Webern also exceeded his teacher in that field. The only "trouble" I have with Schoenberg is that his serial works seem kind of dry and constricted next to the extraordinarily imaginative pieces of his free atonal period.
Quote from: Brian on July 06, 2010, 07:11:43 PM
You probably dislike somebody.
Indeed. And probably know one knows who those composers are. Because I don't think it's useful to tell people who I don't like. Because every composer I dislike is liked by someone. What would be the point of saying, for instance, I don't like Grieg? Would people who like Grieg be better off not liking him? Probably not. Does it help anyone, likers, dislikers, ignorant (in the neutral sense) to hear that I dislike Grieg? Naw. It might help someone to hear that I do like Grieg (I do, actually) and even better to hear why. (I'm going to cop out at this point. It's late, and I haven't listened to any Grieg for a long time. There are only so many hours in a day. Plus part of my job is writing CD reviews. Whew. Enough already!)
But that's as may be. Our situation is unprecedented. People unable still to know, understand, appreciate music from over one hundred years ago. Yes, I know there are a few people who still report as being perplexed by Beethoven's
Grosse Fuge. But that's absurd, too, I say. More absurd, maybe. But to point out other absurdities does not diminish (or contradict) the absurdity that I mentioned.
The difficulties do not lie with the music. They lie with the attitudes and experience of the listeners. Absolutely. And both attitudes and experience can change. And while the latter is the easier, even attitudes can change, as witness Mirror Image.
Quote from: Teresa on July 06, 2010, 07:43:56 PM
It is really quite simple the problem with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen is their music is UNLISTENABLE, crude, ugly, degenerate and altogether offensive!
Yes, you do keep saying this, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Good luck with that, Teresa. Plenty of people right here who have reported as listening to all five of these composers with a great deal of unforced and easy pleasure.
It offends you? Fine. Who needs to hear that, though? The music of these five is still sophisticated, beautiful, inspiring, and altogether enjoyable--if you've the ears for it. If not, well "oh, well."
I think the key thing here is that atonal (or pantonal as Schoenberg liked to call it) music is written in a different "language" from much of the music that had gone before. The listener has to develop his/her perception and understanding of this music, just as if they were learning a new language. It may take much repeated listening, but in the end, it is not difficult to understand and enjoy music of this kind. People who say that "this music is rubbish" or things to that effect, are themselves talking rubbish.
It took me a while to grasp Schoenberg's Violin Concerto, but now it is one of my favourite works in the genre. & it's hard to generalise (eg. Berg is more approachable than Schoenberg). I find some of Berg's serial works like the Lyric Suite and Chamber Concerto to be equally as complex and involving as anything by Schoenberg. Often, it has taken me many months or years to understand some of these works, others I absorb very quickly.
But I think some guy is on the right track. If a listener is not open to the 2nd Viennese School, then they probably have little chance of understanding later composers like Lutoslawski, Frank Martin, Carter, etc. who were influenced by them. If you want to be outdated, conservative, restricted, inflexible about what music is (or should be?), then go ahead, say it's all rubbish. You're the only loser if you have this lose-lose attitude.
As for Frank Martin, he developed his own way of approaching atonality. He combined it with neo-classicism in some works (eg. Petite Symphonie Concertante), a type of hazy impressionism (the ballades), a mix of late romanticism and Hindemithian expressionism (6 monologues from Jederman) and ancient Christian church music (Mass for Double Choir). A composer of many different approaches, he didn't seem to stick to one style, but kept experimenting.
Quote from: some guy on July 06, 2010, 10:21:36 PM
But that's as may be. The problem, as I see it, is that the situation is unprecedented. People unable still to know, understand, appreciate music from over one hundred years ago.
I don't think time (chronology) is the issue. A lot of people have trouble with early music. In fact, some people find it harder to appreciate Dufay, Machaut, or Josquin (the composer, not the guy who posts under that name) than to appreciate Schoenberg, Bartok or other canonical moderns. According to your logic, early composers should be
really easy to enjoy, since they composed hundreds of years ago!
QuoteThe difficulties do not lie with the music. They lie with the attitudes and experience of the listeners.
I think it goes both ways. You shouldn't always assume the listeners are at fault.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 06, 2010, 06:09:51 PMI know this is totally random, but the name Frank Martin (whom I've researched a good bit) keeps bouncing around my head, anybody got any solid recommendations or suggestions on what I should hear?
This is a very good place to start
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517l8d-nodL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Ansermet had a flair for that sort of stuff. There is also a recording by Chailly of some of the same music, and some recordings by Bamert on Chandos which are also ok, but not quite up to the level of the ones I've listed (in my opinion).
Quote from: some guy on July 06, 2010, 05:29:35 PM
OK, here's what alarms me.
That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).
Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.
2010, remember?
Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.
Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard. I first started to listen to 20th century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is from 1943. Going both forwards and backwards from that date, it still only took me till 1982 to be listening to music written in 1982. And not neo-romantic stuff, either, but Ligeti and Lutoslawski and Diamanda Galas and John Cage, among others. And though I played trumpet for a number of years in high school and college, my musical training is very small and insignificant. I'm just some guy who listens to and enjoys music.
I don't care whose axe-grinding leads them to conclude that "not much of value has been written since 19XX." Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written. Leave off all the various neo- musics. New music, new sounds, new ideas. Plenty of worthwhile stuff. Come on!! Join the freakin' party, why not? The only thing you have to lose is your damned prejudices. And who wouldn't be better for doing that, eh?
*No, it was TalkClassical, so I'm safe.
**Especially not whomever. No excuse, whomy!!
I find your attitude that we are required to appreciate certain types of modern music just as absurd as the Luddites who claim it is a horror. It certainly is worthwhile, judging by the number of people interested in it, I am interested in some of it, but some intelligent and knowledgeable people may conclude that it does not provide them with what they look for in music. No shame in that.
My problem is that when people say "I have trouble with x music" (be it from the middle ages right up till now) they are really saying that they have not invested any time or effort into hearing this music to get a grasp of it. It's like if you were learning a new language. At first, you would start to learn things by rote, and hardly understand it, but then gradually you learn to speak, read, write the said language. It's the same thing with listening to music. If you are not open to variety in the first place and say things like "I can't get into a capella choral" or whatever, of course you are never going to get into it. It's attitude and flexibility that counts, not knowledge or how many recordings you own. I have a very small collection compared to many people here, but it covers many areas from the middle ages until now, and I also regularly go to live concerts and recitals, listen to the radio, and friend's recordings as well as borrowing from the library. I want to develop my perception as fully as possible. I can't imagine just listening to Baroque or whatever, I need variety. I want to see the "big picture" not just the insignificant details, however engrossing they may be. I think that some guy can apply his criticism of such inflexible people not only vis a vis Schoenberg and the others, but (virtually) to the whole history of classical music. Get out of your niches, and start to explore the richness and variety that classical has to offer. Don't only listen to recordings, go to see the music live. Support your local ensembles. Get down and dirty!!!
Quote from: some guy on July 06, 2010, 05:29:35 PM
OK, here's what alarms me.
That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).
Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.
2010, remember?
Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.
Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard. I first started to listen to 20th century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is from 1943. Going both forwards and backwards from that date, it still only took me till 1982 to be listening to music written in 1982. And not neo-romantic stuff, either, but Ligeti and Lutoslawski and Diamanda Galas and John Cage, among others. And though I played trumpet for a number of years in high school and college, my musical training is very small and insignificant. I'm just some guy who listens to and enjoys music.
I don't care whose axe-grinding leads them to conclude that "not much of value has been written since 19XX." Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written. Leave off all the various neo- musics. New music, new sounds, new ideas. Plenty of worthwhile stuff. Come on!! Join the freakin' party, why not? The only thing you have to lose is your damned prejudices. And who wouldn't be better for doing that, eh?
*No, it was TalkClassical, so I'm safe.
**Especially not whomever. No excuse, whomy!!
Music is like wine, the older the better.
Quote from: Velimir on July 06, 2010, 10:09:23 PM
Yeah, I pretty much agree with that, and IMHO Webern also exceeded his teacher in that field. The only "trouble" I have with Schoenberg is that his serial works seem kind of dry and constricted next to the extraordinarily imaginative pieces of his free atonal period.
Actually I would agree with that. I could easily live without the Wind Quintet, but never without Erwartung.
Quote from: Velimir on July 06, 2010, 10:09:23 PM
Yeah, I pretty much agree with that, and IMHO Webern also exceeded his teacher in that field. The only "trouble" I have with Schoenberg is that his serial works seem kind of dry and constricted next to the extraordinarily imaginative pieces of his free atonal period.
Twelve letters: Moses und Aron
Quote from: Scarpia on July 06, 2010, 10:38:42 PM
This is a very good place to start
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517l8d-nodL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Ansermet had a flair for that sort of stuff. There is also a recording by Chailly of some of the same music, and some recordings by Bamert on Chandos which are also ok, but not quite up to the level of the ones I've listed (in my opinion).
Alright. Thanks Scarpia. I have seen this recording and have been looking at it for quite some time. I love Riccardo Chailly too, so I'll definitely check his recording out.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 06, 2010, 10:41:03 PM
I find your attitude that we are required to appreciate certain types of modern music just as absurd as the Luddites who claim it is a horror. It certainly is worthwhile, judging by the number of people interested in it, I am interested in some of it, but some intelligent and knowledgeable people may conclude that it does not provide them with what they look for in music. No shame in that.
Well said and I agree.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 07, 2010, 05:50:13 AM
Well said and I agree.
Likewise. I've found that for myself, at different times in my life, my ears have had variable need for the different epochs in music. At this point, my ears are very large, and I don't foresee them shrinking ; )
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2010, 05:54:59 AM
Likewise. I've found that for myself, at different times in my life, my ears have had variable need for the different epochs in music. At this point, my ears are very large, and I don't foresee them shrinking ; )
Otherwise known as the 'Elephant Effect' :D
Quote from: Sid on July 06, 2010, 11:07:27 PM
My problem is that when people say "I have trouble with x music" (be it from the middle ages right up till now) they are really saying that they have not invested any time or effort into hearing this music to get a grasp of it. It's like if you were learning a new language. At first, you would start to learn things by rote, and hardly understand it, but then gradually you learn to speak, read, write the said language. It's the same thing with listening to music. If you are not open to variety in the first place and say things like "I can't get into a capella choral" or whatever, of course you are never going to get into it. It's attitude and flexibility that counts, not knowledge or how many recordings you own. I have a very small collection compared to many people here, but it covers many areas from the middle ages until now, and I also regularly go to live concerts and recitals, listen to the radio, and friend's recordings as well as borrowing from the library. I want to develop my perception as fully as possible. I can't imagine just listening to Baroque or whatever, I need variety. I want to see the "big picture" not just the insignificant details, however engrossing they may be. I think that some guy can apply his criticism of such inflexible people not only vis a vis Schoenberg and the others, but (virtually) to the whole history of classical music. Get out of your niches, and start to explore the richness and variety that classical has to offer. Don't only listen to recordings, go to see the music live. Support your local ensembles. Get down and dirty!!!
I too think people should get out of their comfort zones, but for some people this requires a lot of time. It took me awhile to break out of mine, but there is a lot of music I don't like. I'm not going to spend my time as Some Guy pointed out bashing a composer's music. That's just not productive and it doesn't do anything but create bad vibes. Case in point: Saul. How many times is he going to come onto a thread and say he hates all atonal music? I mean this doesn't really promote discussion. It gets people further away from it. He's also already closed his mind off to so many composers that have made meaningful music. Do I like all atonal composers? No, absolutely not. Do I like all tonal composers? Absolutely not. The most important aspects of listening to music is finding what composer's music speaks directly to you and makes you feel emotionally/intellectually satisfied. If a composer doesn't do these things for you, then move on to another composer. Once you've explored some composer's music that you enjoy then come back to the composers you don't enjoy and give them another chance. Sometimes all it takes is some time apart.
I don't have any expectations about what people should listen to. I figure they will find what they like without any input from me. Unless they ask, of course, and then I'll tell them what I like and they can ignore or accept that advice as they wish.
8)
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 07, 2010, 06:02:56 AM
. . . I'm not going to spend my time as Some Guy pointed out bashing a composer's music. That's just not productive and it doesn't do anything but create bad vibes. Case in point: Saul. How many times is he going to come onto a thread and say he hates all atonal music? I mean this doesn't really promote discussion.
He's not interested in promoting discussion, Lor' bless you!
Quote from: some guy on July 06, 2010, 10:21:36 PMOur situation is unprecedented. People unable still to know, understand, appreciate music from over one hundred years ago. Yes, I know there are a few people who still report as being perplexed by Beethoven's Grosse Fuge. But that's absurd, too, I say. More absurd, maybe.
Maybe we should distinguish two meanings of "don't understand."
1. "I find this music incomprehensible/unlistenable."
2. "I can't figure out why the composer wrote exactly what he did."
1 is a sign of the unfamiliarity, or inattention, or whatever you want to call it, that you and Sid describe, and that we are troubled to find in some members of the forum. 2, however, is one of the great joys and challenges of art. I'd rather listen to a piece of music I do not understand than one I do, because it gives me something to think about, a problem to try and solve, a series of questions to ponder. Eventually, I might be able to pretend to answer them all, and then I can pompously march onto discussion forums and say that "everybody should be able to understand everything So-and-So wrote." But maybe I'd be wrong. So saying I don't know is more honest, and more interesting, and more rewarding when listening time comes around.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 07, 2010, 06:02:56 AM
I too think people should get out of their comfort zones, but for some people this requires a lot of time. It took me awhile to break out of mine, but there is a lot of music I don't like. I'm not going to spend my time as Some Guy pointed out bashing a composer's music. That's just not productive and it doesn't do anything but create bad vibes. Case in point: Saul. How many times is he going to come onto a thread and say he hates all atonal music? I mean this doesn't really promote discussion. It gets people further away from it. He's also already closed his mind off to so many composers that have made meaningful music. Do I like all atonal composers? No, absolutely not. Do I like all tonal composers? Absolutely not. The most important aspects of listening to music is finding what composer's music speaks directly to you and makes you feel emotionally/intellectually satisfied. If a composer doesn't do these things for you, then move on to another composer. Once you've explored some composer's music that you enjoy then come back to the composers you don't enjoy and give them another chance. Sometimes all it takes is some time apart.
I see some value in criticizing music you don't like on a board like this, as long as it done non-judgmentally and with an open mind. When the enthusiasts pipe up to explain what they love about the music you have criticized it can help you figure out what you are missing. But the pronouncements that such-and-such music is rubbish have nothing to do with discussion.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 06:36:45 AM
I see some value in criticizing music you don't like on a board like this, as long as it done non-judgmentally and with an open mind. When the enthusiasts pipe up to explain what they love about the music you have criticized it can help you figure out what you are missing. But the pronouncements that such-and-such music is rubbish have nothing to do with discussion.
QFT
Quote from: some guy on July 06, 2010, 05:29:35 PM
Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.
Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard.
Although I cheer your initial post in general, "I'm not so sure" ( ;) ) about the bit I've highlighted. I'm really only going to echo comments already ably made by Brian, Scarpia and Erato, but perhaps with a different flavour.
First: in my personal experience, the problem isn't chronological as such. I don't think it has much to do with it being 2010, and struggling with our need to hark back to a Golden Age when Music was Great. The recent exchanges about Mozart tell us that this isn't about chronology. There's a whole heap of music, painting, and literature that I have a problem with, spread over centuries. It's regrettable, but it's true - and life is short and art is long, so there's no alternative except to be selective.
We both agree that one of the reasons we value music (indeed all art) is its ability to expand our perceptions; to enable us to experience mental soundscapes that we wouldn't be able to experience unaided - each new work being like a new window onto an exciting world. But that doesn't mean that we're all going to find all those windows equally valuable. Offer me a window onto the Alps, and I'll say yes please. Offer me a window onto a dead lamb, and I might say no thanks. I'm not suggesting the latter is a
bad window - Ted Hughes wrote some superb poetry about dead lambs; but it may be a window I decide to leave alone, for reasons that simply don't concern anyone else.
Which brings me to my second point, also raised by others already - I don't see any 'ought' in this. I've no more obligation to listen to Schoenberg than I have to listen to Handel. If I choose to ignore Schoenberg the loss is mine; I've cut myself off from that particular kind of experience (and incidentally rendered myself incapable of making any worthwhile comments about it).
Thirdly, this issue will always be with us. For every person who declares atonal music to be a scam, there's another who will say the same about abstract painting, even though abstract art, too, has been with us for a century. I've given guided tours of exhibitions which have placed viewers in front of the most exquisitely balanced, lyrical compositions - with colours, tones and textures offering really exciting visual harmonies - only to hear, so often, presented as if it were new and wise insight, the comment that 'anyone could do that'. I've never found a way round this, except just to encourage repeated looking at anything that seems 'interesting', for whatever reason. I might declare the work to be a masterpiece, ever so passionately; might say that this thing they see as a meaningless blob has enriched my life for years (just as you speak, Michael, so eloquently about the music you love); but in practice, I find that no exhortation of that sort works. The only thing that works (if
anything works) is the encouragement to persist: to suggest anything at all that will extend the period of looking, or just to try again another day.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 07, 2010, 06:57:35 AM
Although I cheer your initial post in general, "I'm not so sure" ( ;) ) about the bit I've highlighted. I'm really only going to echo comments already ably made by Brian, Scarpia and Erato, but perhaps with a different flavour.
First: in my personal experience, the problem isn't chronological as such. I don't think it has much to do with it being 2010, and struggling with our need to hark back to a Golden Age when Music was Great. The recent exchanges about Mozart tell us that this isn't about chronology. There's a whole heap of music, painting, and literature that I have a problem with, spread over centuries. It's regrettable, but it's true - and life is short and art is long, so there's no alternative except to be selective.
We both agree that one of the reasons we value music (indeed all art) is its ability to expand our perceptions; to enable us to experience mental soundscapes that we wouldn't be able to experience unaided - each new work being like a new window onto an exciting world. But that doesn't mean that we're all going to find all those windows equally valuable. Offer me a window onto the Alps, and I'll say yes please. Offer me a window onto a dead lamb, and I might say no thanks. I'm not suggesting the latter is a bad window - Ted Hughes wrote some superb poetry about dead lambs; but it may be a window I decide to leave alone, for reasons that simply don't concern anyone else.
Which brings me to my second point, also raised by others already - I don't see any 'ought' in this. I've no more obligation to listen to Schoenberg than I have to listen to Handel. If I choose to ignore Schoenberg the loss is mine; I've cut myself off from that particular kind of experience (and incidentally rendered myself incapable of making any worthwhile comments about it).
Thirdly, this issue will always be with us. For every person who declares atonal music to be a scam, there's another who will say the same about abstract painting, even though abstract art, too, has been with us for a century. I've given guided tours of exhibitions which have placed viewers in front of the most exquisitely balanced, lyrical compositions - with colours, tones and textures offering really exciting visual harmonies - only to hear, so often, presented as if it were new and wise insight, the comment that 'anyone could do that'. I've never found a way round this, except just to encourage repeated looking at anything that seems 'interesting', for whatever reason. I might declare the work to be a masterpiece, ever so passionately; might say that this thing they see as a meaningless blob has enriched my life for years (just as you speak, Michael, so eloquently about the music you love); but in practice, I find that no exhortation of that sort works. The only thing that works (if anything works) is the encouragement to persist: to suggest anything at all that will extend the period of looking, or just to try again another day.
Well said. Aye, mighty well said.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 06:36:45 AM
I see some value in criticizing music you don't like on a board like this, as long as it done non-judgmentally and with an open mind. When the enthusiasts pipe up to explain what they love about the music you have criticized it can help you figure out what you are missing. But the pronouncements that such-and-such music is rubbish have nothing to do with discussion.
Absolutely, there's nothing wrong with disliking a composer's music. I dislike a lot of music, but I realize that my dislike for say Milhaud's music is just my own opinion and I don't expect others to share this opinion.
Just a quick clarification of one point here. This
Quote from: Scarpia on July 06, 2010, 10:41:03 PM
I find your attitude that we are required to appreciate certain types of modern music just as absurd as the Luddites who claim it is a horror.
is not my attitude. And since no one else has noted this, I guess I'm the one who gets to do so. No one anywhere is required to do anything of the sort. And who could enforce such a rule, even if there was one? No, this is a straw man, and a peculiarly insidious one.
My attitude, if it really needs to be reiterated, is that it's absurd for people in 2010 to continue to have the kind of problems they have with Schoenberg. And to continue to talk as if tonality/atonality were still the hot topic of music. (Well, yes. On online music boards, tonality/atonality
is indeed still the hot topic. Poor horse, I say.)
And speaking of 2010, no, I do not think the problem is strictly chronological. It's not a simple matter of "older=more comprehensible," although within limits this is often true. The only reason my OP has dates in it is to point out that the kinds of difficulties that people report having with Schoenberg and atonality in 2010 do not have any parallels in previous times. There were certainly people in 1810 who didn't particularly
like Bach, but they didn't have the problems with his music that people in 2010 report having with the Second Viennese School. None of this is about liking or disliking. It's more--I hesitate to simplify like this--about demonizing.
And speaking of what things are about, here's what
I'd like to see instead of the persistent obsession with tonality: an abiding interest in sound and a constant curiousity about what composers and musicians are doing now. There's an attitude for ya, and it's mine, and what it is, too.
Quote from: some guy on July 07, 2010, 08:21:10 AMAnd speaking of what things are about, here's what I'd like to see instead of the persistent obsession with tonality: an abiding interest in sound and a constant curiousity about what composers and musicians are doing now. There's an attitude for ya, and it's mine, and what it is, too.
Unfortunately, not many listeners care what composers are doing now. There have been a few contemporary composers that I have found enjoyment in Part, Rautavaara, Dutilleux and most recently a composer named Ian Krouse whose "Rhapsody for Violin and Orchestra" I feel should in the violin repertoire.
I do feel that you're beating a dead horse. There's a lot of terrible modern music out there (i. e. Jennifer Higdon) that I would never listen to not because I have something against it, but because it doesn't move me. If all one does is listen to music like its some kind of scientific experiment then I think they have a poor understanding of music. Music of any merit is an emotional experience. The intellectual side of music comes later. One has to be moved first.
Quote from: James on July 07, 2010, 08:28:39 AM
People who hear it just find the characteristic of that music too unsettling, unstable and unpredictable even today... their puny brains, poor pattern recog. skills & limited curiousity won't have it ... what is wanted is something more chill, relax, predictable ... less offensive and safe that's all. :)
Why don't you tell us how you really feel? ::)
Quote from: some guy on July 07, 2010, 08:21:10 AMMy attitude, if it really needs to be reiterated, is that it's absurd for people in 2010 to continue to have the kind of problems they have with Schoenberg. And to continue to talk as if tonality/atonality were still the hot topic of music. (Well, yes. On online music boards, tonality/atonality is indeed still the hot topic. Poor horse, I say.)
I find your supposed clarification equally absurd. It is quite possible for a capable, intellectually curious person to find Schoenberg's innovation utterly unappealing. I'm not saying it is reasonable to log on to discussion boards and make blanket claims that such music is intrinsically ugly, a sham, etc, but a person who has taken the time to become thoroughly familiar with it can reasonably decide it was a stupid idea and have no interest in it. Personally, I like a lot of Schoenberg, but there are other musical innovations that strike me as ridiculous, even though I have no doubt that other people legitimately find merit in them. (For instance, the entire Avro Part, neo-medieval thing has no appeal to me, and I find it hard to understand why anyone would willingly listen to Kodaly's sonata for solo cello.)
Quote from: Teresa on July 06, 2010, 07:43:56 PM
It is really quite simple the problem with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen is their music is UNLISTENABLE, crude, ugly, degenerate and altogether offensive! And I don't care what year it is, heck in the year 3010 Schoenberg's noise making will still be a scam, atonal and anti-music. Rejecting ugly NON-MUSIC is normal, accepting such trash as music is not normal. That is why the Second Viennese School and their followers were scam artists. As B. T. Barnum said "a sucker is born every minute." And Schoenberg proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt...
Teresa, let me say this simply and directly: You have every right to declare this music "unlistenable" and the rest--for yourself. But this music is NOT universally "unlistenable," since I and so many others actually listen and enjoy and are moved! By saying it is, you are setting yourself up as our judge and the universal arbiter of taste. Yes, that's what you're doing. But neither you nor anyone else has the right to try to arbitrate my musical tastes, nor do I have the right to arbitrate yours.
As for me, the more I love and study music, the more I realize I still have to learn, and the less I feel qualified to set myself up as a judge or taste arbiter. Nor have I ever demanded that anyone actually LIKE music of the Second Viennese School or any other music. All I and the other aficionados here are asking is for you to accept the possibility that your hatred for it does not mean that this music is not music--that is, to stop acting as our judge. That's a reasonable request, isn't it?
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 08:45:48 AM
I find your supposed clarification equally absurd. It is quite possible for an intelligent, intellectual person to find Schoenberg's innovation utterly unappealing...
But that's not what Teresa, Saul, and certain others are doing! They're saying it's inherently evil and a-musical--and THAT's what has me and so many up in arms.
Quote from: jochanaan on July 07, 2010, 08:49:44 AM
That's a reasonable request, isn't it?But that's not what Teresa, Saul, and certain others are doing! They're saying it's inherently evil and a-musical--and THAT's what has me and so many up in arms.
We have a few people on this board, Saul, Teresa, James, who are incapable of grasping the idea that something they don't like has value. There is no point in arguing with them, no argument will reach them. However, "some guy" strikes me as painting anyone who is not attracted to modern musical idioms with the same brush. There are lots of intelligent people here who are fascinated by music from a certain era, the techniques of that era appeal to them. I don't think it is to their discredit if they find Schoenberg's technique absurd.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on July 07, 2010, 08:49:44 AMTeresa, let me say this simply and directly: You have every right to declare this music "unlistenable" and the rest--for yourself. But this music is NOT universally "unlistenable," since I and so many others actually listen and enjoy and are moved! By saying it is, you are setting yourself up as our judge and the universal arbiter of taste [...]
But that's not what Teresa, Saul, and certain others are doing! They're saying it's inherently evil and a-musical--and THAT's what has me and so many up in arms.
We have a few people on this board, Saul, Teresa, James, who are incapable of grasping the idea that something they don't like has value. There is no point in arguing with them, no argument will reach them. However, "some guy" strikes me as painting anyone who is not attracted to modern musical idioms with the same brush. There are lots of intelligent people here who are fascinated by music from a certain era, the techniques of that era appeal to them. I don't think it is to their discredit if they find Schoenberg's technique absurd.
No, what (among other things) is to their discredit is 'decreeing' that (as jochanaan points out) it's inherently evil and a-musical. Another thing to their discredit is, the condition of their mind behind your apt observation that there is no point in arguing with them, no argument will reach them. The two of them are perfectly cool with (e.g.) claiming that music they don't like is "universally unlistenable," because they believe God Personally disapproves of the music they hate.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
We have a few people on this board, Saul, Teresa, James, who are incapable of grasping the idea that something they don't like has value. There is no point in arguing with them, no argument will reach them. However, "some guy" strikes me as painting anyone who is not attracted to modern musical idioms with the same brush. There are lots of intelligent people here who are fascinated by music from a certain era, the techniques of that era appeal to them. I don't think it is to their discredit if they find Schoenberg's technique absurd.
Excuse me I never said that there is no value for someone else, I only said that I don't find value in it. That's the difference.
Quote from: James on July 07, 2010, 09:03:27 AM
Hey ... this is an asshole remark.
And you find it gracious to claim that people who don't like the music you like have "puny brains"?
Quote from: some guy on July 06, 2010, 05:29:35 PM
OK, here's what alarms me.
That the hot topic on music chat boards is tonality/atonality. That the bogeyman, as it were, is still Schoenberg (and maybe his follower, Boulez).
Schoenberg? Really? In 2010? I've said this before, somewhere. Maybe even in the General section of GMG.* Nobody, nobody, not Teresa, not Saul, not John, not whomever,** should be having any trouble at all with Schoenberg. Or Berg or Webern. Maybe a few people can still get away with having trouble still with Cage or with Stockhausen. But not really.
2010, remember?
Imagine someone in 1710 still having trouble with Monteverdi, or someone in 1810 still having trouble with Handel or Bach, or someone in 1910 still having trouble with Beethoven. Absurd, no? But in 2010, it's not only common for people to still be having trouble with Schoenberg, it's considered normal.
Well, no. It's not normal. It's absurd. I don't care how many people still (putatively) have trouble with Schoenberg. It's 2010. Let's catch up, shall we? It's not that hard. I first started to listen to 20th century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is from 1943. Going both forwards and backwards from that date, it still only took me till 1982 to be listening to music written in 1982. And not neo-romantic stuff, either, but Ligeti and Lutoslawski and Diamanda Galas and John Cage, among others. And though I played trumpet for a number of years in high school and college, my musical training is very small and insignificant. I'm just some guy who listens to and enjoys music.
I don't care whose axe-grinding leads them to conclude that "not much of value has been written since 19XX." Quite a lot of very satisfying and enjoyable music has been written since 1910 and continues to be written. Leave off all the various neo- musics. New music, new sounds, new ideas. Plenty of worthwhile stuff. Come on!! Join the freakin' party, why not? The only thing you have to lose is your damned prejudices. And who wouldn't be better for doing that, eh?
*No, it was TalkClassical, so I'm safe.
**Especially not whomever. No excuse, whomy!!
My immediate reaction was "Right on!!!" ;D However, I think your analogy is not an exact analogue. :) For about a century now we've had devices that the earlier centuries did not have: devices to record actual musical sounds. Music in earlier centuries that was too radical or incomprehensible was simply forgotten--e.g. Carlo Gesualdo's madrigals and the late Beethoven quartets. But what music-lover now can simply forget or ignore Schoenberg
et al, since record-store shelves, online catalogues and forums like this one are full of their music and references to it? Thus, prejudicial venoms which in past centuries went safely untriggered, today are triggered again and again--and the Internet's worldwide availability ensures that the poison is spread, thereby requiring us who love truth and beauty and musical challenges to inject large doses of antivenin into cyberspace. :)
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
We have a few people on this board, Saul, Teresa, James, who are incapable of grasping the idea that something they don't like has value. There is no point in arguing with them, no argument will reach them. However, "some guy" strikes me as painting anyone who is not attracted to modern musical idioms with the same brush. There are lots of intelligent people here who are fascinated by music from a certain era, the techniques of that era appeal to them. I don't think it is to their discredit if they find Schoenberg's technique absurd.
Hmmm...I read some guy's original post differently. I didn't sense he was pointing fingers at anyone; rather, he was simply saying it was foolish for us to be arguing about music written a hundred years ago as if it were a current controversy. And yes, on many levels it is foolish! But I feel that I was also making a valid point about setting oneself up as arbiter. (I notice that neither Teresa nor Saul has replied to my challenges. Am I that good? ;D)
Quote from: Saul on July 07, 2010, 09:04:22 AM
Excuse me I never said that there is no value for someone else, I only said that I don't find value in it. That's the difference.
I beg your pardon, but you have said exactly that there is no value in it. It's possible that your speech was careless then, but that's what you have said on more than one occasion.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2010, 09:02:57 AM
...The two of them are perfectly cool with (e.g.) claiming that music they don't like is "universally unlistenable," because they believe God Personally disapproves of the music they hate.
Strange that God has not said the same to me! And, as long as I've been talking to Him, I think He might have said something about my musical tastes if they were so evil... ;)
Quote from: Saul on July 07, 2010, 09:04:22 AM
Excuse me I never said that there is no value for someone else, I only said that I don't find value in it. That's the difference.
It varies, sometimes you admit your preferences are personal, but other times, remember this, on the Mendelssohn vs Schoenberg thread?
QuoteEven the suggestion is an insult. How in the world HOW? Is it possible to compare Schoenberg to Mendelssohn?
You know even in the jungle, when the fox thinks that he is in the same level as the Lion, one swift stroke of the Lion's paw is enough to demonstrate. No skillful analysis, or discussion is needed. The lion is not required to summon the court of the animals so they might hear his reason as to why he is the king. To suggest a discussion like this is ludicrous as of itself, and is not worthy of explanation. And I said it before in this thread that this comparison is not worthy.
Quote from: James on July 07, 2010, 09:10:38 AM
That was a joke stupid. Lighten up...
lol...Saul walked into that one!
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 09:26:25 AM
It varies, sometimes you admit your preferences are personal, but other times, remember this, on the Mendelssohn vs Schoenberg thread?
There is nothing there to suggest that I said that their music has no value to others.
The comparison was ludicrous, sure, but that's not saying there is no value for others.
Quote from: James on July 07, 2010, 09:28:00 AM
Holy shit buddy, u just can't let go ...
I think that it's because you create such a perfect illusion of being a total douche bag that people have a hard time seeing past it to the real, uproariously funny James that's hiding inside... maybe if you showed a flaw in that armor once in a while people would begin to catch on. Just a passing thought... ::)
8)
Quote from: jochanaan on July 07, 2010, 09:10:16 AM
Strange that God has not said the same to me! And, as long as I've been talking to Him, I think He might have said something about my musical tastes if they were so evil... ;)
Well, I should be relieved simply that He hasn't objected to my Studies in Impermanence! : )
Quote from: Saul on July 07, 2010, 09:39:20 AM
There is nothing there to suggest that I said that their music has no value to others.
The comparison was ludicrous, sure, but that's not saying there is no value for others.
Fair enough.
Quote from: James on July 07, 2010, 09:45:57 AM
LOL .... love it.
As you should, I took my cue from you. :D
8)
Dr Laid-Back
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 09:09:10 AM
And you find it gracious to claim that people who don't like the music you like have "puny brains"?
Takes a puny brain to think Mozart is overrated.
That kidder! He's as deep a thinker as Saul!
Quote from: James on July 07, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
(http://www.peacebus.com/Eureka/041101SewingCircle1.jpg)
Which one is you, James?
Quote from: James on July 07, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
(http://www.peacebus.com/Eureka/041101SewingCircle1.jpg)
The GMG Moderators weekly board meeting. ;D
Oh no...I would never knit. I much prefer shuffleboard. ;D
--Bruce
Quote from: bhodges on July 07, 2010, 10:18:07 AM
Oh no...I would never knit. I much prefer shuffleboard. ;D
X-treme shuffleboard: 'at's our mods!
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 09:09:10 AM
And you find it gracious to claim that people who don't like the music you like have "puny brains"?
Fights other places usually get into a "bigger balls" stage, here we go into a "bigger brains" stage. I'm proud of you guys! ;D
Quote from: some guy on July 07, 2010, 08:21:10 AM
My attitude, if it really needs to be reiterated, is that it's absurd for people in 2010 to continue to have the kind of problems they have with Schoenberg.
I really don't understand this 'absurdity' angle. It may be regrettable for Jack to fail to understand art of
any kind (including atonal music) - but why is it absurd? Of course, it would be absurd for Jack to claim that it's bad because he doesn't understand it and can't make any headway with it, but the not-understanding and the lack of headway aren't
absurd.
The time issue confuses things, I think. In another 500 years (if we're still around), some people will still be having 'problems' with Schoenberg ... and Rothko, and Duchamp etc. and it won't be any more or less absurd than it is now. Dammit, my father-in-law used to insist that Monet couldn't
paint properly (just like they said in 1874, though he didn't know that). It's just the way things are, in art. The issue keeps raising its head not because it's a 'hot topic', but because it's a perennial problem for people who are interested in the arts but have blind spots (basically, all of us here).
Wisdom there. The trick is learning humility w/r/t one's blindspots, rather than parading them as virtues.
Two moderators (husband and wife) are sitting in front of their computers.
The wife says "I could use a bowl of vanilla ice cream with chocolate and nuts on it."
The husband says, "Well we don't have any."
The wife says, "I want some vanilla ice cream with chocolate and nuts on it."
The husband says, "I said we don't have any."
The wife says "Well go get some, and write it down, vanilla ice cream with chocolate and nuts."
The husband says, "I don't need to write it down, vanilla ice cream with chocolate and nuts." and stomps out.
A half hour later he comes back and hands her a turkey sandwich.
She opens the sandwich and says, "I told you to write it down!! I wanted mustard on mine."
Quote from: Elgarian on July 07, 2010, 10:32:56 AMIt may be regrettable for Jack to fail to understand art of any kind (including atonal music) - but why is it absurd?
But I'm not saying that Jack's failure to understand art of any kind, including atonal music, is absurd.* I'm saying it's absurd that people interested in music, in what we call "classical music," are having
the kinds of problems they're having with music of a hundred years ago. That one of the signs of its absurdity is that no one in 1910 or 1810 or 1710 would have had
these kinds of problems. (In 1710, people weren't still wrangling about polyphony/monophony.)
*I don't mind what I've said being criticized, as you know. I don't mind changing my mind when I find that I was mistaken, either. (I'd rather be right than stubborn!!) But I do mind that Scarpia and even you are criticizing me for something I
haven't said. I'd rather expend energy defending my position, not restating it!
Plus, I want to know where James found that picture of my female relatives!! It's spot on, dude. Uncanny!!
Quote from: some guy on July 07, 2010, 12:18:19 PM
But I'm not saying that Jack's failure to understand art of any kind, including atonal music, is absurd.* I'm saying it's absurd that people interested in music, in what we call "classical music," are having the kinds of problems they're having with music of a hundred years ago. That one of the signs of its absurdity is that no one in 1910 or 1810 or 1710 would have had these kinds of problems. (In 1710, people weren't still wrangling about polyphony/monophony.)
This is actually not true. Beethoven's last piano sonatas were not well understood for many decades after his death. People WERE having problems with them even 100 years later. Since this is a fact, that means the whole basis of your argument is bunk.
ukrneal, would you say that having difficulties with beethoven's late piano sonatas in 1910, or thereabouts, was typical or exceptional?
Were people in 1910, or thereabouts, having trouble with the whole shift from "classical" to "romantic"? Were the ideas and practices of the nineteenth century that came from Beethoven being argued as if nothing else important had happened during that time or as if the last big thing to have happened was that shift? Was it commonplace to criticize Beethoven for having turned music away from its earlier purity; was it said that what he was doing was UNLISTENABLE? Were there heated debates as to whether Beethoven was a charlatan or a talented composer?
Or did concert-goers pretty much accept Beethoven's greatness and Beethoven's worth, even if a few individual pieces still perplexed a few listeners?
I suppose that whatever the answers are to these questions, there will always be those who look for any excuse to cover their inadequacies.
Let me be blunt. I do not like Chopin. And the meaning of that is that there's something lacking in me. Nothing wrong with Chopin. (I do, however, very much enjoy that Kodaly sonata for solo cello. Wow!! That is one sweet piece.) I also do not like Orff. There, I suspect that it's Orff that's at fault. But I would never argue that. I would probably lose. And win or lose, I can't see that expressing my dislike would improve anyone's life, except maybe for how I just did it! 8)
Quote from: some guy on July 07, 2010, 01:34:46 PM
ukrneal, would you say that having difficulties with beethoven's late piano sonatas in 1910, or thereabouts, was typical or exceptional?
I would say about 1 in 100 residents of the US would be willing to listen to a late Beethoven piano sonata today. For a Schoenberg pan-tonal work, it may be 1 in 10,000. I find nothing absurd in the notion that most of those 1 in 100 people who like Beethoven don't also like Schoenberg. There is no reason that they shouldn't, but there is no reason they should, either. Schoenberg created a radically different system for organizing tones and creating music, and there is no reason that people who love the Hammerklavier should find that new system of music interesting or enjoyable. Those 99 out of 10,000 people who love Beethoven but don't like Schoenberg don't spend their time renouncing Schoenberg (except a few on this board, apparently) they simply fail take any notice of Schoenberg. And to be frank, the implication that not liking Schoenberg is proof be being a closed-minded ignoramus puts me off his works. You are doing Schoenberg no service, and to be honest any interest I have felt recently to explore his works is gone.
Quote from: some guy on July 07, 2010, 08:21:10 AM
My attitude, if it really needs to be reiterated, is that it's absurd for people in 2010 to continue to have the kind of problems they have with Schoenberg. And to continue to talk as if tonality/atonality were still the hot topic of music...
And speaking of what things are about, here's what I'd like to see instead of the persistent obsession with tonality: an abiding interest in sound and a constant curiousity about what composers and musicians are doing now. There's an attitude for ya, and it's mine, and what it is, too.
There is a
WAR between atonal noise and tonal music. >:( It all started with the anti-Schoenberg backlash back in the dark days during the early part of the last century. Many felt Classical music was DOOMED because of the Second Viennese School, however brave composers rose up and began the slow movement away from the degeneracy of the serialism, 12 tone rows, violent atonal clusters and dark morbid non-musical sounds. The degeneracy of the avant-garde can also be heard in the lyrics to their vocal pieces and operas and seen on the covers of many of their albums. Schoenberg and his crowd are NOT classical composers but offensive invaders bent on destroying classical music completely. And the scary thing is they ALMOST succeeded. :o
Also one Page 1 I gave five music clips of MODERN tonal music works, one written in 2000. Yes it is important what REAL what composers and musicians are doing now as atonal music finally is on it's death bed and modern tonal composers are winning the war with real music. :)
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 07, 2010, 08:40:23 AM
Unfortunately, not many listeners care what composers are doing now.
... There's a lot of terrible modern music out there (i. e. Jennifer Higdon) that I would never listen to not because I have something against it, but because it doesn't move me. If all one does is listen to music like its some kind of scientific experiment then I think they have a poor understanding of music. Music of any merit is an emotional experience. The intellectual side of music comes later. One has to be moved first.
I care a great deal about what is being composed now, and seek out excellent tonal compositions, the internet helps a lot with this endeavor. :) I just wanted to say Jennifer Higdon is on of my favorite modern tonal composers. :) Have you heard her Blue Cathedral, City Scape or Concerto for Orchestra? I do a agree the emotional experience of music is prime! :)
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
We have a few people on this board, Saul, Teresa, James, who are incapable of grasping the idea that something they don't like has value.
This may help to clarify:
- There are composers one loves, likes and do not like
- There are composers one believes are great, good, poor and bad composers
- There are composers who noise is so corrupting that their presence must be opposed to the dying breath of all who love music.
Some people think Nos, 1 and 2 are the same they are not and I will give an example. I do not like the music of
Schubert or
Schumann however I believe they are excellent composers and as you say have value, just not my style. There are composers that I think are bad composers, I even like a few bad composers myself, so even bad composers have value.
However music such as the Second Viennese School is so awful, vile and corrupting that it has no value and I would argue NO ONE listens to this music for enjoyment but for some intellectual exercise.
Quote from: some guy on July 07, 2010, 12:18:19 PM
I'm saying it's absurd that people interested in music, in what we call "classical music," are having the kinds of problems they're having with music of a hundred years ago.
It really is quite simple atonal noise is not considered classical music by many but a failed deviant experiment pushed as being itellectual by the Second Viennese School and their followers. I will point out these same people have no problem with tonal classical music written in the last 100 years, or tonal music being written today!
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 02:12:59 PM
There is a WAR between atonal noise and tonal music. >:(
Let the honking begin!
(http://www.elmosplayground.com/friends/honkers.jpg)
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 02:12:59 PM
However music such as the Second Viennese School is so awful, vile and corrupting that it has no value and I would argue NO ONE listens to this music for enjoyment but for some intellectual exercise.
My god, you are stupid.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 02:12:59 PM
However music such as the Second Viennese School is so awful, vile and corrupting that it has no value and I would argue NO ONE listens to this music for enjoyment but for some intellectual exercise.
Makes about as much sense as saying people who listen to and love Wagner's music are all anti-semitic.
Quote from: some guy on July 07, 2010, 12:18:19 PM
But I do mind that Scarpia and even you are criticizing me for something I haven't said. I'd rather expend energy defending my position, not restating it!
Don't be upset. I'm not criticising you at all, but struggling to understand. The problem is that we're having a difficult conversation in an area where you know a great deal and I (although interested in the general business of art reception) know little. And although I'd be just as frustrated as you if I had to keep saying the same thing over and over again, I need to report that I still don't understand what you mean about 'these kinds of problems'. What's the difference between my failure to enjoy almost all atonal music, and my failure to enjoy, let's say, very early sacred music, which (I'm horrified to have to expose my philistinism like this) 'all sounds the same', to me? Those two incomprehensions don't feel much different when I experience them. They just wear me out after a short time, and make me long for something more approachable.
I don't know enough about the history of music reception to come up with a helpful analogy for the comparisons you're making, but I do know that there are people today who have 'problems' with, for instance, the art of the Pre-Raphaelites. I knew one very competent figurative painter who insisted that they were dreadfully bad painters; that they didn't understand the first thing about painting; that they didn't understand the essential character of paint. Now you'd think, after 150 years, that kind of controversy couldn't possibly still be current, but it was, and is. It sounds absurd - but actually, once I'd finished talking with him, and understood what he meant about the character of paint and its importance, it wasn't absurd at all. Seen from within that framework, it was a sensible and even interesting criticism to make, even if one didn't agree with it.
I think you're likely to say 'but that's not what I mean at all' - and if so, I sincerely apologise; but I'm struggling here to understand the difference.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 07, 2010, 03:12:04 PM
Don't be upset. I'm not criticising you at all, but struggling to understand. The problem is that we're having a difficult conversation in an area where you know a great deal and I (although interested in the general business of art reception) know little. And although I'd be just as frustrated as you if I had to keep saying the same thing over and over again, I need to report that I still don't understand what you mean about 'these kinds of problems'. What's the difference between my failure to enjoy almost all atonal music, and my failure to enjoy, let's say, very early sacred music, which (I'm horrified to have to expose my philistinism like this) 'all sounds the same', to me? Those two incomprehensions don't feel much different when I experience them. They just wear me out after a short time, and make me long for something more approachable.
I don't know enough about the history of music reception to come up with a helpful analogy for the comparisons you're making, but I do know that there are people today who have 'problems' with, for instance, the art of the Pre-Raphaelites. I knew one very competent figurative painter who insisted that they were dreadfully bad painters; that they didn't understand the first thing about painting; that they didn't understand the essential character of paint. Now you'd think, after 150 years, that kind of controversy couldn't possibly still be current, but it was, and is. It sounds absurd - but actually, once I'd finished talking with him, and understood what he meant about the character of paint and its importance, it wasn't absurd at all. Seen from within that framework, it was a sensible and even interesting criticism to make, even if one didn't agree with it.
I think you're likely to say 'but that's not what I mean at all' - and if so, I sincerely apologise; but I'm struggling here to understand the difference.
My guess- some guy means to say that "liking" something and "having problems" with something are too different things.
You don't
have to like atonal music, obviously. Maybe he means that "having problems" with it is like being shocked by it or something? And in that sense, it really is kind of strange. Atonal music is a century old. No one should be shocked by it (though if they are, it's not their fault- people just aren't exposed enough to it).
Quote from: Greg on July 07, 2010, 03:18:51 PMYou don't have to like atonal music, obviously. Maybe he means that "having problems" with it is like being shocked by it or something? And in that sense, it really is kind of strange. Atonal music is a century old. No one should be shocked by it (though if they are, it's not their fault- people just aren't exposed enough to it).
How many people are actually "shocked" by it? On this board which lists more than 800 members, I see two people expressing shock or overt rejection. Is that really a problem?
Yeah, going so far to call anything that doesn't fall into the category of common-practice tonality "degenerate" (or indeed, calling any music, be it punk rock, hip-hop, etc. "degenerate") causes me to question the state of the speaker's mental well-being.
Quote from: Greg on July 07, 2010, 02:56:10 PM
My god, you are stupid.
Quote from: Corey on July 07, 2010, 03:13:46 PM
QFT
Name calling and bad behavior will not help your cause. Nor will it magically turn atonal non-music into real classical music. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY, it didn't last century, it does not this century and it will not next century.
The atonal avant-garde Second Viennese School pulled a scam and have been revealed for all to
HEAR. Modern tonal classical composers totally reject their nonsense.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 02:12:59 PM
There is a WAR between atonal noise and tonal music.
May I make a suggestion? You're responding in your post to a chap (some guy) who
adores the music that you're dismissing as degenerate trash. He listens to it not to impress anyone, not to make a point, but because he loves it. You have a great opportunity here, to listen to what he says and understand what it is that attracts him to the music you hate. He's one of the most fascinating posters I know on this forum, even though my musical tastes are widely different from his. He knows something about that music that you can never know as long as you're overwhelmed by your hate campaign. You don't even have to learn to enjoy the music yourself. All that's needed is to try, just a little, to understand someone else's point of view instead of allowing your own prejudice to run rampant.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 07, 2010, 03:27:08 PM
May I make a suggestion? You're responding in your post to a chap (some guy) who adores the music that you're dismissing as degenerate trash. He listens to it not to impress anyone, not to make a point, but because he loves it. You have a great opportunity here, to listen to what he says and understand what it is that attracts him to the music you hate. He's one of the most fascinating posters I know on this forum, even though my musical tastes are widely different from his. He knows something about that music that you can never know as long as you're overwhelmed by your hate campaign. You don't even have to learn to enjoy the music yourself. All that's needed is to try, just a little, to understand someone else's point of view instead of allowing your own prejudice to run rampant.
Elgarian, that is truly one excellent post.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 07, 2010, 03:27:08 PM
May I make a suggestion? You're responding in your post to a chap (some guy) who adores the music that you're dismissing as degenerate trash. He listens to it not to impress anyone, not to make a point, but because he loves it. You have a great opportunity here, to listen to what he says and understand what it is that attracts him to the music you hate. He's one of the most fascinating posters I know on this forum, even though my musical tastes are widely different from his. He knows something about that music that you can never know as long as you're overwhelmed by your hate campaign. You don't even have to learn to enjoy the music yourself. All that's needed is to try, just a little, to understand someone else's point of view instead of allowing your own prejudice to run rampant.
[Waiting for response (cricket heard in background)]
Quote from: Corey on July 07, 2010, 03:22:31 PM
Yeah, going so far to call anything that doesn't fall into the category of common-practice tonality "degenerate" (or indeed, calling any music, be it punk rock, hip-hop, etc. "degenerate") causes me to question the state of the speaker's mental well-being.
How you read the "sick" lyrics of vocal pieces and operas of Schoenberg and his followers? Have you looked at the depraved photos on their album covers? Have you heard violent descriptions of murder, torture, rape and other anti-social crimes in the music of not only the avant-garde but also Rap?
Yes some music is so depraved it should not exist in a civilized society.
Ha. Right.
Ignored.
Quote from: Brahmsian on July 07, 2010, 03:30:25 PM
Elgarian, that is truly one excellent post.
Indeed it is, especially in addressing a person who is always ready to shout out her contention that everything is a matter of opinion, and greatness is simply a matter of whatever any individual may like, but who proves when confronted that she really believes opinions are valid solely when they support her own.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 07, 2010, 03:27:08 PM
May I make a suggestion? You're responding in your post to a chap (some guy) who adores the music that you're dismissing as degenerate trash.
Sorry I do not believe this :o , history is on the side of those who like music. :) Music destroyers such as Schoenberg shall NEVER be forgiven for their crimes against music. This has NOTHING to do with like and dislike but evil intent by the Second Viennese School.
Elbow-pads & helmet in Aisle 10, Earl!
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:37:06 PM
This has NOTHING to do with like and dislike but evil intent by the Second Viennese School.
No, Teresa. The only evil here is the bile you are spewing.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:37:06 PM
Sorry I do not believe this :o , history is on the side of those who like music. :) Music destroyers such as Schoenberg shall NEVER be forgiven for their crimes against music. This has NOTHING to do with like and dislike but evil intent by the Second Viennese School.
Are you posting from inside an asylum for the criminally insane?
Quote from: Sforzando on July 07, 2010, 03:34:19 PM
Indeed it is, especially in addressing a person who is always ready to shout out her contention that everything is a matter of opinion, and greatness is simply a matter of whatever any individual may like, but who proves when confronted that she really believes opinions are valid solely when they support her own.
I agree which composers one likes and dislikes or composers one things are great or poor is personal opinion.
However this is different, the Second Viennese School is an
ATTACK ON THE VERY FABRIC OF CLASSICAL MUSIC ITSELF, THIS IS ANTI-CLASSICAL AND VILE BY IT'S VERY EXISTANCE. Anyone who claims to love music should fight this attack, as hundreds of modern classical composers have done.
History is on the side of those who love music. :)
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 02:12:59 PMI just wanted to say Jennifer Higdon is on of my favorite modern tonal composers. :) Have you heard her Blue Cathedral, City Scape or Concerto for Orchestra?
I hate to disappoint you, Teresa, but as much as I like modern tonal composers (Avner Dorman, Robert Aldridge, Timothy Kramer etc.), I have heard Jennifer Higdon's "blue cathedral" live, twice actually, and thought it terribly boring. It sounded like an attempt at Hollywood easy listening with some gimmicks, like the little bell thingies, to cover up the lack of ideas. So I'm siding with Mirror Image here.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:37:06 PM
Sorry I do not believe this :o , history is on the side of those who like music.
Let's get this clear, Teresa. Some guy doesn't just
like this music. He adores it. It enormously enriches his life. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. It's simply true.
Your hate is closing you off not merely from certain types of music (which doesn't really matter much, perhaps), but far more importantly, from understanding your fellow human beings.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:26:05 PM
Name calling and bad behavior will not help your cause. Nor will it magically turn atonal non-music into real classical music. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY, it didn't last century, it does not this century and it will not next century.
The atonal avant-garde Second Viennese School pulled a scam and have been revealed for all to HEAR. Modern tonal classical composers totally reject their nonsense.
Um, atonal music by a classical composer is already classical music.
You are just plain stupid because you can't believe that someone genuinely likes something that you don't like. Most people can believe a simple concept like this after the age of... what, 6?
If someone tells me they enjoy some horrible pop song that makes my ears bleed, what reason would they have to lie to me? Are they just trying to be popular by liking a pop song? Sure, it might be hard to believe, but people are different. Not grasping a simple concept like this makes it a fact that you're an idiot (even though I really hate to say that to anyone).
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:42:45 PM
I agree which composers one likes and dislikes or composers one things are great or poor is personal opinion.
However this is different, the Second Viennese School is an ATTACK ON THE VERY FABRIC OF CLASSICAL MUSIC ITSELF, THIS IS ANTI-CLASSICAL AND VILE BY IT'S VERY EXISTANCE. Anyone who claims to love music should fight this attack, as hundreds of modern classical composers have done.
History is on the side of those who love music. :)
Explain how writing one sort of music is an "attack" on another sort of music. When I eat oat flakes, that is an attack on rolled oats?
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 03:40:23 PM
Are you posting from inside an asylum for the criminally insane?
No, I am only standing up for classical music, and reject that which opposed and wished to destroy music. I have posted on page one some YouTubes of modern tonal classical composers, perhaps you should listen to them? :)
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:42:45 PM
I agree which composers one likes and dislikes or composers one things are great or poor is personal opinion.
However this is different, the Second Viennese School is an ATTACK ON THE VERY FABRIC OF CLASSICAL MUSIC ITSELF, THIS IS ANTI-CLASSICAL AND VILE BY IT'S VERY EXISTANCE. Anyone who claims to love music should fight this attack, as hundreds of modern classical composers have done.
History is on the side of those who love music. :)
Well, I practiced some Brahms yesterday; but I think I'm gonna go embrace The Dark Side now and do some Schoenberg! Oh, and some Varèse for good measure! "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile" >:D ;D
Quote from: Brahmsian on July 07, 2010, 03:40:05 PM
No, Teresa. The only evil here is the bile you are spewing.
No it is the atonal avant-garde who are evil, I am defending music to the best of my ability!!!!!!!! ??? ::) :o
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 03:45:18 PM
When I eat oat flakes, that is an attack on rolled oats?
:D LOL!
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 03:45:18 PM
When I eat oat flakes, that is an attack on rolled oats?
I believe it's called cerealism. :P
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 03:45:18 PM
When I eat oat flakes, that is an attack on rolled oats?
If I were an oat flake, I suppose I might see it like that.... ???
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:47:40 PM
No it is the atonal avant-garde who are evil, I am defending music to the best of my ability!!!!!!!! ??? ::) :o
The atonal music is music, so you aren't defending music. You are a bundle of prejudice and hatred.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 03:45:18 PM
Explain how writing one sort of music is an "attack" on another sort of music. When I eat oat flakes, that is an attack on rolled oats?
When you eat Frankenberry, it is an attack on Cap'n Crunch. I've seen it on YouTube!
Quote from: Elgarian on July 07, 2010, 03:51:06 PM
If I were an oat flake, I suppose I might see it like that.... ???
What if you were a fruit-loop, that's the issue?
Oh, Elgarian, even your calming, velvety voice has failed to bring our Teresa down, you who talked me into liking Elgar. What hope is there?
Fruit loop, cuckoo puff, they're all unstable!
Quote from: Greg on July 07, 2010, 03:44:51 PM
Um, atonal music by a classical composer is already classical music.
Actually it is not, it is a deviation from classical music. And it is now being rejected by most good modern composers. History will not be kind to it.
QuoteYou are just plain stupid because you can't believe that someone genuinely likes something that you don't like. Most people can believe a simple concept like this after the age of... what, 6?
Wrong I don't like Schubert or Schumann but I believe many people LOVE them and I also believe they are excellent composers, they are just not to my liking.
However the
atonal assault is different. It is not music, it is anti-music. Thus needs to be shown in the true light of day for the subversion it is.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:57:32 PM
However the atonal assault is different. It is not music, it is anti-music. Thus needs to be shown in the true light of day for the subversion it is.
You don't know what music is. You don't know what light is. You probably don't know what day it is.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2010, 03:58:52 PM
You don't know what music is. You don't know what light is. You probably don't know what day it is.
Depends on whether they have her in a cell with a window or not.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:57:32 PM
However the atonal assault is different. It is not music, it is anti-music. Thus needs to be shown in the true light of day for the subversion it is.
Then define music.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 03:54:26 PM
Oh, Elgarian, even your calming, velvety voice has failed to bring our Teresa down, you who talked me into liking Elgar. What hope is there?
Not so calming for some, it seems. You should see the PM that James just sent me!
James knows no repose.
This for me, is the Face of Teresa:
(http://i.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050321/151820__banana_l.jpg)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2010, 03:58:52 PM
You don't know what music is. You don't know what light is. You probably don't know what day it is.
You think you are FUNNY? Well I am not laughing. If you understand the anti-Schoenberg movement at all you KNOW everything I have said is correct. :)
Quote from: Greg on July 07, 2010, 04:00:40 PM
Then define music.
music |ˈmyoōzik|
noun
1 the art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce
beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion : he devoted his life to music.
• the vocal or instrumental sound produced in this way : couples were dancing to the music | baroque music.
• a
sound perceived as pleasingly harmonious : the background music of softly lapping water.
2 the written or printed signs representing such sound : Tony learned to read music.
• the score or scores of a musical composition or compositions : the music was open on a stand.
-------------------------------------------------
As you can clearly see atonal noise is NOT music. :)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2010, 04:03:47 PM
No, quite in earnest.
Frightening. She would be another Stalin, if she ever had any power over anything.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 07, 2010, 04:01:27 PM
Not so calming for some, it seems. You should see the PM that James just sent me!
Put him on your "ignore" list, then he can't send you PMs. Works for me.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:45:50 PM
No, I am only standing up for classical music, and reject that which opposed and wished to destroy music. I have posted on page one some YouTubes of modern tonal classical composers, perhaps you should listen to them? :)
As a fan of tonal music and the romantics, I decided to give those videos a listen.
Michael Daugherty: So far I've only liked one Daugherty composition, "Raise the Roof." The others of his that I've heard, including "Metropolis Symphony," "Fire and Blood," and "Motor City Triptych," demonstrate brilliance in coloristic effects and clever bits of jazz (especially the trombone-trio movement of "Motor City"). But they also all - even "Raise the Roof" - suffer from being just plain too long. I think all of them could be halved and there'd be no harm done. Daugherty writes basically without structure and without motivic development, so this is especially true.
"Niagara Falls" is a good example. He starts with a good idea, then sort of wanders from one to another with no order and no real connection to the subject. Grofe's "Niagara Falls" at least had wall-to-wall bass drums to depict the water itself. I also think Daugherty uses a lot of unnecessary percussion instruments. After about three minutes, I got bored, but I listened to the whole thing. The ending is fun!
Johan de Meij: Okay, I really like this! It's like somebody decided to write a Richard Strauss/Wagner symphony. It's a little episodic, suggesting a movie rather than a symphony, and de Meij, like Daugherty, fails to understand that the less you use percussion the more effective it is. But hey, this is fun and makes me smile! The cellos don't sound too good on this recording, so I was surprised to see it is the LSO and not some pickup ensemble. This would be a great piece at children's concerts, because it's very dramatic and immediately attractive. I felt like the ending came to soon, which is a good thing. Heady stuff.
Giancarlo Menotti: Dinner time. I'll listen to the rest later.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:32:12 PM
How you read the "sick" lyrics of vocal pieces and operas of Schoenberg and his followers? Have you looked at the depraved photos on their album covers? Have you heard violent descriptions of murder, torture, rape and other anti-social crimes in the music of not only the avant-garde but also Rap?
Yes some music is so depraved it should not exist in a civilized society.
Do you advocate an official ban on those depraved types of music?
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 04:06:36 PM
music |ˈmyoōzik|
noun
1 the art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion : he devoted his life to music.
• the vocal or instrumental sound produced in this way : couples were dancing to the music | baroque music.
• a sound perceived as pleasingly harmonious : the background music of softly lapping water.
2 the written or printed signs representing such sound : Tony learned to read music.
• the score or scores of a musical composition or compositions : the music was open on a stand.
-------------------------------------------------
As you can clearly see atonal noise is NOT music. :)
Au contraire. Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Boulez & Wuorinen write music which many of us perceive as pleasingly harmonious. You, Teresa, are talking balderdash, as usual. Aren't you ashamed before Him Who is the Truth?
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 04:06:36 PM
music |ˈmyoōzik|
noun
1 the art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion : he devoted his life to music.
• the vocal or instrumental sound produced in this way : couples were dancing to the music | baroque music.
• a sound perceived as pleasingly harmonious : the background music of softly lapping water.
2 the written or printed signs representing such sound : Tony learned to read music.
• the score or scores of a musical composition or compositions : the music was open on a stand.
-------------------------------------------------
As you can clearly see atonal noise is NOT music. :)
Actually the piece by Alban Berg I am listening to complies with the first definition perfectly.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 04:07:31 PM
Frightening. She would be another Stalin, if she ever had any power over anything.
Wonder if she sat on the PMRC?
Teresa,
With all due respect for you, I think that you're taking this whole thing out of proportion. There is no need for radicalism in art.
People will listen to whatever they choose no matter what you , I or anyone else will say. Playing a hero and grabbing a revolutionary sword and trying to fix all the problems and the deterioration of art, any art, would sound much better if you actually had some power to change it. Empty idealistic talk like this, only empowers those who want to belittle you, and it plays into their hands, and that's just too bad.
Yes, art in general went downhill as time went by, just look at all the rubbish that exists today, Britney Spears and Lady Gaga, Pink, Beyonce, rap, hip hop and all the negative streams within pop culture and art, are all unfortunate examples of art made bad.
But those serious musicians who still want to stick to classical music, and truly love it with their hearts, shouldn't be criticized for 'listening to degenerate art'. If it makes them happy, and they truly love it, you can't talk them out of it. You know if someone loves junk food, you're never going to change their mind about this. It makes his day when he munches on some potatoes or corn chips, may not be that nutritious, it may not be Gourmet
food, but its still food, for him that is.
Therefore I think that you need to drop this assault, trust me it makes you look bad, you waste energy for a lost cause that even if you'll be Beethoven still you will never alter its course.
You and I have every right to dislike certain composers' music, and voice our opinions on other composers who are way more superior, but to call the music of Schoenberg and Webern 'degenerate' is categorically wrong.
Think about it this way, there are many types of music all around the world, not only classical western music. Much of it is tribal, cultural music, which is not written, or formally composed, these types of music, have many followers who listen to it, and it has been a part of their lives since childhood.
No one would suggest to attack their music and call it 'degenerate'.. the hard cold truth is that whatever may be degenerate for you, can be beautiful and worthwhile for others.
Why then should we care if certain composers wanted to write their music with more freedom and with more flexibility from the traditions of western classical music?
Remember, music is not a religion, there is no heresy here, and we should even somewhat give praise that even though these composers introduced extreme radical changes in traditional classical music, at least, they appreciated the greats, and somewhat formulated and constructed their music with formality and wrote it down on paper as the greats did. At least we should give them kudos for that.
Best Wishes,
Your Friend,
Saul
Quote from: Franco on July 07, 2010, 04:10:00 PM
Actually the piece by Alban Berg I am listening to complies with the first definition perfectly.
QFT
I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the text under my avatar. :)
Quote from: Bulldog on July 07, 2010, 04:08:53 PM
Do you advocate an official ban on those depraved types of music?
Yes but sadly that may not be possible. In that case "warning stickers" would be acceptable.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 04:07:31 PM
Frightening. She would be another Stalin, if she ever had any power over anything.
Quite right. She is full of anger when she perceives
her freedoms being constrained, but all too willing to constrain the freedoms of others.
Funny how that always seems to work that way . . .
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 04:08:24 PM
Put him on your "ignore" list, then he can't send you PMs. Works for me.
Just done it, thanks. Sad though. Never felt the need to 'ignore' anyone till now.
Perhaps cerealism was a failed attempt to create anti-music, a form of conceptual art. I'm not sure that there's much of a distinction between conceptual anti-Art Art and Art. Once you allow concepts about what Art is to become central to the Art ItSelf you end up with paradoxes. I'm sort of old-fashioned and prefer art that doesn't display too much self-entanglement. There are better reasons to listen to music than to ponder whether it really "is" music or not. I can see the attraction, though, in a haughtily disapproving way. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: Corey on July 07, 2010, 04:11:42 PM
I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the text under my avatar. :)
I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the fact that Saul D. made a great, wonderful post that I want to stand up and applaud.
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2010, 04:21:38 PM
I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the fact that Saul D. made a great, wonderful post that I want to stand up and applaud.
Quite so, but did he mean it, I wonder? ::)
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 04:12:42 PM
Yes but sadly that may not be possible. In that case "warning stickers" would be acceptable.
You just might be the "Tipper Gore" of the 21st Century.
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2010, 04:21:38 PM
I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the fact that Saul D. made a great, wonderful post that I want to stand up and applaud.
Agreed — a nice departure from his usual baiting and challoping (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=challop).
Quote from: Elgarian on July 07, 2010, 03:27:08 PM
May I make a suggestion? You're responding in your post to a chap (some guy) who adores the music that you're dismissing as degenerate trash. He listens to it not to impress anyone, not to make a point, but because he loves it. You have a great opportunity here, to listen to what he says and understand what it is that attracts him to the music you hate. He's one of the most fascinating posters I know on this forum, even though my musical tastes are widely different from his. He knows something about that music that you can never know as long as you're overwhelmed by your hate campaign. You don't even have to learn to enjoy the music yourself. All that's needed is to try, just a little, to understand someone else's point of view instead of allowing your own prejudice to run rampant.
Excellent post, full of wisdom which the addressee will evade, in favor of her shrill rage. Pity, really. But the neighborly attempt at outreach best becomes you.
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2010, 04:21:38 PM
I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the fact that Saul D. made a great, wonderful post that I want to stand up and applaud.
Thank you Brain and everyone else, yes I did mean it.
Cheers,
Saul
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2010, 04:21:38 PM
I'd just like at this moment to draw attention to the fact that Saul D. made a great, wonderful post that I want to stand up and applaud.
Where?
Quote from: Brahmsian on July 07, 2010, 03:50:18 PM
I believe it's called cerealism. :P
Look out for all those cereal killers out there.
Quote from: Saul on July 07, 2010, 04:38:23 PM
Number 7
Number 7 on this thread is one of my posts.
Boy, ya go to the store to buy an item or two and look what goes on in the meantime!!
Anyway, I've just gone through the fun you kids have been having since I was last at my computer, and I must say that Elgarian's comments have really warmed my heart. As have all the warming kudos for him, for that matter. Anyway, thanks Alan. You have presented my position quite accurately!
Teresa has gotten a lot of people to say a lot of really nice things!!
But I digress, Elgarian asked a question, and I need to give an answer. There ARE rules, you know.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 07, 2010, 03:12:04 PMWhat's the difference between my failure to enjoy almost all atonal music, and my failure to enjoy, let's say, very early sacred music, which (I'm horrified to have to expose my philistinism like this) 'all sounds the same', to me?
Probably nothing, to you. But you're talking here about your experience, only. What happens with Schoenberg (or whichever other composer is being demonized) is that it's a social phenomenon. It's large numbers of people who are stuck in the cliches of several decades ago. Teresa's responses are extreme, but they're not otherwise atypical.
And it's translating those dislikes into something else. You don't ever do that. You don't ever present "It all sounds the same to me" into "It all sounds the same" and certainly not into "It sounds terrible, and people who report as liking it are lying."
Quote from: Elgarian on July 07, 2010, 03:12:04 PMI do know that there are people today who have 'problems' with, for instance, the art of the Pre-Raphaelites. I knew one very competent figurative painter who insisted that they were dreadfully bad painters; that they didn't understand the first thing about painting; that they didn't understand the essential character of paint. Now you'd think, after 150 years, that kind of controversy couldn't possibly still be current, but it was, and is.
One competent figurative painter does not a current controversy make. There are people (check out the Grosse Fuge thread over on TalkClassical) who say some of the same things about that piece as people say about pantonality and serialism.
And I'd say that that's absurd.
And, of course, it may simply be that you and I find different things to be absurd. There may have been some excuse in 1920 for Schoenberg bashing. In 1930, even. By 1940, though, it's starting to seem a little threadbare. 1950, whole chunks of cloth simply vanished away. Not because there's anything magical about those dates. Just, on the one hand, a general comment about the passage of time. On the other hand, a specific observation about all the different music and the different ideas that arose after Schoenberg was done.
And and, of course of course, maybe I'm just being impatient. But 2010 is so far from 1950, and so full of interesting and various other things that have had nothing to do with either serialism or with neo-tonality, that maybe (I'm guessing yes) my impatience is justified.
Thanks again, Alan, for all your kind words!!
[/quote]
Quote from: Sforzando on July 07, 2010, 04:59:01 PM
Number 7 on this thread is one of my posts.
Quite right, actually Saul's post is on Page 7 Reply #137
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 05:05:17 PM
Quite right, actually Saul's post is on Page 7 Reply #137
I see. But while Saul is naturally all too happy to take a bow, I cannot praise this post quite as highly. Saul's main point is to tell Teresa not to bother trying to change people's minds. However, if you look at the metaphor he chooses, it's obvious he considers Schoenberg and Co. the musical equivalent of junk food. And that judgmental attitude is what some of you are standing up and applauding.
QuoteBut those serious musicians who still want to stick to classical music, and truly love it with their hearts, shouldn't be criticized for 'listening to degenerate art'. If it makes them happy, and they truly love it, you can't talk them out of it. You know if someone loves junk food, you're never going to change their mind about this. It makes his day when he munches on some potatoes or corn chips, may not be that notorious [I think "nutritious" is meant], it may not be Gourmet food, but its still food, for him that is.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 07, 2010, 05:12:02 PM
I see. But while Saul is naturally all too happy to take a bow, I cannot praise this post quite as highly. Saul's main point is to tell Teresa not to bother trying to change people's minds. However, if you look at the metaphor he chooses, it's obvious he considers Schoenberg and Co. the musical equivalent of junk food. And that judgmental attitude is what some of you are standing up and applauding.
It was an example not meant to insinuate, but to suggest, and I didn't take any bow. I stated what I felt to be true, that's all no strings attached and no cynicism.
I wonder how much "atonal" (or pan-tonal) music people like Teresa have actually heard? Not much, judging from comments like this. A 5 minute clip on youtube is not good enough. Go to the nearest library & borrow a Schoenberg disc, or buy one cheaply on Naxos. Listen to it all a few times, let it sink in, then make up your mind. He also made some excellent arrangements of the music of Handel, Brahms and J. Strauss which might be a first step to those who are new to his music. He was a composer of many facets. Often, we focus on his post-1908 "atonal" output, but he had composed in some other more traditional styles about 20 years before that.
Another thing that many people don't realise is that Schoenberg was a huge fan of the three B's (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms) as well as others in the Austro-German tradition like Haydn & Mozart. He actually thought that the chromaticism of people like Wagner & R. Strauss had departed too far from these classical models. With pantonality, he wanted to restore the balance. Often, unlike those composers, Schoenberg develops a single theme (or fragmentary one) right throughout a single work. This is closer to what the traditionalists were doing, rather than the late Romantics.
Schoenberg was not the only one to make these conclusions and depart from tonality. The American Charles Ives and Russians Nikolai Roslavets and Alexander Scriabin were developing similar ideas in their respective spheres. If you rubbish Schoenberg, then you are doing the same to these guys, not to speak of later composers who used pantonality as a springboard, like Carter, Lutoslawski, Frank Martin, Stravinsky, etc. & there were those who equally validly rejected it, like Varese, Feldman, Glass, etc. If you don't understand Schoenberg then you are coming to C20th music with a HUGE handicap...
Quote from: Sforzando on July 07, 2010, 05:12:02 PM
I see. But while Saul is naturally all too happy to take a bow, I cannot praise this post quite as highly. Saul's main point is to tell Teresa not to bother trying to change people's minds. However, if you look at the metaphor he chooses, it's obvious he considers Schoenberg and Co. the musical equivalent of junk food. And that judgmental attitude is what some of you are standing up and applauding.
I would have done the same thing. I don't know why Saul chose the junk food analogy, but I like it because a rhetorician has to understand his target audience. This is a cynical point of view, yes, but Saul's target audience was Teresa, and the junk food analogy is presumably an effective one for her. He was trying to get his point across to somebody who has a hard time letting points cross into her consciousness, so he chose an analogy that would make her sympathetic to his attempt to persuade her.
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2010, 06:23:41 PM
I would have done the same thing.
Actually that's not true. I would have said some people eat soup and some people eat stew, and stew is not a defamation of soup.
It's WAR between stew & soup!
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2010, 06:23:41 PM
I would have done the same thing. I don't know why Saul chose the junk food analogy, but I like it because a rhetorician has to understand his target audience. This is a cynical point of view, yes, but Saul's target audience was Teresa, and the junk food analogy is presumably an effective one for her. He was trying to get his point across to somebody who has a hard time letting points cross into her consciousness, so he chose an analogy that would make her sympathetic to his attempt to persuade her.
His target audience, Brian, is not only Teresa but the entire readership of this forum. Or said otherwise, it is not unusual in rhetoric to directly address one individual while indirectly speaking to any number of others who are also listening in. And having made that choice of words (where he could have created a metaphor that was less pejorative), he bears responsibility for them.
And though I grant that at times Saul sounds conciliatory --
QuoteNo one would suggest to attack their music and call it 'degenerate'.. the hard cold truth is that whatever may be degenerate for you, can be beautiful and worthwhile for others.
- there is still no question that he considers this music, which many here respond to with great enthusiasm, to be inferior stuff:
QuoteYou and I have every right to dislike certain composers' music, and voice our opinions on other composers who are way more superior.
Junk food, that is.
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2010, 06:32:48 PM
Actually that's not true. I would have said some people eat soup and some people eat stew, and stew is not a defamation of soup.
Then you see precisely what I was aiming at when I was writing my last message. To use a soup or stew metaphor is to keep the comparison neutral. To use a comparison between gourmet food and potato chips is to make the comparison immediately judgmental.
Quote from: Sid on July 07, 2010, 06:14:38 PM
I wonder how much "atonal" (or pan-tonal) music people like Teresa have actually heard? Not much, judging from comments like this. A 5 minute clip on youtube is not good enough.
I have owned over 10 Schoenberg compositions on LP. And I have owned or borrowed from the library compositions by several dozen atonal composers. But in the old days (before computers) I bought blindly as Tulsa had no classical music station. I soon learned to avoid LPs with ugly artwork as it meant the music was ugly as well. :) Now I have the internet and streaming audio to help me avoid ugly atonal music. The internet is a great tool.
The ONLY Mercury Living Presence recording I do not like:
(http://www.iclassics.com/images/local/300/895E.jpg)
Note it has Berg's Lulu Suite with the awful screams of the high soprano as she is being raped (in the story-line). :o >:(
QuoteHe also made some excellent arrangements of the music of Handel, Brahms and J. Strauss which might be a first step to those who are new to his music.
I have heard Schoenberg's chamber arrangements of Johann Strauss Jr. Waltzes and Polkas and the originals are much, much better! :)
QuoteHe was a composer of many facets. Often, we focus on his post-1908 "atonal" output, but he had composed in some other more traditional styles about 20 years before that.
I know I used to own Verklärte Nacht on LP, I found it incredibly boring.
I just wish, that instead of impotently judging & theorising, people would go out and actually grab a cheap but good quality recording of the music they hate. I know it sounds a bit absurd, but it's a good thing to challenge one's perceptions. That's the way we learn new things that are good, and unlearn old things that are bad. People should get out of the musical ghettos and backwaters that they have created for themselves and get on the high road (eg. those composers Teresa posted youtube clips of are no way near as significant as Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, or other greats like Hindemith, Hartmann, Eisler, Weill - just to mention some other Austro-Germans of the century which she would probably equally despise for being too radical). Go to some concerts of contemporary classical music & see this great stuff done live, that might change your misguided views of what music should (or should not) be. But maybe I'm just throwing pearls to swine? Some people will remain highly inflexible and never learn. Is ignorance bliss?
Well, Teresa, you say you only dislike one of the LP's, what about the others? & do you expect art to only be about the nice things in life? But look at Puccini's operas - they have just as much sordid things going on as say Berg's (& Puccini likes to beef things up, eg. he made the servant girl kill herself in Turandot, when it was not in the original story). What do you say to that?
Quote from: Greg on July 07, 2010, 02:56:10 PM
My god, you are stupid.
Lol...you're starting to sound like James! I love it! :D
Quote from: Sid on July 07, 2010, 06:44:53 PM
I just wish, that instead of impotently judging & theorising, people would go out and actually grab a cheap but good quality recording of the music they hate. I know it sounds a bit absurd, but it's a good thing to challenge one's perceptions. That's the way we learn new things that are good, and unlearn old things that are bad. People should get out of the musical ghettos and backwaters that they have created for themselves and get on the high road (eg. those composers Teresa posted youtube clips of are no way near as significant as Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, or other greats like Hindemith, Hartmann, Eisler, Weill - just to mention some other Austro-Germans of the century which she would probably equally despise for being too radical). Go to some concerts of contemporary classical music & see this great stuff done live, that might change your misguided views of what music should (or should not) be. But maybe I'm just throwing pearls to swine? Some people will remain highly inflexible and never learn. Is ignorance bliss?
I absolutely hated not only all of the compositions I've owned by Schoenberg (10 over about 5 or so LPs) but all the other atonal composers as well. All told it worked out about 50 LPs, since I had to buy Classical music blind back in the day, until I learned the relationship between ugly album covers and ugly music. After that I avoided ugly album covers.
And after listening 30 or 40 times to each work I've come to agree completely with the anti-Schoenberg crowd that this it was all a scam, and I was one of the ones who was scammed by their non-music. So yes I am kinda of pissed at the thousands of wasted hours and hundreds of wasted dollars! >:(
I traded in all those LPs for good ones, and vowed I would help prevent this from happening to innocent music lovers in the future. :)
I highly doubt that Teresa has actually listened to any Berg, Schoenberg, or Webern for any extended length or better yet with an open-mind. She called Schoenberg's "Verklarte Nacht" boring, which to me is one of the most moronic statements I've ever read. This work is anything but boring. The story behind the work is quite interesting: a man and woman walk through the woods at night and the woman has a dark secret to share with the man. Schoenberg's Chamber Symphonies Nos. 1 & 2 are also a great places to start exploring Schoenberg. I doubt Teresa has given these works a thorough listen.
There is one fact that remains: the Second Viennese School were all brilliant composers whether you want to acknowledge this or not. They have influenced so many composers and even ones that didn't create atonal music. To simply deny this influence as Teresa has done is not only uneducated, but downright (to use Some Guy's word) absurd.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 07, 2010, 06:40:51 PM
Then you see precisely what I was aiming at when I was writing my last message. To use a soup or stew metaphor is to keep the comparison neutral. To use a comparison between gourmet food and potato chips is to make the comparison immediately judgmental.
Attribute it to the mentally restorative effects of a quick trip to the bathroom. Such a great place to think, that is. :)
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 07:07:41 PM
I absolutely hated not only all of the compositions I've owned by Schoenberg (10 over about 5 or so LPs) but all the other atonal composers as well. All told it worked out about 50 LPs, since I had to buy Classical music blind back in the day, until I learned the relationship between ugly album covers and ugly music. After that I avoided ugly album covers.
And after listening 30 or 40 times to each work I've come to agree completely with the anti-Schoenberg crowd that this it was all a scam, and I was one of the ones who was scammed by their non-music. So yes I am kinda of pissed at the thousands of wasted hours and hundreds of wasted dollars! >:(
I traded in all those LPs for good ones, and vowed I would help prevent this from happening to innocent music lovers in the future. :)
Your argument is just so juvenile and I love the way you keep going back to the argument of
"This music is ugly" or it's all a "scam.............."We get it: you don't like any atonal composers. Everybody I think understands this better than you do. I think it's time to move on and quit making a fool of yourself don't you? Nobody is buying your "opinion."
[/Content basically goes too far and has been removed Knight
color]
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 07, 2010, 07:13:42 PM
I highly doubt that Teresa has actually listened to any Berg, Schoenberg, or Webern for any extended length or better yet with an open-mind.
Yes I have, I tried
very, very hard to like that crap. It did not work as it is not real music, it is a rip-off pure and simple.
QuoteShe called Schoenberg's "Verklarte Nacht" boring, which to me is one of the most moronic statements I've ever read.
100% true perhaps the most boring tonal work I have ever heard and I have heard thousands of classical compositions over the last 40 years! I find it insulting that you are calling someone a moron for telling the truth about such an unworthy composition.
QuoteTo simply deny this influence as Teresa has done is not only uneducated, but downright (to use Some Guy's word) absurd.
To deny atonal anti-music that almost destroyed classical music is NOT absurd but the most logical thing to do IMHO.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 07:22:31 PM
Yes I have, I tried very, very hard to like that crap. It did not work as it is not real music, it is a rip-off pure and simple.
100% true perhaps the most boring tonal work I have ever heard and I have heard thousands of classical compositions over the last 40 years! I find it insulting that you are calling someone a moron for telling the truth about such an unworthy composition.
To deny atonal anti-music that almost destroyed classical music is NOT absurd but the most logical thing to do IMHO.
All your own opinion and doesn't represent the larger classical community, which find your rhetoric disgusting.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 07:07:41 PM
And after listening 30 or 40 times to each work I've come to agree completely with the anti-Schoenberg crowd that this it was all a scam, and I was one of the ones who was scammed by their non-music. So yes I am kinda of pissed at the thousands of wasted hours and hundreds of wasted dollars! >:(
In other words, it's a scam because you don't like it.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 07:07:41 PM
I traded in all those LPs for good ones, and vowed I would help prevent this from happening to innocent music lovers in the future. :)
But what if they end up liking Schoenberg?
(oh, that's right... no one actually enjoys his music. They just wanna be intellectual or something).
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 07:22:31 PM
100% true perhaps the most boring tonal work I have ever heard and I have heard thousands of classical compositions over the last 40 years! I find it insulting that you are calling someone a moron for telling the truth about such an unworthy composition.
And this is where you just say, "I find it painfully boring," or maybe, "So boring that I felt like smashing my head against the wall."
You don't say a work like that is "unworthy" and that that's the "truth." That's just your opinion.
My opinion is: It's AWESOME!!! 8)
Quote from: Greg on July 07, 2010, 07:26:00 PMIn other words, it's a scam because you don't like it.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head, Greg. When Teresa doesn't like something, she declares that the composer is inferior because she
didn't understand them. She's such an ignorant person. Not because she voiced her opinion, but because she continues to deny composers that have had such a tremendous influence on music (i. e. Mozart, Second Viennese School). This kind of stupidity isn't even worth arguing with any further.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 07:22:31 PM
100% true perhaps the most boring tonal work I have ever heard and I have heard thousands of classical compositions over the last 40 years! I find it insulting that you are calling someone a moron for telling the truth about such an unworthy composition.
Then you should listen to Max Bruch's Symphony No 2. God is that boring.
Quote from: Sid on July 07, 2010, 06:49:10 PM
Well, Teresa, you say you only dislike one of the LP's, what about the others?
No I said "
Vienna (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern)" was the ONLY Mercury Living Presence recording I do not like" Mercury Living Presence is one of my favorite record labels. I
hated all 50 atonal LPs I had purchased.
Quote& do you expect art to only be about the nice things in life? But look at Puccini's operas - they have just as much sordid things going on as say Berg's (& Puccini likes to beef things up, eg. he made the servant girl kill herself in Turandot, when it was not in the original story). What do you say to that?
Disgusting! I never liked Opera but for a different reason, the high sopranos sound like they are being tortured. Now I have another reason to hate Opera, the content. :)
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 07, 2010, 07:25:51 PM
All your own opinion and doesn't represent the larger classical community, which find your rhetoric disgusting.
You are the one disgusting, insulting classical music by calling atonal non-music classical, you should be ashamed of yourself!
I have no rhetoric as HISTORY HAS PROVEN THE ANTI-SCHOENBERG movement is correct as classical composers are back on the right (tonal) track. If you cannot hear that with your very own ears I feel very, very sorry for you!
Thanks to heros like Howard Hanson and his Neo-Romantic movement you cannot get away with pushing you atonal crap any more, we are wise to you!
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 07:52:55 PM
You are the one disgusting, insulting classical music by calling atonal non-music classical, you should be ashamed of yourself!
I have no rhetoric as HISTORY HAS PROVEN THE ANTI-SCHOENBERG movement is correct as classical composers are back on the right (tonal) track. If you cannot hear that with your very own ears I feel very, very sorry for you!
Thanks to heros like Howard Hanson and his Neo-Romantic movement you cannot get away with pushing you atonal crap any more, we are wise to you!
At long last, can we agree that there is nothing to be gained by feeding this troll? Is there any evidence that she ever responded to any argument, except by spouting the same gibberish all over again?
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 07:52:55 PM
Thanks to heros like Howard Hanson and his Neo-Romantic movement you cannot get away with pushing you atonal crap any more, we are wise to you!
You do realize that
Verklaerte Nacht alone gets more concert performances in major venues than the entire output of Hanson, right?
Quote from: Greg on July 07, 2010, 07:26:00 PM
In other words, it's a scam because you don't like it.
No because it was so poor with no redeeming musical value, I decided to find out WHY. And began reading about the scam and all the anti-Schoenberg backlash.
QuoteBut what if they end up liking Schoenberg?
Won't happen in a million years, it is impossible.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 07, 2010, 07:34:22 PM
When Teresa doesn't like something, she declares that the composer is inferior because she didn't understand them.
Incorrect I have clearly stated I do not like Schubert or Schumann but I consider them excellent composers. There is a difference between liking something and recognizing talent. :) On the other hand I have also said there are a few composers I like who I do not think are good composers but I like them anyway. So it works both ways.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 07:58:34 PM
At long last, can we agree that there is nothing to be gained by feeding this troll? Is there any evidence that she ever responded to any argument, except by spouting the same gibberish all over again?
I don't know... can't stop... her stupid is overwhelming...
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 07:59:37 PM
No because it was so poor with no redeeming musical value, I decided to find out WHY. And began reading about the scam and all the anti-Schoenberg backlash.
"Redeeming musical value." I like it, and so do many others. That's redeeming.
Wrong. Try again.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 07:59:37 PM
Won't happen in a million years, it is impossible.
No one will ever enjoy Schoenberg (even though they already do), because you said so.
Wrong. Try again.
The way we're going here, I wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets locked down (?).
Anyway, I'm the opposite of Teresa, I don't have much interest in Howard Hanson et al., just regurgitating old cliches ad nauseum. Walton, Barber, Hovhaness were ok, they experimented quite a bit, and even had works that were heavily bordering on the atonal/pantonal, so they didn't have such a limited range. But I don't only listen to "experimental" music, I take in the whole spectrum from medieval to today. I do sometimes prefer the post WW2 stuff, but not to the exclusion of the rest. I've recently discovered guys like Gesualdo, Monteverdi, Couperin, D. Scarlatti & am interested in getting into many genres that I had kind of dismissed in the past, like organ music.
Yeah, this thread is getting locked for sure. :D
Quote from: Greg on July 07, 2010, 08:15:06 PM
Yeah, this thread is getting locked for sure. :D
One can only hope.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 07:58:34 PM
Is there any evidence that she ever responded to any argument, except by spouting the same gibberish all over again?
Not only have I responded to every single argument. I also have written an article on my blog The near destruction of Classical Music by the Second Viennese School (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/2010/07/near-destruction-of-classical-music-by.html)
In addition to Delightful Classical compositions I have discovered (http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/2010/07/delightful-classical-compositions-i.html) all tonal and nearly half modern 20th and 21st century compositions.
And if you will look at Reply #12 on Page One I gave five YouTubes of modern tonal classical works.
Quote from: Sid on July 07, 2010, 08:10:17 PMAnyway, I'm the opposite of Teresa, I don't have much interest in Howard Hanson et al., just regurgitating old cliches ad nauseum.
Speaking as a fan of the old cliches, Hanson bores me stiff. My folks and I were listening to the radio once, Hanson came on, and I said (to my very reactionary parents), "You guys should like this, Hanson is supposed to be a romantic." But they got so bored (it was the Romantic Symphony) that we turned it off after about ten minutes.
Since it is impossible for the atonal crowd to defend their non-music they now attack those who reject the atonal and embrace the tonal. :)
Sorry guys I will not crawl into your name calling slime-pit. :)
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2010, 08:30:39 PM
Speaking as a fan of the old cliches, Hanson bores me stiff. My folks and I were listening to the radio once, Hanson came on, and I said (to my very reactionary parents), "You guys should like this, Hanson is supposed to be a romantic." But they got so bored (it was the Romantic Symphony) that we turned it off after about ten minutes.
Yes, Hanson is far from one of my favorite composers. His music is nothing in the world but a throwback to an older Romantic style. There is no experimentation whatsoever in his music. Like was mentioned already even other American composers like Barber, Piston, Ives, Copland, Diamond, Creston, Schuman, Thomson, etc. wrote music that used Schoenbergian dissonances. These composers were interesting to me because they knew how to build tension in their music and understood the importance of music's inner dynamics. Hanson is just too sweet, I prefer music that has more flavor ---- a musical sweet and sour if you will.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 03:32:12 PM
How you read the "sick" lyrics of vocal pieces and operas of Schoenberg and his followers? Have you looked at the depraved photos on their album covers? Have you heard violent descriptions of murder, torture, rape and other anti-social crimes in the music of not only the avant-garde but also Rap?
Yes some music is so depraved it should not exist in a civilized society.
You're doing a HUGE disservice to the Second Viennese school by playing up the "depravities" of the texts they used while COMPLETELY IGNORING the "depraved" texts of earlier generations. As if the Second Viennese school invented controversial texts!! :o
Lust, sexual immorality, violence, murder, war, greed, etc etc...are common themes in fiction writing from the absolute beginning of time.
So in essence all you're saying with this bile of yours is we should ban/burn the likes of Macbeth! ???
You can't have it both ways, Teresa. If you ban/burn everything from the atonalists that you find offensive then you MUST ban/burn everything offensive from the moment musicians started using texts in their music. And make no mistake: this includes the texts of the ROMANTIC composers as well!!!!!!!!!! No fair excluding them just because you like them.
Now get to burning...
awww don't hate on Hanson. I actually really like the Romantic Symphony. It all comes down to "different stokes for different folks". The 12 tone system was a radical departure (i stress radical) from conventional stylings so it will take longer for people to catch on. I still don't enjoy it that much, though i can find it interesting.
The only aspect of Teresa's comments that has bothered me is her view that certain types of music should be banned. This view is also rather odd in light of the many times she has argued for "individual freedom".
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 07, 2010, 08:39:39 PMLike was mentioned already even other American composers like Barber, Piston, Ives, Copland, Diamond, Creston, Schuman, Thomson, etc. wrote music that used Schoenbergian dissonances.
I've heard a bit of Creston that I liked, and love Copland. Curious if you have any thoughts on Randall Thompson, whose Second Symphony I've heard courtesy Lenny B. and which to me is a very compelling bit of work.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 07, 2010, 05:12:02 PM
I see. But while Saul is naturally all too happy to take a bow, I cannot praise this post quite as highly. Saul's main point is to tell Teresa not to bother trying to change people's minds. However, if you look at the metaphor he chooses, it's obvious he considers Schoenberg and Co. the musical equivalent of junk food. And that judgmental attitude is what some of you are standing up and applauding.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 07, 2010, 06:38:48 PM
His target audience, Brian, is not only Teresa but the entire readership of this forum. Or said otherwise, it is not unusual in rhetoric to directly address one individual while indirectly speaking to any number of others who are also listening in. And having made that choice of words (where he could have created a metaphor that was less pejorative), he bears responsibility for them.
And though I grant that at times Saul sounds conciliatory --
- there is still no question that he considers this music, which many here respond to with great enthusiasm, to be inferior stuff:
Junk food, that is.
Absolutely
QFT.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 07, 2010, 08:45:04 PM
The only aspect of Teresa's comments that has bothered me is her view that certain types of music should be banned. This view is also rather odd in light of the many times she has argued for "individual freedom".
You must've missed the last page of the "Schoenberg vs. Mendy" thread. It's a frightful sight.
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2010, 08:46:20 PM
I've heard a bit of Creston that I liked, and love Copland. Curious if you have any thoughts on Randall Thompson, whose Second Symphony I've heard courtesy Lenny B. and which to me is a very compelling bit of work.
Yes, Randall Thompson's
Symphony No. 2 is a great work! I only own one performance and it's the Lenny performance. That recording is actually all around excellent having Schuman and Diamond on it as well. There was a set on Koch with James Sedares of Thompson's symphonies that is now out-of-print that I would have liked to own.
I have only heard one work by Thompson so I can't comment other than to say it was very enjoyable. I would like to hear more of his music.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 07, 2010, 08:52:34 PM
Yes, Randall Thompson's Symphony No. 2 is a great work! I only own one performance and it's the Lenny performance. That recording is actually all around excellent having Schuman and Diamond on it as well. There was a set on Koch with James Sedares of Thompson's symphonies that is now out-of-print that I would have liked to own.
I have only heard one work by Thompson so I can't comment other than to say it was very enjoyable. I would like to hear more of his music.
Seems like we're in exactly the same place then. That's the only work/recording of him I've heard and it's terrific. Naxos have licensed quite a few old Koch recordings, let's hope they get around to those...
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 07, 2010, 08:39:39 PM
Like was mentioned already even other American composers like Barber, Piston, Ives, Copland, Diamond, Creston, Schuman, Thomson, etc. wrote music that used Schoenbergian dissonances.
I can hear it in Ives, Creston and Schuman, I don't like those.
I am not totally against dissonances, I am against ugly atonal music. Dissonances when used properly can create excitement. Good example is in the very melodic and tuneful works of Barber.
I have only one work by Walter Piston
The Incredible Flutist and it most definitely is not atonal.
I own 14 compositions by Aaron Copland and the only atonal work I have ever heard by him is
Statements for Orchestra and I don't like that one and it was purged from my collection. Likewise I have three works by Virgil Thomson and even though there is some dissonance they are very tonal, and very folksy with banjo included in the orchestra. I love banjo in classical music but it is so rare. :)
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2010, 08:55:49 PM
Seems like we're in exactly the same place then. That's the only work/recording of him I've heard and it's terrific. Naxos have licensed quite a few old Koch recordings, let's hope they get around to those...
I've recently been looking for rare out-of-print Koch recordings specifically with James Sedares and the New Zealand Symphony and have found a good many used in like-new condition on Amazon. As a collector, I always try and to buying the originals before I make a purchase of a reissue.
I do wish Gerard Schwarz finished his cycle of Diamond symphonies. I love Diamond's music. Besides the Lenny performance, have you heard any of Schwarz's Diamond recordings?
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 08:59:04 PM
I can hear it in Ives, Creston and Schuman, I don't like those.
I am not totally against dissonances, I am against ugly atonal music. Dissonances when used properly can create excitement. Good example is in the very melodic and tuneful works of Barber.
I have only one work by Walter Piston The Incredible Flutist and it most definitely is not atonal.
I own 14 compositions by Aaron Copland and the only atonal work I have ever heard by him is Statements for Orchestra and I don't like that one and it was purged from my collection. Likewise I have three works by Virgil Thomson and even though there is some dissonance they are very tonal, and very folksy with banjo included in the orchestra. I love banjo in classical music but it is so rare. :)
There is good atonal music and there is bad. Have you heard Alwyn's
Symphony No. 3? You would never know this is a 12-tone work because he used the technique melodically. Dallapiccola is another composer who wrote lyrical serial works. Have you heard any of these composer's music?
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 08:28:47 PM
Not only have I responded to every single argument...
Um, no, you haven't; you haven't responded to any of my challenges...
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 08:59:04 PM
...I don't like that one and it was purged from my collection...
Dontcha just love that word 'purged'? Such quaintly Stalinist/Maoist overtones. A word round which all freedom-lovers like Teresa can unite.
Honestly, you go to sleep for 4 measly hours and the place explodes....! (I slept with the complete works of Webern on loop in the background, don't ask me why, but I feel very refreshed this morning!)
Teresa's posts on this thread are the nuttiest, scariest, most historically/musically unaware, angriest, ugliest, most repellent thing I've ever read here, and if you think about it, that really takes a hell of a lot of doing. That's all I'm going to say. Do continue. I'm going to listen to the Webern Symphony to calm my nerves and remind me what lucidity and balance is all about.
Quote from: Luke on July 07, 2010, 09:11:38 PMI'm going to listen to the Webern Symphony to calm my nerves and remind me what lucidity and balance is all about.
Webern? Everything that gentleman wrote tends to put me to sleep. :(
Ha! Even op 6? That was what woke me up bright and early!
Quote from: jochanaan on July 07, 2010, 09:10:07 PM
Um, no, you haven't; you haven't responded to any of my challenges...
Please restate and I will find my response for you or offer a new one. :)
Quote from: jochanaan on July 07, 2010, 09:10:07 PM
Um, no, you haven't; you haven't responded to any of my challenges...
It's a habit of hers, unfortunately. I'm still waiting for a reply to my post #197.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2010, 09:16:42 PM
Webern? Everything that gentleman wrote tends to put me to sleep. :(
Ok, THAT'S spam if I ever read it! ;D ;D
Frightening thought that, in a world run by Teresa. listening to this music as I am would be a subversive, illegal activity. I'd have to 'purge' my CD collection of much of the music I love or else....what, precisely?
I guess I'd have to rehang my pictures too. Too much ugly modern stuff. Repellent, degenerate things like
(http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/7/798/28KI000Z/paul-klee-versunkene-landschaft-1918.jpg)
onto the fire with it!!
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on July 07, 2010, 09:28:24 PM
It's a habit of hers, unfortunately. I'm still waiting for a reply to my post #197.
I just reread post 197 and there is nothing to respond to as nothing in the Romantic era I have heard compares to the depravity of the vocal works of the avant-garde crowd.
Check out Schoenberg's
Pierrot-Lunaire:
16. Atrocity Through the bald pate of Cassander
As he rends the air with screeches
Bores Pierrot in feigning tender
Fashion with a cranium driller.
He then presses with his finger
Rare tobacco grown in Turkey
In the bald pate of Cassander,
As he rends the air with screeches.
Then screwing a cherry pipe stem
Right in through the polished surface,
Sits at ease and smokes and puffs the
Rare tobacco grown in Turkey
From the bald pate of Cassander.Nothing from the Romantic Era is so perverted, also deaths etc. in traditional Classical works, teach a morality lesson. That is why I did not respond to your post.
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 09:40:52 PM
I just reread post 197 and there is nothing to respond to as nothing in the Romantic era I have heard compares to the depravity of the vocal works of the avant-garde crowd.
Check out Schoenberg's Pierrot-Lunaire:
16. Atrocity Through the bald pate of Cassander
As he rends the air with screeches
Bores Pierrot in feigning tender
Fashion with a cranium driller.
He then presses with his finger
Rare tobacco grown in Turkey
In the bald pate of Cassander,
As he rends the air with screeches.
Then screwing a cherry pipe stem
Right in through the polished surface,
Sits at ease and smokes and puffs the
Rare tobacco grown in Turkey
From the bald pate of Cassander.
Nothing from the Romantic Era is so perverted, also deaths etc. in traditional Classical works, teach a morality lesson. That is why I did not respond to your post.
Nothing from the romantic period is so perverted??!!??
You don't call the bartering of humans for goods perverted?? You don't call incest perverted?? You don't call adultery perverted?? You don't call suicide perverted?? You don't call the innumerable murders prevalent in ANY NUMBER of operas - no matter what the period - perverted??
With your every word you prove you know nothing about what you preach. The sad fact is that you, yourself, are perverted. Case closed.
But anyway, the point of my post was to point out to you that the ATONALISTS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INVENTING CONTROVERSIAL TEXTS!!!!!! To even think of laying something like that at the feet of the Second Viennese school is utterly absurd!!! Not to mention a complete and total double-standard!
Understand this: not everything from your cozy classical and romantic periods is a morality play!! PU-LEASE don't be so blind!!
Quote from: Teresa on July 07, 2010, 09:40:52 PM
I just reread post 197 and there is nothing to respond to as nothing in the Romantic era I have heard compares to the depravity of the vocal works of the avant-garde crowd.
Check out Schoenberg's Pierrot-Lunaire:
16. Atrocity Through the bald pate of Cassander
As he rends the air with screeches
Bores Pierrot in feigning tender
Fashion with a cranium driller.
He then presses with his finger
Rare tobacco grown in Turkey
In the bald pate of Cassander,
As he rends the air with screeches.
Then screwing a cherry pipe stem
Right in through the polished surface,
Sits at ease and smokes and puffs the
Rare tobacco grown in Turkey
From the bald pate of Cassander.
Nothing from the Romantic Era is so perverted, also deaths etc. in traditional Classical works, teach a morality lesson.
Since there is perversion in many or even all humans, it naturally follows that there would be perversion in art. Wouldn't it be best for you to just keep your distance from art works you find offensive instead of targeting them with a laser beam focus? It's all part of a healthy life-style. :)
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on July 07, 2010, 09:57:32 PM
Nothing from the romantic period is so perverted??!!??
You don't call the bartering of humans for goods perverted?? You don't call incest perverted?? You don't call adultery perverted?? You don't call suicide perverted?? You don't call the innumerable murders prevalent in ANY NUMBER of operas - no matter what the period - perverted??
With your every word you prove you know nothing about what you preach. The sad fact is that you, yourself, are perverted. Case closed.
But anyway, the point of my post was to point out to you that the ATONALISTS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INVENTING CONTROVERSIAL TEXTS!!!!!! To even think of laying something like that at the feet of the Second Viennese school is utterly absurd!!! Not to mention a complete and total double-standard!
Understand this: not everything from your cozy classical and romantic periods is a morality play!! PU-LEASE don't be so blind!!
Ah, but you see Teresa has just decided that opera is A Bad Thing too (a page or two ago) so that won't convince her. I doubt all the depravity, cannibalism, eye gouging and so on in Shakespeare will shift her either. Don't let the facts get in the way, after all...
On one thread entitled 'Short Masterpieces' Teresa listed Janacek's Taras Bulba (until M pointed out to her that it has three movements, not the one she said, causing her to delete it from her list (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,8224.msg201701.html#msg201701)). Now there's a work filled with death and torture and execution and infanticide... should we purge it too, Teresa?
EDIT - ....I see she also lists that opera extract The Dance of the Seven Veils, from Salome. Hmmm. I really do sense consistency issues...
Quote from: Luke on July 07, 2010, 09:34:47 PM
(http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/7/798/28KI000Z/paul-klee-versunkene-landschaft-1918.jpg)
That's a very beautiful painting. Something about it sort of warms the soul. Thanks for sharing.
Like Luke, I went to sleep, then a few hours later, what I see is a car crash of a thread. Clearly we need another Mod to police the 1am to 6am UK time.
1) If anyone is receiving obscene or unacceptably unpleasant PMs from anyone else, let the Mods know. Although this is essentially a private form of communication, in the past we have taken action against what is basically cyber-bullying. The owner, Rob, takes a very dim view of anyone who sends clearly offensive PMs.
2) Although only one poster has actually been reported, several have gone too far here. Some of you should take some time for self reflection. I have amended one post of Mirror Image and deleted a couple plus some from other people. Posting photos of monkeys to show contempt of members here is just not acceptable. Remember the rules folks.
3) Teresa commented that she would not descend to personal abuse. I see the denigration of the opinions of others, as against disagreement of them, as being just the same as personal abuse. If you can't grasp that telling people they are dishonest, as they can't possibly enjoy music they say they do is personal abuse, then best to silence yourself as you will continue to pull anger onto yourself.
If that is actually your aim, then grasp NOW that we are not catering to the maschosist market here. Assume that the personal freedom you so value for yourself will be curtailed in an experiment to see how you enjoy being restricted in the way you clearly would like to restrict others.
I really do wonder what someone with such vociferous views on banning music is doing on a serious music discussion site.
Roadway now cleared of debris and thread locked.
Knight